Howard Owens

Andy Dickinson reflects on my posts about personal journalism and arrives at Persona Journalism.  Worth thinking about.

While at Connections, I spoke with a few people about personal journalism, both where I opened the conversation and with a couple of people who approached me. It seems to be a term and definition of interest.

Here's the opposite of personal journalism: Definitive-voice journalism.

Definitive-voice journalism is the journalism of big media, of packaged-good media. It is the way journalism has been practiced for some time. It is the journalism that the traditionalists defend. It is the journalism that says, "the news is what I say the news is." I'm not predicting the demise of definitive-voice journalism, but personal journalism will become the dominant journalism within a matter of years.

I have't used it, but Pump Audio looks like an interesting source of music for your videos.

Previously: Royalty-free music for your videos

I think Google is pretty smart about web advertising models. I've said before, preroll on video is a bad advertising model.

Interestingly, YouTube was considering pre-roll advertising, and Google said no.

Smart column from Diane Mermigas on the Hollywood Reporter about the challenges facing the newspaper business.  It opens with:

Consensus was voiced last week by leading executives from companies on the media spectrum as far flung as Google and Tribune Co. that the survival of newspapers depends on their ability to reinvent themselves online with new business models, the creation and execution of which continue to be lacking.

Behind last week's heady public remarks about the fate of what is perhaps the media world's most underestimated and challenged platform -- delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as well as the Los Angeles Times newsroom -- is the brutal reality that these traditional companies must undergo the costly process of dismantling and replacing legacy operations and business models with those completely new and untried. They face greater, fatal risks if they do not.

I know a lot of newspaper executives -- I think at least one at every major newspaper company. These are people who by-and-large get it. Smart people who want to do the right things for the right reasons. I think we (as an industry) can figure out the models and get things right, but there are still more people in the industry fighting against change -- there are even people in so-called new media operations fighting to protect old practices and old ways of thinking.  That's the scary part.

OK, so we all know I'm a believer in low-cost, lo-fi video journalism. Sure, spend more if you can, but I see a lot of value in quickie, easy and inexpensive. I like it most for reporters as a supplement to their text reporting, but I also see value in using point-and-shoot for video-specific uses. This philosophy continues to draw fire from critics, but I still believe.

My original inspiration for this approach is Knoxnews.com and Random This. Jack Lail and his crew created P&S journalism.

I consider it both a validation of this approach and well deserved recognition for a pioneering effort that Random This won a Digital Edge award last night.

In other Edgie news. Bakersfield.com did not win in its category, which I found utterly disappointing (Rob Curley's NaplesNews.com won). Steve Yelington, a true pioneer and one of my mentors in a manner of speaking since my earliest days online, won the Innovator of the Year award. I'm very happy for him.

Here's a fun picture from last night -- Me with Steve Dana and John Kunze. Steve was my boss in Ventura. I hired John in Ventura and he eventually replaced me, so you have three generations of VCS new media/digital directors.

UPDATE: Here's a complete list of winners.  Congratulations to all.

Just yesterday, as part of a discussion in the Newspaper Video group, I said boldly that TV stations are in far more trouble than newspapers. The disruptions that have hit them and are still coming their way are more powerful than what newspapers face.

Well, I didn't expect a TV station capitulate as quickly as KFTY in Santa Rosa, which laid off nearly all of its news staff and will now try to get by by on user-generated content.

"We are no longer in a position to access the advertiser base required to maintain two long form newscasts," he (GM John Burgess) said.

Burgess said the changes were pushed by forces that are roiling most of the media industry, primarily the availability of free and alternative sources of news and entertainment on the Internet, as well as innovations that make it simple for people to post their own opinions on the Web in print, audio and video format.

"In my opinion, we're all looking at better ways of truly touching our customers and I think for the television industry, if you're not engaging your viewers and Web site users in two way-interactivity, you're not going to be growing, especially over the next three to 10 years," Burgess said.

