Across a number of classes this week, two websites have stood out.

To start the week I had this from China Daily.com

Shoddy! Which thesaurus did they drag that one up from!

This was paydirt for me as I talked to the class (a group of chinese students) about writing headlines, seo. Something that “Shoddy railway project closed down” fails at in every measure.

Worse still the story is really good:

The 74.1-kilometer railway project [Jingyu-Songjianghe Railway project in Changchun], with a total investment of 2.3 billion yuan ($360 million), was recently found to have illegally contracted a fake company and a couple of laymen who barely know anything of building bridges.

Two blokes stroll up and blag $360 million! Come on!

The week ended with a lot of talk about video and a chance for me to roll out my favourite example of the use of online video

It’s an old story but for me it perfectly illustrates the way that video can enhance a story.  This is clip video at its finest – the text tells the story and the video shows you the visceral experience. It enhances the story and works with the text in a combination of media that’s unique to the web.

When I play this in a class I know that one minute in I will get a reaction, a big ooooh that underlines what video is great at. Watch and see what I mean.

Sitting through a talk on the regulation of the press and then coming home to see the Sun’s front cover for today, I couldn’t help but put the two together.

“Our work with Condé Nast creates a new channel for customers to access the content they want from some of their favorite publications,” said Stephen Nigro, senior vice president, Inkjet and Web Solutions, Imaging and Printing Group, HP. “And, when coupled with our scheduled delivery service, allows customers to get the content they want, whenever they want it.”

Cool. What’s the story then HP? Digital paper? A new flexible tablet? A competitor to Newstand? No, that would be silly woudnt it? No. They have something a litle dafter to offer.

The big idea is not to charge people for the magazine content but charge them for the ink!

Meranda Watling over at 10,000 words highlighted HP’s plans for  a new subscription service that will deliver in cartridges to you every month, bundled in with that will be a reason to use the ink  – a subscription to magazines you can print out.

“This project is one of the many ways Condé Nast is using emerging technology to engage consumers,” said Julie Michalowski, senior vice president, Consumer Business Development, Condé Nast. “With this new HP pilot program, consumers will be able to have their favorite Condé Nast content at their fingertips.”

Yes, their ink-stained fingertips.

You could interprit this as a media organisation trying new things (and kudos to that) but, to me,  this is more like a technology company buying in to the worst of media models. This is HP turning in to one of those companies that sells you stuff on the back pages of magazines or those multi-part ‘build a model of the titanic’ things;  ‘Just 200 easy payments and you could have this beutiful copy of last Decembers vougue !’

In some ways this is no skin of Conde Nasts nose. If they already have digital editions, bundling them with, well, anything, is just an easy option. But for HP this sounds depsperate.

Like others in J-school I’m getting to know new classes, spending a bit of time talking about the ‘gathering’ part of journalism and how digital tools can help. So yesterday I bullied my class of postgrads through, among other things, RSS and Google reader.

When I raised the topic, one of the class commented that “it’s just like twitter”

I initially disagreed, talking about the differences of simply gathering, organising and filtering content and actually interacting with people.  But I’ve had a little time to reflect and, do you know, I don’t think that’s a bad way to think about RSS at all.

Twitter is about building a network of people who you can engage with and (positively) use. A network that is big enough not only to give what you want but also what you thought you didn’t need. The serendipity of twitter is one of its charms.

RSS is a lot like that but with websites and not people. The bigger your ‘network’ of websites, the more chance you’ll find something of interest.

For journalists a lot of the motivations for using the tool are the same: network building; time managment etc.

Points of reference

When I introduced Reader, a few people in the room had heard of it (and used it); Most had not. That’s always a surprise to me, but not a criticism of the students. The early days of new classes are always an interesting reality check for me. My world (geeky and riven through with online as it is) is not always the real world! So it’s nice when something gives you pause to reflect.

It made me think a little more about points of reference. I’ve worked through a chronology of this stuff. Started using Reader before twitter and felt the transition in passive to active engagement as the web has developed. That makes sense to me. But a lot of people in the room have come the other way. Facebook and twitter are their point of entry and reference.

Maybe that shows that digital/online journalism is really maturing now (or maybe just my view). Like many other things it’s now as important to look back at how this stuff has developed as it is simply to use it. Even if that ‘history’ is only five or six years young!

Update Kate, the one who suggested RSS is like twitter, reminded me that I should quote my sources.

@digidickinson Aren't you supposed to attribute quotations? ;) *cough* itwasme *cough*

September 30, 2011 11:54 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@Kate_S_Mercer

Katie Siobhán Mercer

A few years ago I wrote a post about mapping post office closures using google maps and yahoo pipes.  I used that combination because of an issue with google maps and post codes. I needed to convert the posts codes in to a lat, long format – yahoo pipes did that job.

I noted that @patrickolszo mentioned that post on twitter today and I realised it was a bit long in the tooth and, of course, things have moved on considerably.  So here is how I’d do that now using googledocs and google fusion tables. 

I’ll use the data from the original map which came from publicservice.co.uk which is not current but at least it keeps the link across the posts!

Importing the data

In the previous example I noted that I did a fair bit of manipulation on the information splitting the text up to make columns I could use.

If you look at the sheet you can see it is actually a bit of a mess in places but it’s raw data. Truth be told I went through excel to do some column splitting and then combining to get the postcode out of the address.

Now I guess you could explore tools like Google Refine to help with that kind of thing. But I’ve shared a version of the spreadsheet on Google docs which you will need to save in to your own google docs account. Once you have the spreadsheet, you can import it in to a fusion table. In google docs

• Click Create new and select Table
• Click Google Spreadsheets from the Import new table options
• Find your saved version of the post office spreadsheet and click Select

A version of the spreadsheet will be loaded. At this point you can make changes to the column headers – I changed Address three to complete address for example. The last screen prompts you to add contextual information. It’s really worth doing this.

