So this is a pretty interesting concept. When I was in college, all of two years ago, students going on Facebook during class wasn’t exactly a sign they were paying attention. Yet Purdue University is using a new software called Hotseat, according to a Mashable story, where students are encouraged to go on Facebook.
The Hotseat software allows students to use either Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, or SMS to post messages during classes, or they can simply log in to the web site to post to and view the ongoing backchannel. Right now it’s only being pilot tested in two courses, but has already become a fast favorite for both teachers and students. Professor Sugato Chakravarty, whose personal finance course is one of the pilot tests, said, “I’m seeing students interact more with the course and ask relevant questions.”
At the end of the post, Mashable poses the question of if social media has a natural place in the classroom. I think it does, especially as social media is more and more prevalent. Why should classrooms and professors stay in the dark? If a professor says something incorrect, or a student disagrees, a respectful text message or tweet the whole class can see could spur on a meaningful class discussion.
My little brother is obsessed with the Facebook game FarmVille. The general idea is that you farm property with other people. I don’t really get it, but the game has more than 62 million users.
This sounds morbid, but what happens to your farm, or your Facebook account, or your e-mail account when you die? The New York Times has a fascinating story on this topic, although it refers more directly to user agreements companies like MySpace and Facebook have you sign.
Off-line, the post office does not send someone to burn your correspondence after an obituary appears in the paper. The deed and title company does not send a crew to tear down your home. But online, under the agreements that users accept, that can be the default setting.
Seeing as how I’m only in my 20s, it’s never even occurred to me think about what to do with e-mail accounts, etc. when I pass away. And since all of this social networking and internet stuff is relatively new, I bet a lot of other people also haven’t thought about this.
Michael Wesch, who works as a cultural anthropologist at Kansas State University has one really neat theory, according to the article.
In one future he imagined, the dead themselves might become avatars: “Computers may gather all those traces, and my son could get online, and have interactions with a computer-generated entity that would simulate what I would be like,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of court cases in the past about how best to preserve our cultural heritage,” Mr. Wesch said. “The future battles could very well be about this type of information and how it’s handled.”
As our society evolves and gets more involved with screens, the internet and online media, what to do with our accounts will become more and more prevalent.
My managing editor told me about this. On Oct. 16, a post went up on My Bottles Up, a blog chronicling a woman’s life and her young son. The blogger, Nic, saidg her young son was taken from her by the TSA while she was the airport. The TSA then responded in its own blog post.
The story basically ballooned from there. Yet, as my editor pointed out, the local media didn’t cover it. Instead, the conversation only continued in the blog world. Nic continued to discuss the reaction to her post, even taking down her site for a little bit. At last count, the TSA blog had almost 400 comments on this one post.
In the past, this would have been something the local paper/TV station might have covered. Now, social media makes them irrelevant. That’s sad. Where is the need for local papers when local bloggers can cover the same things and get more attention for their posts?
I’ve been thinking a lot about paid content and newspapers. Clearly newspapers have to do something about the internet and people getting stuff for free. But here’s the thing. I wouldn’t pay to get my news online. No one I know would.
What is the point when a blogger, who does subscribe to the site, can simply talk about the information on their blog? Freedom of speech allows this to happen. So one person might pay for the content, but then they share it with even more people, who share it with others, etc.
There isn’t a solution to this, yet. You can’t stop bloggers from talking about a news article they read. And it would be incredibly ironic if the press, which heralds the First Amendment, tried to stifle another group’s free speech rights.
What does it say about the future of newspapers when even the New York Times metro desk has decided to axe its subscriptions to papers?
That’s the word according to this story on The New York Observer Web site. Here’s the memo, according to the Observer.
Folks,
You all know how tight budgets have become. They are getting tighter. Because of that we have decided to cut all subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that come in from the news dealer. If you wish to read any of the tabloids or out of town papers, either purchase your own or share with co-workers who purchase them to read on their way to work.
Please note, too, that any subscriptions you have regularly purchased and expensed may not be reimbursed anymore. Please check with me before you pay for anything. Most periodicals, including the tabloids and other daily newspapers, are available online through Ebsco masterfile which you can get to through the Research Dept’s web page.
Sorry about this but the money we spent on these papers can be put to better use like paying freelancers. As always, thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
So, does this mean even newspapers are giving up on themselves? The NY Times, the beacon of journalism, can now not afford to buy the print products of its competitors. This sends out a mixed message to readers. Why should they be encouraged to buy the print product, or ads, if even the papers stop?
This move isn’t without merit. But it’s an odd cycles. The internet hurts paper sales. So papers’ have smaller budgets and desperately try to encourage readers to buy a print subscription, not cancel it. But then the papers’ don’t have enough dinero to buy the print product themselves.
Who isn’t looking for a job these days? Most people I know, who are at their first “real” job out of school, are itching to grow. Either go to grad school or get the all-important second job.
For media professionals, it seems the job hunt is even harder. Not only does the economic climate hurt, but media companies are already cutting down on their employees.
So Media Bistro, in its We the ‘Bistro blog, has a great post about how to “stay sane in your job hunt.”