So, can a commercial news organization survive on just UGC? I guess we're about to find out, but I'm skeptical. I think the conversation is important, and I think what drives good conversation are paid staff who know what they're doing. I'm not sure KFTY made the right decision here, but it will be an interesting experiment to watch.

(Hit Tip: Cyndy Green)

I left a comment on Angela Grant's post about reporter-shot video, but I think it's important enough that I duplicate the main point here.

Angela, you write, "To shoot a good video, you have to have multiple angles of your subject or action. ..."

And this reveals, I think, a complete missperception on your part of what reporter-shot video is. Most of the time it IS NOT story video. It is one angle, one shot, that gets very little editing.

I think there will be times for the better trained and capable reporters to shoot story video. And I think that can be done credibly with inexpensive equipment.

However, the point of having a light and easy camera for reporters isn't to shoot story video. It is to make sure they always have a camera with them and that they use it often.

It's old news, so maybe you've already read it, but if you haven't, David Leeson's essay on his experience in Iraq as an embedded photojournalists is very good. It's about the importance of the journalistic mission and what he learned along the way.

I am a cynic of war. But cynicism did not prepare me for this war. I was not prepared to actually become fond of soldiers, but I did. More than that, I found myself in admiration of their discipline and their simple understanding of mission. For them, each battle was merely another step closer to home. These were not warriors in the true sense of bloodlust. They were lethal, yes; but killers, no.

Doug Fisher quotes from an essay by Paul Gillen (server down on that link at the time of posting), and there's a part I want to pull out:

The craft of reporting will become faster and more iterative. Rumor, speculation and incomplete information will be published far more readily, on the assumption that errors can be corrected. Stories will, in essence, be built in real time and in full public view. Reporters will file copy directly to the Web, often without a review by an editor. Readers will be a central part of the process, correcting and comment upon articles as they are taking shape. Reporting will become, in effect, a community process.

This new model will be very disruptive and very controversial. The idea that a news organization would publish information it did not know to be true flies in the face of all of our expectations. The concept of actively involving readers - who have no formal relationship with the news organization - in the reporting process will be too much for some editors to accept. There will be hand-wringing over fears of libel suits and other litigation. It is going to be an unholy brawl. (Bold in Doug's quote)

I agree it's going to be an unholy brawl, and I expect that even my saying that I agree with much of Gillian's prediction will bring some howls of derision, even from journalists who run online shops.

The part I disagree with is that we will knowingly publish stuff that is not true. I can't foresee that ever being an acceptable journalistic norm. Because we put stuff online sooner and quicker and possibly with less professional editorial oversight might mean more errors get published, but I doubt even that is true. There is an advantage of online over print on errors, though, and it's important to remember: Online we find out about our errors sooner (from readers), correct them quicker, and they are potentially less permanent. That said, I think there will be both societal pressure and professional pressure to be even more careful about what we publish. When your readers become your editors, and they have blogs, too, the last thing you want to do is destroy your credibility by being consistently wrong. In the future, a writer's byline, i.e. his reputation, is going to be even more important than it is today.

BTW:  I don't like the idea of publishing more rumor and speculation any more than you do, but I do suspect that will happen.  But I also believe there will be more transparency about what a reporter knows and doesn't know, and a honesty about asking for help on confirmation or denial.

On the 3ccd vs. P&S debate, Will Sullivan gets it.

I can appreciate both views, but lean closer to the point and shoot/less expensive camera crowd, mainly because I can relate to having to work with in a budget, especially a tight one. (The point and shoot/less expensive camera, DIY mentality really tickles my punk rock roots). And a lot of photographers turning to video really don’t understand that newspaper budgets are being demolished, it sucks (especially at papers that are doing well, but not well enough for Wall Street) but it has happened. What happened to the old photojournalism quote — “F8 and be there” (For photo newbies–”F8″ refers to a medium aperture setting that will catch detail at most distances and “be there,” meaning… you can’t document news if you aren’t there at the ‘decisive moment’ as Henri Cartier-Bresson often discussed).You adapt and make due with what you can. We don’t all have the privilege of working at the Washington Post or Network TV. The key is that you’re doing something, and the best you can, with what you can.

