Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog » Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis: ‘The fate of journalism is not in the hands of institutions’

Judith Townend — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:58:34 +0000

Remember how, in true ‘beta-journalism’ spirit, Jeff Jarvis tested the idea for his forthcoming Guardian column at last week’s ‘Crisis’ conference in Coventry?

Well, here’s the final result, in today’s MediaGuardian, at this link. An extract:

“I am less protective of legacy news organisations because they have had a chance to remake themselves as smaller, nimbler, collaborative enterprises for the internet and have largely failed. The future of news – and there is a future – is being built by entrepreneurs who in change see opportunity, not crisis.

“In short: I say the fate of journalism is not in the hands of institutions. The fate of journalism is in the hands of entrepreneurs.”

More coverage from Journalism.co.uk at the Coventry conference at this link

Similar Posts:

New FTC rules: US bloggers must disclose payments for reviews

Judith Townend — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:19:04 +0000

As reported by the Associated Press, the Federal Trade Commission in the US will try to regulate blogging for the first time, ‘requiring writers on the web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products’.

“Violating the rules, which take effect December 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.”

Full story at this link…

Also see Jeff Jarvis’ post for a comment round-up, and his take on the changes.

Jarvis writes:

“The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently – less stringently – than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t.”

Similar Posts:

Sidewiki: some journalistic questions for Google

Judith Townend — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:04 +0000

Sidewiki (noun): a browser sidebar that enables you to contribute and read helpful information alongside any web page (source: Google.com)

or…

Sidewiki (noun): an attempt by our online colonial masters to own all of the comments on our websites (source: Andrew Keen)

On this occasion Jeff Jarvis would not do what Google is doing: the CUNY journalism professor and WWGD? author is worried. He can see some potential dangers for the development of Sidewiki, launched by Google yesterday. His commenters share their thoughts too, in a split conversation between the BuzzMachine comments thread and the Sidewiki (you’ll have to take the plunge and install it if you want to see how that looks). Jarvis says:

“This goes contrary to Google’s other services – search, advertising, embeddable content and functionality – that help advantage the edge. This is Google trying to be the centre. Quite ungoogley, I’d say.”

Sidewiki has the potential to be great for freedom of speech but what about the nastier side? Publishers no longer have control of the look of part of their site. Google has tested the application at news organisations it says – testimonials here – but it’s still developing its technology, and asking for feedback.

Some initial thoughts, then. The main concerns for journalists and news organisations might include:

1) Will it lose money for news sites?

Andrew Keen, writing for the Telegraph, comments:

“Sidewiki is a brazen attempt to own the Internet. What Sidewiki would do is replace/supplement the Telegraph comments section on this page with a Google comments page. So all comments on the internet would, in theory, be owned by Google (which, presumably, they could sell advertisements around – thereby eating into my salary).”

2) What happens about libel?

Google publishes its programme policy here, at this link.

‘Keep it legal,’ it says (and it will report us to the ‘appropriate authorities’ if we don’t).

“If you believe that someone is violating these policies, use the ‘Report Abuse’ button within Sidewiki. We’ll review your report and take action if appropriate. Just because you disagree with certain material or find it to be inappropriate doesn’t mean we’ll remove it. We understand that our users have many different points of view, and we take this into consideration when reviewing reports of abuse. Although not all reports will result in removal, we do rely on our users to tell us about materials that may be violating our policies.”

Have fun with that Google!

Here are a few questions about the legal aspect from Jo Wadsworth, online editor at the Brighton Argus, for whom comment moderation is part of her job:

“How long does it takes to get abusive comments removed? Where’s moderation criteria? Can site switch it off? Can trolls be banned?”

Meanwhile, SEO consultant and blogger Malcolm Coles is having a play… This morning, he says, he was finding it hard to resist the temptation to be the first to sidewiki the home page of UK newspapers. But someone else got there first.

Please add your own thoughts and questions. In the Google Sidewiki – to your left, via Twitter (@journalismnews) or in the comments…

Similar Posts:

Is World Journalism in Crisis? Speaker update: Nick Davies confirmed

Judith Townend — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:41:40 +0000

As previously reported on Journalism.co.uk, we are supporting an event at Coventry University on October 28 that will ask ‘Is World Journalism in Crisis?’ with participants contributing via video-link from around the globe.

It already had an exciting line-up: chaired by the BBC College of Journalism’s Kevin Marsh, speakers include Fackson Banda, SAB-UNESCO Chair of Media & Democracy at Rhodes University, South Africa; Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine blogger and journalism professor at City University New York (CUNY), and Professor Adrian Monck, World Economic Forum, former head of journalism at City University, London.

Now Nick Davies, author of Flat Earth News and special correspondent for the Guardian, is also confirmed – live from Brighton. And, we’re permitted to hint, it looks very likely that the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman will be joining the conversation from London.

‘Is World Journalism in Crisis?’ Wednesday October 28, 2-5 pm. Entry will be free. For further information please contact John Mair at Coventry University, johnmair100 at hotmail.com or Judith Townend: judith at journalism.co.uk.

NB: The event will follow the annual conference of the Institute of Communication Ethics, ‘I’m an ethicist… get me out of here: Communication, celebrity and conscience in a global media age,’ also in Coventry, from 10am to 12:30. For further details contact Katherine Hill: K.Hill [at] leedstrinity.ac.uk.

Similar Posts:

CUNY New Business Models for News, as seen in Aspen

Judith Townend — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:12:37 +0000

Today sees the last day of the Aspen Institute FOCAS (Forum on Communications and Society) event in Colorado. Find the full agenda here.