1. Apply to any job posting within one day
2. Make sure the job is still open before sending in your resume
3. Don’t obsess over having the perfect resume, cover letter, etc.
4. Use networking only while it’s convenient for you
That’s my rendition of the four points. The thing that this list is missing is that what makes people go crazy is not hearing back or getting that second interview or, last but not least, simply not getting the job.
I guess staying positive helps you stay out of the mental hospital while searching for a job. It’s hard, I know. But I always think of my friend Lauren for inspiration. She works in retail management and needed a new job within a month. She applied to every job she saw that interested her even mildly. When the time came for needing a new job, she had one. She never gave up. She wanted a new job and got it.
Perhaps one of the most helpful things, for me, is to remember tons of other people looking for a job. Not in a they are your competition type way, but in the you are not alone type way. Go to Ed2010, a popular site for potential and current magazine employees, and look at the message boards. You’ll read about people trying everything to get their foot in the door at a magazine. There are tons.
Any tips on how you stay sane while looking for a job?
For months before I bought my Blackberry Curve, I was torn. Do I buy a Blackberry, which has a full Qwerty keyboard and is useful for business-like purposes, or the trendy iPhone? As a journalist, did it matter?
Well, a new article on Poynter says that Blackberry’s are in fact better than iPhones. Not for multimedia/video stuff, but “as an all-day communications tool, the BlackBerry beats the iPhone.” Of course, the story then goes on to say how iPhones are easier to use and might be better in today’s journalism climate where we are expected to blog, write and shoot video from the frontier, not a newsroom.
Unfortunately, the story ends up saying that basically both phones are good, but for different things. I was looking forward to a definitive answer. But I guess there isn’t one.
This seems to be a trend I’ve read about a lot recently. Local sports teams across the country are hiring their own reporters when the local papers cannot do the job due to less staffing, cuts, etc.
The New York Times writes about the Los Angeles Kings hockey team hiring a Los Angeles Daily News reporter to be the team’s new beat reporter. The journalist, Rick Hammond, had already been covering the team. With his new job, he got a pay increase and more job security. Hammond will write about the team for its Web site.
The story briefly touches on if this is ethical or not. If the sports team is paying the writer, what are the odds negative news will get out? Not surprisingly, Hammond doesn’t really answer the question.
But how sure can readers be of tough, impartial coverage when image-conscious businesses are paying for it? Mr. Hammond said it would be no use debating the ethics; teams will do what they must to generate fan interest, and fans can distinguish between reporting and public relations.
“I understand that people are going to have doubts,” he said. “The proof is going to be in the product.”
If you Google “sports teams hiring their own reporters” a ton of hits come up. Forbes did a story on it, saying when it comes to reporters’ objectivity “ Fans can be won over on the idea that reporters working for team-owned sites will be given editorial freedom. And even if they’re not, how many fans will really care?”
Maybe that’s the point. People going to a team’s Web site don’t necessarily care if what they’re reading is objective or not. They are logging onto the team’s site, which is clearly biased from the get-go. But where will this lead? Will companies start hiring business reporters to cover them instead of PR firms? What about politicians?
Finally, the AP Stylebook has an iPhone app. Because this is just what the world has been waiting for. And by world I mean print journalists, since they are the only ones who use the AP Stylebook. Well, other than college students studying journalism.
For those of you not in the know, the AP Stylebook is every print reporters’ Bible, or at least it should be. It tells you the standard way to say numbers, dates, states, titles, etc. It also changes every so often, so it’s good to have an up-to-date one. For example, I need to get the latest copy because I’m wondering if they changed Web site to website yet.
Back to the app. It will cost a whopping $28.99 and, according to Mallary Jean Tenore of Poynter, “is a stylebook on the go, a hybrid of theonline and print versions that some believe will be especially appealing to new users, as well as journalists and others who don’t have an online subscription or who would rather not keep the printed version with them at all times.”
My question is, was this really something anyone was waiting with bated breath for? I think not. It seems more like the AP Stylebook is trying to say, “Hey, we’re still cool! We have an iPhone app!” (They also have a Twitter account.) And is carrying the actual book so hard to do? It’s cheaper than the iPhone app and still just as useful.
Does anyone else out there think this was completely necessary? If you do, let me know. And not to be totally hypocritical, but why isn’t there a Blackberry app?
Yes, I realize it’s been some time since my last blog post. And a lot has happened in the journalism world that I could blog about, but what with summer ending and the fall beginning, I seemed to have put my blog off to the side. I apologize and will be getting back to blogging again.
We all seem to agree that the web is the future of journalism. People just don’t buy print products anymore. So then why, oh why, does the Washington Post pay it’s interns $44K a year and it’s web producers now may get $42K, according to this Media Jobs Daily post.
This says that the print product is more important than the web, which I think is erroneous. Newspaper management was slow to change its thinking. Websites were an afterthought. What was more important was getting the print product out. Hello — no one reads the print product. No one my age, at least. I can’t name one person who subscribes to a paper. It might be a sad statement about my generation, but it’s true. Time we accepted that.
It’s not that I think the actual paper should be given less time and energy, it’s just that the web needs to get as much, if not more. Find the best web producers and keep them. That is a skill. People who can not only write well but know how to use the web should be worth a lot of money nowadays. I think they are, in some circles, but I’m shocked the Washington Post isn’t acting more aggressively here.