He also makes a good point about the need to make video production more conversational.

For all of you who are critical of the whole point-and-shoot-for-reporters ethos, Davin McHenry, web editor for The Bakersfield Californian, has issued a challenge.

Using a point-and-shoot camera and free video editing software, I bet my people could produce a video that would get as many views on an online video site like YouTube as something produced with a $1,000 camera and video editing software to match. Assuming the content is the same.

I don't know why he picks the $1,000 price point. I'm not sure price point is relevant. I think it's more about a 3-chip solution against a P&S. I think you could set the price point at $6,000 (including accessories), or even higher if you want to allow for even better audio equipment and pricy tripod.

The matter of subject matter is tricky. It would need to be a subject that both reporting teams would be able to cover locally, but not dependent on the luck of finding a really compelling source or interview subject.

I would suggest that if anybody takes up Davin's channel, somebody set up a YouTube user account of something like "videochallenge," and the challenge videos be uploaded at essentially the same time to that account. No outside promotion (except for us bloggers talking about it), and see what happens. To declare a winner, it would have to be a clear winner -- where one video just dominates. I think the challenge could be opened to multiple contestants (which would probably provide a better statistical sample, especially if other newspapers besides Bakersfield submitted P&S entrants ... I'm sure there would be no shortage of possible 3ccd contenders).

Also read Davin's comments on this post.

Is the future on newspaper journalism HDTV? Gary Arlen thinks so. I've been looking forward to the day since 2004 when delivering video content over IP allows newspapers to compete directly with TV news stations. I'm not sure it will be, or always be HDTV.

Clearly, the opportunities for video are going to continue to grow. The newspapers that are going to win in this space are problem the ones who have already started strong multimedia programs. As broadband bandwidth improves and more people get it and as it becomes easier to watch video right on the big box in the living room, then the demand for quality will increase.

On the other hand, if media is getting more personal and personalized, is the future really going to be about getting IP-delivered video on TV, HD or otherwise?

From the same post, this bit about WaPo's video efforts are interesting:

WPNI is accelerating its HD production and archiving by equipping 40 of its print reporters with Panasonic mini digital video cameras for live feeds to the Web site. It also has six professional videographers who accompany print reporters doing longer articles. The shooters generally come from a broadcast background and create more traditional documentary pieces.

When I launched East County Online in 1995, I had a hard time convincing anybody that someday local would really, really matter.  I certainly couldn't get any funding for my little start up.  So ECO is history (truly, it was the first chain of weekly newspapers in the US with a web site), but local is getting big.

Terry Heaton has a lengthy column up now on the untapped opportunity in local.

More and more people are shopping online and feeling comfortable in so doing. According to comScore Media Metrics, "overall non-travel (retail) e-commerce spending increased 26 percent this holiday season versus 2005 to a record-setting $24.6 billion." But doing commerce on the web — at least in its current iteration — will always be just a small drop in the gargantuan bucket of overall commerce, and that's why local advertising is so important.

The opportunity for online local advertising is there, but before it can find its rightful place in the local community, the local WEB community must be defined, identified and nurtured.

I sometimes wonder what ECO could be today if I'd been able to stick with it ...  it was hyperlocall before hyperlocall was cool.

Rob Curley has started a three-part series on the making of Studio 55, the NaplesNews vodcast.

We decided early on that we wanted the video on Studio 55, especially the longer stories that ran in the second segment, to feel like short-form documentaries.

We wouldn’t have a reporter doing any sort of stand-up for these longer video stories, and we also wouldn’t have a reporter do any sort of voiceover or narration. The stories would just be natural sound and interviews. And music.

For some reason, we thought this sort of video storytelling kind of felt like what newspaper storytelling might look like in video format.

Jonathan at Digital Street Journal offers a lengthy post on Backfence, reviewing some of what others have said, and including his own first-person observations as somebody who seems to have paid a good deal of attention to Backfence since its inception.