The City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School of Journalism is one of its key collaborators and the New Business Models for News project presentation can be found here at this link.

Jeff Jarvis, associate professor of journalism at CUNY and director of the Interactive Program, shares his thoughts from Aspen on his blog.

Similar Posts:

Joey Baker: ‘Mr Keller, I’m calling you to account’

Judith Townend — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:28:31 +0000

‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’ is how Joey Baker, business director for college newsroom organisation CoPress, and an intern at NewsTrust, opens an open letter to the NY Times executive editor.

“Bill Keller, (…) gave an interview to TIME magazine that showed a total lack of transparency, a fear that journalism itself was under attack, and a disturbing amount of the ‘old media’ mindset. This is a look at what he got wrong, how to fix it.”

Full letter at this link…

Baker reckons he’s killed his chances of ever getting a job at the Times. Jeff Jarvis thinks they should consider hiring him. We don’t know if it’s caught @nytkeller’s attention yet.

Similar Posts:

Charles Arthur: There’s room for both the Davids and the Goliaths

Judith Townend — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:14:59 +0000

The Guardian’s technology editor shares his thoughts on the current process vs product; blogger vs MSM discussions, sparked by a critical NYTimes’ piece about technology blogs.

Charles Arthur describes his own epiphany, made when he stepped back to ask himself why he disagreed with Jeff Jarvis’ view. While it offends him ‘in some visceral fashion to think of publishing stuff that I really believe isn’t correct,’ there’s room for different players to make different rules for themselves and live alongside each other, he says.

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:

Fallout from Jarvis’ ‘perfection vs beta culture’ post

Judith Townend — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:09:05 +0000

Jay Rosen, said that yesterday’s New York Times’ piece on the ‘truth-be-damned approach’ of Tech blogging ‘did not bother’ him.

Not so for fellow NY journalism professor, Jeff Jarvis. His Buzzmachine post on ‘Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture’ is currently doing the link rounds and has sparked a number of debates. For example:

A Twitter row between Jarvis and the editor of the Sunday Business section of New York Times, Tim O’Brien: Blogger here; MSM here.

A response from the Guardian’s Tech editor Charles Arthur, in regards to a criticism of UK tech reporting. One commenter, Wessell van Rensberg, remarked underneath Jarvis’ post: “I live in the UK and the Guardian’s weekly tech edition is paltry in terms of its tech coverage. Both in terms of scope and quality.”

Arthur responds:

“Flattered, I’m sure. Haven’t noticed your name in the letters pointing out what you think we should be covering; don’t know if you’ve commented on our many blogs (Tech, Games, PDA) that cover tech. We do have lots of insightful commenters (which I think is what you mean instead of ‘commentators’.)

“Hard to know quite what you want. For instance: TCrunch says Apple is going to buy Twitter. As soon as possible I point out, on the Guardian blog, why that’s absolutely not happening. It turns out it isn’t happening. Which is more useful?

“And I’ll also point out that when TCrunch does get it wrong, such as on Last.fm ‘passing data to the RIAA’ – a story denied by all sides, where it would be illegal for Last to pass the data (UK data protection act forbids) – TC deletes comments pointing that out. Do you really trust it?”

Now, might there be room for a response on that point? Come on, TechCrunch fight your corner!

Journalism.co.uk is quite enjoying its ringside view, but – on a side point – is there a neater way of viewing Twitter debates, than the links suggested by Jay Rosen?

Similar Posts:

Nieman Journalism Lab: Matthew Ingram on the WSJ’s social media policy

Judith Townend — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:59:10 +0000

The Wall Street Journal’s rules of conduct were zipping around yesterday, inspiring comments from Jeff Jarvis, and others. Matthew Ingram, over at the Nieman Journalism Lab, agrees with Jarvis that the restrictions are too tight.

“Obviously, a newspaper doesn’t want to give away the store and tell everyone what stories it is working on, or tip its hand in a variety of other ways, and probably doesn’t want to go into detail about how certain stories emerged (especially if it was a fortuitous accident). But Jarvis is right that talking about stories that are under way can also have tremendous benefits,” Ingram writes.

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:

Rusbridger on the future of journalism: “I don’t think we would ever go back to having a little pool of elite commentators”

Judith Townend — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:44:06 +0000

Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger’s (@arusbridger) thoughts shared with the web this week:

Here, in yesterday’s lecture at Queen Mary, University of London, part of the university’s Art Week 2009.

And a video of Alan Rusbridger at the Institut für Medienpolitik in Berlin on April 22, speaking on the future of journalism and explaining how the Guardian opened up its site to a wider pool of contributors. Some extracts:

“I don’t think we would ever go back to having a little pool of elite commentators, who help appeal to themselves.”

“(…)Bad things are going to happen where newspapers are going to die. There are going to be fewer journalists and the really pricey business of quality journalism is going to require subsidy from somewhere. It’s a broken model.”

On Twitter: “You harness this brilliant pool of knowledge out there. It’s a fantastic marketing tool. It’s a fantastic journalistic tool.”

He says reading Clay Shirky, Adrian Monck, Jeff Jarvis and the Niemen Foundation, via Twitter, is like receiving a personalised wire feed on the world’s press each morning – a service you’d have paid a consultant a lot of money for, in the past.

(NB: We’re glad to note that he’s following @journalismnews too…)

Alan Rusbridger on the Future of Journalism from Carta on Vimeo.

Similar Posts: