Tag Archives: journalism

My Five Easy Multimedia Tips

29 Jun
I attended the June 13-18 Multimedia Storytelling Workshop at the Knight Digital Media Center at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley. It was a phenomenal experience. I met 19 fabulous journalism professionals and a great group of knowledgeable and skilled trainers; I learned new photo, video, audio, and web skills; I listened to stories of multimedia successes in the newsroom; and I ate one tasty meal after another, gaining three pounds during the workshop.

Oh, and a 10-year-old gymnast accidentally jumped on my head while I was under a trampoline, setting up a video camera. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

Our class of workshop fellows. An amazing group!

Most of the things I learned at the workshop were fairly technical – how to shoot a variety of pictures for an effective slideshow, how to set the white balance on a video camera, how to create a Flash interactive graphic. I loved all these skills and am already working hard to apply them on my own this summer so I can teach them to my colleagues and in my courses this fall.

However, instead of writing about all those things that others have already discussed in great detail elsewhere, I’m going to tell you the five quick, easy things I learned that can be implemented in a mere moment and that are already helping me produce more interesting, better quality photos, audio, and video. These are probably going to be obvious to some people, but they weren’t to me, since my focus has always been writing.

Soaking it all up.

1. Audio: it’s all about the audio. Despite a lifetime of NPR listenership, I truly never realized how critical it is to ensure that your audio is high-quality and aurally intriguing, whether it’s standing alone or part of a video, and how hard it is to make it work. I learned at the workshop to organize the video I edited (see my team’s project; I edited the video about Cairo, the superstar gymnast) around the various topics interviewees discussed and the ambient sounds we’d recorded. I also learned to not just have constant loud noise in the video, but instead to include “breathing room” so the viewer could relax into the setting and have a deeper experience. I know this video, while it still has room for improvement, is far better than anything of its type that I’d created before.

Not so thrilled about being on camera.

2. Being onscreen: limit the gestures. When I teach in a classroom of 120 or more students, I need to be physically expressive. However, one of our sessions at the workshop was about doing standups on camera. I was terrified of this, but apparently did not completely embarrass myself. One reason? With a mental effort, I kept my flappy hands under control. The coach for this session, Marilyn Pittman, instructed us to make a gesture to accentuate each of the main points of the copy we were reading, then release our hands and relax them by our sides until the next gesture. In other words, no constant gesturing, and no frozen hands and arms in front of your torso. After returning from the workshop, while doing a video Skype interview, I applied this strategy by consciously reminding myself to gesture only rarely and then to relax my hands in my lap (I was seated at my desk). Those lecture-hall-sized gestures would have been horribly distracting in a tiny onscreen video.

3. Video: for the love of all things multimedia, use a tripod. USE A TRIPOD. Or something, anything, to stabilize the camera. Richard Koci Hernandez, who lectured on video storytelling at our workshop, strongly emphasized the importance of not letting shaky hands diminish the quality of your video. I’ve broken out my little Gorillapod tripod that had been gathering dust, even though for now I’m only using it with the video setting on my still camera because I don’t have a better option at home. The image quality may not be HD, but because it’s much more stable, the video that results is far more watchable than what I’ve made without a tripod in the past.

The iTalk app. Yes, I have a clip about goats.

4. Tools: my iPhone has its limits, but if I know them, I can still do some cool stuff with it. And this is my lowly 3GS, not the new iPhone 4, which is even cooler [fangirl alert]. I recently attended a fiber festival in Oakland to indulge in my love of all things yarn-related, and decided on the spot to attempt to produce an audio slideshow of my time there. I walked around and interviewed people using the iTalk app on my phone and just the built-in microphone. I figured if the sound didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be too disappointed. The sound quality turned out to be remarkably good, and I hope to finish the slideshow and post it when I get back from traveling next week. I did pretty much put the phone right up in my interviewees’ faces, but they got used to it. Hernandez has a new post on his blog detailing other great ways to use your iPhone for multimedia production.

Contact with my head in 3...2...1...