He addresses several points, but this one about advertising applies to us all, and I have enough experience dealing with small, locally owned businesses to know it's true:

Problem two is often overlooked, but it huge nevertheless. Small, local businesses often have no clue about advertising. They often see it strictly as a cost item and if they do it, they either want to do it as cheaply as possible or they’ll choose a very traditional vehicle. The pizza place, the service station, the dentist. Fliers, yellow pages, an ad in the local paper. Outside real estate, I sincerely doubt that there are enough communities with enough small businesses that would be willing to fork over $$ to a local citizens media/journalism site to make it profitable. At least on a mass scale that Backfence envisioned. A Backfence would have to end up going after Pizza Hut or Dominoes because the local pizza place declined to work out a long term advertising deal. That local pizza place probably doesn’t even have a website and likely is ignorant about online advertising.

This makes sense: Google is going to turn Google Video into a search site and rely on YouTube as the place to actually view video.

Bakersfield.com continues to point the way for newspaper video.

Today, they posted and teased to in print a "how-to" on video making. The obvious goal, but unstated, is to encourage user-generated video.

How to make a movie.

It was shot with a Casio P&S (actually, turns out this was shot a Canon XL), which is smart because they're not putting on airs, showing up, intimidating users by using equipment users are not likely to own.

I also learned today that Bakersfield.com is posting many of its pieces on YouTube as the "bakotube" user account. I think they should also tag their content with bakotube and encourage local users to do the same. There's not a lot of views on their stuff, but I think if they promoted "bakotube" more, it would be a nice way to expand their multimedia reach and drive participation.

When I visited Bakotube, I found this classic Bob Price commercial promoting Bakersfield.com. The local TV stations refused to run it. I think it was the line, "why would you watch television anymore?" that pissed them off. HA-HA!

If you haven't ready it yet, E&P published a story a couple of days ago on the revenue challenges facing newspaper companies. It's a pretty thorough and accurate account of the current state of the industry.

Getting revenue up significantly enough to support newspaper-style news operations is and will be exceedingly difficult. I've run spreadsheets on this for a couple of different organizations now, and it's very hard, with current and imaginable revenue streams to be both realistic and come even half way to generating sufficient revenue. The only way to do it is to grow traffic by huge amounts. That, of course, is where content comes in. We have no hope of replacing print revenue if we don't get the content model right.

Mary Tyler Moore beget Lou Grant. From X-Files came The Lone Gunmen. Because there was an Adam-12, we were treated to Emergency. And now it's time for HowardOwens.com to launch its own spinoff.

MP3 Caravan is live.

Now, go give a listen, and then go tell your friends. Tell them all. Please.

No more MP3's of the day on howardowens.com. Here's the new RSS feed.

NOTE: My goal with "MP3 of the Day" is to find great, free, non-DRM MP3 downloads. If you have a tip for a good source, leave a comment.

I'll be at the Connections conference in Vegas next week.  If you're going to be there and would like to meet up, drop me a line at howardowens at gmail dot com.

Meet Gen We, a young generation growing up with media it controls and finds not just newspapers boring, but television, too.

Certainly, Gabriel is growing up in a computer-savvy family with parents who, as game designers, encourage use of technology. They own a TiVo, so when they do watch TV, it's time-shifted without commercials. Gabe and his dad also play on Sony's PlayStation 2--games as well as other titles like the instrument software Guitar Hero. Though Gabriel parents imposed a limit of only two hours daily in front of a screen--TV, PC or game console--he's tuned to a world where he controls media, not the other way around.

Researchers say this kind of environment, in which parents aren't afraid of or are clueless about technology, is fostering a new generation of kids who are naturally adept with technology and comfortable with having virtual access to friends, family and the world at large.

After months of uncertainty and turmoil, combined with the ongoing soap opera that is Tribune ownership, the LA Times sounds like it's finally moving forward with its digital efforts.

My friend Rob Barrett gets a big promotion. This is great for Rob, of course, but even better for the Times.

I'm surprised that Joel Sappell is out as AME for Interactive. He's a pretty sharp journalist.

If you're a top-notch online editor, note in the LAObserved item linked above, the Times is apparently looking for a new editor of LATimes.com. Even though Tribune ownership is in turmoil, it sounds like the Times is taking control of its own digital destiny, so this could be a pretty plum job for the right person.

For those of you looking to take your media company into Second Life and create a new revenue channel for your business, beware. It appears the whole thing is nothing but a pyramid scheme, but, hey, it is a great place for virtual sex.

Of course, anyone lingering in the world of SecondLife for more than a passing glance quickly discovers the real engine to the SecondLife economy: sex and gambling. A healthy share of micropayments are pumped into the system as customers engage in pulling the virtual slot lever or patronize one of the myriad virtual sex workers.

Ha -- virtual hookers! That's gotta be fun, right?

Then there is the inability to enforce contracts.

The first problem we encountered was one of counterparty risk. Put simply, you can seldom trust those with whom you’re doing business in SecondLife. Even supposedly well established, well regarded business citizens are prone to defaulting on any obligations which prove inconvenient. Whole banks will disappear over night, along with your L$ balance. Private businesses will simply refuse to make good on financial contracts. And individuals, pretty much all of whose real world identities are carefully guarded anonymous secrets, sometimes even will openly default, without recourse.

But here is the kicker: what looks like a pyramid scheme.

The private exchanges, however, are owned by the businesses which sit at the top of the SecondLife economic pyramid. The “Virtual Land Baroness” owns the largest such exchange. So it is not surprising that our attempts to trade our L$ for $ USD were met with confiscatory market reflectivity. Or, put simply, every time we attempted to transact more than a couple hundred dollars, the SLL/USD rate would spike to levels approaching or even greater than 500. Example: mid July 2006 SLL/USD was 293.0/279.2 bid/ask on the primary open exchange. Our attempts to trade L$650,000 resulted in settlement bids of 350-450. Interestingly, these trades tended to net returns of right around 4%, which was the prevailing dollar deposit rate.

As we scratched our heads trying to figure out if there weren’t a more clever way of disguising our trades, or perhaps creating our own in-game banks and exchanges in order to arbitrage the other direction, it suddenly dawned upon me.

This game was just a pyramid scheme.

SecondLife is not a dramatic taste of our future, in which markets are virtual, currency is free from government control, taxes are non-existent, and normal people can become real millionaires simply by clicking their mouse a few times.

SecondLife isn’t even a simple virtual economy, with legitimate buying and selling, and opportunity for those who would compete.

No, SecondLife is a classic pyramid scheme. Or, more of an Amway-like pyramid: partially legitimate, partially ponzi. Sure, there are plenty of legitimate SecondLife customers who just like to go there to get their kicks, spend a couple dollars, and be on their way.

Is this the sort of thing you want associated with your media brand? What about the legal liability of using your brand to endorse Second Life, draw your real world customers into the site, only to have them get sucked into a possible scam?

I didn't get creating a virtual news organization in Second Life before, but it seemed innocent enough. Now, if these reports reflect reality, it seems pretty darn risky.

On the Yahoo! Group for newspaper video people, Seth Gitner reports that he just bought four Panasonic PV-GS180 video cameras for reporters to use. It looks like a great camera and I'm happy to know about, especially since it has an external mic jack.

I have my doubts about reporters using these though.

Reporters spend most of their time thinking about getting all the right information to put enough words together to tell a coherent story. They have a notepad and a pen and busy hands. They must get the story. Video is, and should be, a secondary concern. I want reporters shooting video as often as possible, but they still need to be reporters first. I want them to think web first, but whether for the web or print, they need to get the story.

Once you give them a bulky camera with a tripod and mic to set up, you've just given them a burden.

The reason point-and-shoot works so well for reporters is the camera is small, so they can easily hold it and a notebook and take notes. It fits easily in a purse or clips comfortably to a belt, so they can carry it with them always. There is no extra equipment to set up and take down, so they can whip out the camera, get a quick shot, and move on.