5. Storytelling: it’s worth getting slightly injured to get an element of the story that grabs the audience and makes them persist through the rest of the story. My teammate Fenella Saunders and I clambered down into a dusty pit under a trampoline at the nonprofit gymnastics school our team profiled for our project. There among the lost socks and spiderwebs, we shot video of our star gymnast bouncing on the trampoline – from below and off to the side. It made for a great shot, but on a whim, I said, “Let’s put it right under her!” I lowered the tripod and camera, then ventured out to the center of the pit – only to have the gymnast bounce right on top of my head a moment later. The minor neck pain I felt for the rest of the day was made completely worthwhile by the awesome video we got. Everyone who’s watched the video has commented on that shot.

What are your quick and easy solutions to make better multimedia? Share your tips here so I can pass them along to my students and colleagues!

Choosing Textbooks for “Mass Communication & Society”

15 Apr

I didn’t manage to blog last week, and this week’s post is going to be a bit different; it’s probably most relevant to my fellow journalism and media educators. I’ve been struggling with the question of which readings to assign for my introductory course called “Mass Communication and Society” (admittedly not the title I’d choose), which is a course enrolling about 100 students per semester and that I’ve taught in various iterations at three institutions for the last six (six! wow – time flies) years.

Here’s our course description at CSU Fresno:

Examines the political, economic, cultural, and behavioral impacts of mass media in national and international contexts. Analyzes the historical factors that have shaped the structures, practices, and products of mass media industries, and assesses contemporary trends in media-society relations. G.E. Breadth D3.

That “G.E.” bit at the end means this is also a general education course that satisfies graduation requirements beyond just those of majors in our department – so the course needs to be of interest, and ideally lasting value, to students who may never take another media or journalism course.

The book selection project.

One of the biggest challenges for me in teaching this course has been choosing readings that are contemporary, interesting, well-written and thoughtful. I have skipped around among textbooks in my six years of playing with this course: from Media/Impact by Shirley Biagi when I taught at a community college, to Media Today by Joseph Turow when the course was required to have a more media economics focus, to The Media of Mass Communication by John Vivian in my first year at Fresno State, and then to Media Literacy by W. James Potter this year.

I’ve just never been satisfied with any of these books, though the Potter textbook has come the closest to fulfilling my hopes. I like its focus on timeless media literacy skills that will be applicable regardless of the evolution of media in the coming years, and I like its rather critical approach to media overall. But its writing style is not especially compelling to students, and it’s a bit heavy on media effects and employs a specialized terminology that I think overwhelms students, especially early on in the semester when that material is covered.

Inspired by this post by Joshua Kim at Inside Higher Ed, I started thinking more about how I could use popular nonfiction to bring both breadth and depth to this course, while also allowing myself a chance to catch up on major nonfiction relevant to my field that I could explore with my students. So then the question became: which books?

Given that incredibly broad course description, it might seem I could choose just about anything. But here’s the list I’ve come up with, and the rough order in which I might use the books this semester:

Look like a lot of books? It’s about 1,800 pages, which averages out to about 60 pages per class session (and only $59 for all used copies). I think it’ll be manageable, and all of these books are written in language that should be accessible to most freshmen and sophomores. I also like that most of these books have gotten enough public attention that I can find ample articles, videos and interviews online to supplement our class discussions.

Have a suggestion of a book I should substitute or subtract? A resource that would complement one of these? I’m looking forward to keeping this class on the cutting edge by exploring these texts next fall.

Social Media Policies and Journalists’ Personal Brands

11 Mar

Photo by Dean Meyers on Flickr.

I recently read Reuters’ new guidelines for their journalists’ use of social media.

Here’s a paragraph that stood out for me:

The advent of social media does not change your relationship with the company that employs you — do not use social media to embarrass or disparage Thomson Reuters. Our company’s brands are important; so, too, is your personal brand. Think carefully about how what you do reflects upon you as a professional and upon us as an employer of professionals.

I find it highly interesting that Reuters acknowledges their journalists’ desire to have a personal brand here. I don’t think I’ve seen an explicit reference to that emerging reality in any other media company’s social media policies/guidelines so far. (Correct me if I’m wrong about that, please.)

I recently wrote in an academic paper about the increasingly real dilemma that both journalists and their employers will face in balancing individual brands with corporate brands, particularly with regard to the use of social media to establish both. I think that as today’s young journalists come into the profession – especially those who graduate from journalism programs where personal branding and entrepreneurship are emphasized – it may be challenging to find a happy medium between using social media for self-promotion and for corporate promotion.

Can corporate policies like this one help journalists strike that balance by reminding everyone of the significance of both brands? Or does having a social media policy restrict individuals’ ability to establish their own personal brands, to the degree that they begin to resent their employers?

Overall, Reuters’ policy emphasizes the individual journalist’s role in using social media responsibly, and doesn’t set out many strict rules, suggesting instead a string of things to “think about” when using social media. It’s good to see their trust in their employees’ critical faculties, rather than some of the more draconian approaches to social media that other media organizations have employed, though Reuters does still warn that “your manager and/or senior editors will retrospectively review your professional output” and that “We reserve the right to change your beat or responsibilities if there are problems in this area. In the case of serious breaches, we may use our established disciplinary procedures.”

This question isn’t really a problem just for journalism, of course; other professions will also face the challenge of managing employees’ commitment to “take care of No. 1″ – their own personal brands – as well as their employers’, especially when long-term stable employment seems more and more a thing of the past.

Though social media policies, other than Reuters’ version, don’t yet seem to address this dilemma in quite these terms, it appears likely that this will be a more relevant issue as our workforce becomes increasingly reliant on short-term, freelance and contract projects. After all, if one’s employer isn’t going to take care of you in the long run, then you might be prepared to do it yourself, no matter what you have to tweet.

Will Young People Pay for News?

20 Jan

My students won’t pay for the New York Times.

When it implements its metered system in 2011, the New York Times is probably going to lose some of its most needed readers – young people who are slowly building an appetite for news.

I hope I’m wrong, and if I am, maybe some of my students or other young people will comment here and set me straight. But I think that today’s youth are so accustomed to free content, news and otherwise, that it will be difficult to change their ways and begin asking them to pay for news.

Photo by Flickr user striatic.

My students are not interested in paying for news, or for the entertainment they value: music or movies or TV shows. They’re used to getting all of these for free, either legally from sites like Hulu or through less ethical channels. I’ve asked them semester after semester about these issues, and they just aren’t willing to pay for any of it. They have always read news for free online, and asking them to pay is going to be a difficult demand.

It seems to me that a good starting point for getting young people to pay for news is to work with formats they have always paid for. For example, my students with iPhones are used to paying for apps. They don’t pay much for them, of course, but they do shell out a few dollars here and there. This is a media format that has always cost them money – not a new imposition of charges that will be seen as exactly that, an imposition and an “unfair” change in news organizations’ policies.

Working on young audiences first through these more familiar paid formats might be one strategy to open their minds to the need to pay for news. For example, The Guardian‘s iPhone app is $3.99, and may at some point involve further subscription fees. The McSweeney’s app is $5.99 and requires later renewals to keep new content coming. And yet the New York Times app is free. This seems like a missed opportunity to begin getting young people to pay for news access.

Photo by Flickr user LoveSystems.

I’m not personally opposed to the NYT‘s metering policy; I read the site extensively every day and will certainly end up paying for their content. I believe that if we want good journalism in the future, we have to put our money where it counts. I don’t think news organizations are obligated to provide their product for free, and I’d rather pay a reasonable amount for news than have it become solely reliant on advertising revenue and thereby even more subject to advertisers’ whims.

However, I’ve been socialized into believing that because I grew up in a family where newspapers showed up on the breakfast table daily, because I was required to engage with news throughout my education, and (especially) because I went on to graduate school in journalism and now teach it. I know that not everyone shares these values.

Therefore, I’d argue that beginning to ask younger generations to pay for online news – or at least the current generation of young people that is going to be most startled by this transition – needs to be accompanied by education about the value of journalism to our society. These young people, I fear, will be doubly skeptical of journalism: first because of the general public doubts about the value of the news media, and second because of what they may perceive as a “demand” for their money in return for online news.