The PV-GS180 looks like great alternatives for news organizations not yet ready to spring for a $4,000-near-pro-grade camera, but want something for story-form video. However, when I think of reporters shooting video as part of their daily routine, P&S, I think, is the ticket. Quick, easy, simple.

In fairness to Seth, he probably has in mind a different kind of video than what I'm talking about, but since he did mention getting these cameras for reporters to use, I wanted to take the opportunity to hit on a virtue of P&S that I don't think I've covered before. I mention Seth mainly to credit him for bringing the PV-GS180 to our attention.

NOTE: My goal with "MP3 of the Day" is to find great, free, non-DRM MP3 downloads. If you have a tip for a good source, leave a comment.

The web favors short-form media.

Tim O'Reillyy has a brief piece about how "the web has put a premium on short-form content." He's right, of course. The new medium is tuning our minds to take in information by the teaspoonful - from YouTube clips to what Google calls "snippets" of text. And producers, whether professional or amateur, are responding by serving up more "small chunks," to use O'Reilly's term.

O'Reilly notes that "small chunks" are also attractive today because they're "modular." They're suited to what's come to be called "social production," in which a lot of people contribute a lot of chunks to create a big pile ofchunks.

I'm not convinced this is something to regret.  It's perfectly suitable, I think, to use the web for short form and print for long.  I think it will be a long time before the public loses its taste for novels and feature films. For journalists, big investigative pieces might always work better in broadsheet, but that doesn't mean the story couldn't have been served in small doses over several days (serialized) on the web before print publication, or reported on an "as we know it it" basis during the investigation.

Not much reaction to my earlier post on personal journalism. Either it's a dumb take on things, too much like other things I've said previously, too obvious (though I kind of like the term "personal journalism," but maybe it's the wrong term.

I was away from the computer for most of the day. I half expected to come home and find my mailbox full of slams from critics. I can think of several reasons to question the whole notion, or at least mainly the underlying premise.

For example -- personal expression in media isn't something that is new or even disappeared for any length of time. I thought of that today while reading some Charles Bukowski and listening to Johnny Cash, two mean who I think would have been fantastic bloggers. You can probably think of other artists from music and books who specialized in deeply personal expressions.

Though what I'm talking about isn't really about personal expression. It's more about personal connection. In fact, personal expression probably runs counter to operating within solid journalistic standards. A good personal journalist doesn't hide behind the institution, is more exposed as a person, but isn't writing about himself or his personal experience. He isn't trying to lose himself in an inverted pyramid, but remains dedicated to sense of community and civic obligation.

Also, so far, I've been short of workable examples of what I mean. Tish Grier offers up Orato as a possible example, and while it's a pretty neat citizen journalism site, I'm not sure it quite gets at what I mean. First, it's citizen journalism, and I'm trying to define a new genre of professional journalism (if such distinctions will even mean anything in a decade or less). The other thing is the site specializes in first-person reporting, and I'm not sure personal journalism equates with first-person accounts, though I imagine the words "I," "me" and "we" would crop up often enough in personal journalism.

I'm pretty sure media is getting more personal, more personally connected, more conversational, but whether that equals personal journalism overtaking public journalism is a matter of debate. Given more time to think about it, personal journalism is, if it is real, just another genre of journalism, like narrative journalism or enterprise reporting.

No surprise: Consumers prefer their online video free, and hold the ads, please.

While consumers typically watch programming on the TV rather than online, Laszlo suggested preferences may shift with more convergence. "Right now PC-based video isn't a good substitute for TV," he said. "I think it's only a matter of years before consumers start watching content on the Internet."

While adoption rates are hardly stratospheric, we do need to remember it's still early. It's especially early for mobile video. The good news of a mere 37 percent of broadband users accessing video is it means newspapers still have time to figure out the best online video model to meet greater consumer demand down the road.

The flip side of getting video right is that it will help create demand.