Overcoming these doubts will require a great effort of education and positive public outreach on the part of the news organizations that hope to sell news to all their potential customers, young and old.

Cronkite, I Never Knew Ye, But…

21 Jul

Walter Cronkite

First, let me say that I have found Walter Cronkite’s coverage of significant world events endearing and impressive, as his audience did over the years. I never saw him as a broadcaster and have only known him as a public figure (and fellow Texas Longhorn) due to my rather young age, but I am aware that many people have great affection and regard for him.

Cronkite has a reputation for having been “an objective journalist.” Just two weeks ago during a visit to my family in Texas, Cronkite’s name was mentioned to me during a vigorous discussion as a paragon of how “journalism used to be,” and how it “ought to be” – like Cronkite, you know, back in the day, objective. When anchors could sign off with “That’s the way it is,” and viewers didn’t feel it appropriate to laugh.

I feel that the nostalgia for this particular aspect of Cronkite’s journalistic era demonstrates an unfortunate and damaging misunderstanding of the journalistic enterprise. Cronkite was remembered during this particular discussion as a paragon of objectivity who kept his opinions out of the coverage. However, what this perspective does – and what many discussions of media bias issues do – is to assign the responsibility for objectivity in the production of journalism to the individual journalist. This perspective says that if the news seemed more objective back then, it was because Cronkite alone made it so.

I comment on this not to critique Cronkite’s individual performance as a journalist in any way; as I’ve said, I wasn’t even alive for most of his career. What I am instead concerned about is that we be careful to regard journalism not as the product of a single journalist who makes all the decisions about how news is covered, but as the product of a much more complex system of which the journalist is but one small part. An important part, yes, but only one part.

In today’s journalism – and this is, to a degree, different from Cronkite’s era – other influences are much more definitive factors in which and how topics are covered than a single journalist’s choices ever will be. These include the influences of the professional standards of journalism, of corporate ownership of journalism organizations, of advertisers, and of other interest groups such as corporate public relations.

Journalists do not have completely free rein in determining their stories’ topics or composition, contrary to the implied view of many who argue that whatever form of “bias” they perceive is actually caused by journalists advancing their own personal political agendas. Instead, journalists are taught – beginning, for many, with training in university journalism programs – what the norms of their field are, and how to become and remain employable in the profession. (Disclaimer: yes, as a journalism professor, I teach about these norms, though I do my best to get students to assess them critically.)

Cronkite worked within that same journalistic system, and had similar issues to contend with every day in his work. He might have had a bit more freedom to make decisions about his coverage, because during his career (especially its earlier years), corporations, advertisers and public relations efforts were perhaps not so routinely involved in the news production process. News was regarded as a public service that broadcasters were obligated to provide in exchange for the right to use the public airwaves, and was even required of broadcasters by the FCC to maintain their licenses. But that’s no longer the case. And even during Cronkite’s career, the professional guidelines about how to cover the news that journalists internalize through education and experience did exist, and did shape their decisions. After all, even the decision to cover one story and not another is a decision that affects the nature of the news. That basic decision is unavoidable in the creation of “journalism.”

So though I am sad to see Cronkite leave us, I think that what many people are mourning along with his loss is not so much the disappearance of objective journalism, though that is how it has been labeled in coverage of his passing. “Objective journalism” always has been and will remain a myth. Instead, I think audiences are grieving for something more difficult to name. We look back with nostalgia at a time in which journalism appeared to have meant something, to its corporate producers, to the government, to its audience. Citizens could use journalism actively for democratic purposes if they desired – as compared to today’s too-often vapid and inconsequential coverage that leaves us ill prepared for civic participation, when those participatory opportunities exist.

Maybe what we mourn today is the passing of an era in which news seemed to be worth something more than mere profits to its producers and audience. Journalism was then, though never perfect, at least in a somewhat better position to serve as the democratic foundation of the nation. We have yet to figure out how to get it there again.

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,133 other followers