Always add context to your data when given the chance

When its loaded in the data is not that different from the spreadsheet. Fusion tables splits it across a number of pages, 100 rows at a time but that’s all that’s really obvious. I’m not going to go in to the functionality etc. of fusion tables here though. I’ll just do the basics to get us to the map.

Mapping the data

The first thing we need to do is tell fusion tables what data we are going to map each row.

• Select Edit > Modify columns
• Select the Post Code column and change the Type to Location
• Select File > Geocode and select Post Code from the drop down
• Click Geocode

Changing the post code column type to location

Fusion tables will then generate location data based on the post codes in the table. Much easier than the Yahoo pipes solution! You can also try geocoding more generic information. You could, for example, set the Address two column type to location as well and geocode that. But if you have more than one post office in the same town that might cause problems.

Generating the map

No you have the location information

• Select Visualize > Map

Fusion tables will take the data and put it on the map. You’ll need to zoom in and move around to see the points in detail. Clicking on a point will open a standard speech bubble with more data. But overall it’s looking pretty good. Well, almost. One of our post offices seems to have moved from Sevenoakes to Northern France!

The basic map but with a problem

Checking the data, it seems that the post code is TN13 IHZ when it should be TN13 1HZ. It isn’t the only one but I’ll just correct that postcode for now :

• Click Visualize > Table to switch back to table view
• Click the Address two header
• Select Sort Desc
• Find Sevenoaks and change the appropriate Post Code Entry
• Click Visualize > Map to go to the map view

The updated map

Using a custom icon on the map

The share settings in fusion tables

Once that is done you’re good to go. Here’s an embedded version of the map.

Note: The embed works using an iframe so if you’re using WordPress.com, sorry, you’re out of luck when it comes to adding the map to a post.

Conclusions.

The process of mapping is obviously a lot simpler with something like Fusion tables and I think that underlines just how far we’ve moved. That’s not just in terms of the underlying technology which, when you think about it, is pretty amazing. It also shows just how far and how quickly data, geocoded or otherwise, has become mainstream.

Anyway, it’s a simple little example and there is a tonne more that you can do with fusion tables but I hope it’s a useful insight.

Yeah, wouldn’t happen. But should it?

The always interesting Wannabehacks posted yesterday stating that The industry isn’t doing enough to support student journalists. The post really should have been titled The Guardian isn’t doing enough to support student journalists as it takes a pop at the frankly risible prize the Guardian is offering for its Guardian student media award:

[T]he quality of prizes has diminished year on year: “Seven weeks of placement with expenses paid (offered 2003-2006) is a good way to spend the summer. Two weeks of self-funded work experience is an insult to supposedly the best student journalists in Britain.”

It’s a fair point. Just how good you have to be to actually be paid to work at the Guardian?

Maybe we are being unfair to the Guardian though. Why do they need to carry this stuff? I know plenty of students who don’t want to work for the Guardian. So why don’t more papers step up? If it’s about spotting talent then shouldn’t every media org have a media award?

Truth is there is a bit of black hole out there when it comes to awards. Aspiring journos could be forgiven for thinking that there is very little on offer between that letter writing competition the local paper runs for schoolkids and the Guardian awards. There are actually quite a few – the NUS student awards for example. But none with the direct association of the Guardian awards.

But maybe it’s not about the award. The wannabe hacks post (and the letter it references) suggests that there is more a problem of expectation here.

The Guardian is a very attractive proposition to many aspiring journos. In a lot of respects it plays on that strength; it presents itself as a like the paper where things are happening. But there is a danger that things like competitions exploit that aspiration and begin to suggest a slightly dysfunctional relationship - aspiring journos trying their best to please the indifferent and aloof object of their affection.

Show them the money.

This isn’t just a print problem. The truth is the industry has a bit of problem of putting its money where it’s mouth is when it comes to student journos.

As an academic I see more offers of valuable experience than paid opportunities in my inbox. They tend to coincide with large events where industry doesn’t have the manpower to match their plans for coverage. In that sense there is no secret here, the industry is living beyond its means and it’s increasingly relying on low and no paid input to keep newsrooms running. But student journo’s bear the brunt of that. Yes, they get experience, but not much else.

No return on investment

Of course the flip-side to that argument is that many of those who enter the competitions would happily benefit from the association but don’t put back in. I wonder how many people who enter the Guardian student media awards have regularly bought the paper rather than accessing the (free) website?  You could argue the same when talking about work experience. How many students actually buy the product they aspire to work on?

But the reality is that, regardless of how much is put in, if you court an audience, you have to live up to their expectations – unreasonable or otherwise.

This is happening at a time when those same newsrooms are reporting on the commercial realities of education and how students need to demand value from their investment. As someone trying to respond to those expectations, perhaps I can offer some advice.  Perhaps the industry need to reflect on their advice to prospective students the next time they reach out or connect with student journalists.  Just how much are you expecting them to invest in your newsroom and what’s the return?

A few issues have popped up in my reading round the web that make me think that if online video has fallen off your agenda then it may be worth thinking again. A few things make me think that.

Engagement with HTML5 by publishers means that the idea of cross platform (web, tablet etc) video becomes a reality. The recent announcement by FT that they were moving away from the apple fold to deliver their apps from a web base shows a certain maturity in that area. It may not be universal but those publishers who engaged with apps with half an eye to html5 and associated tech are starting to see the benefit. They also have an exit route from Apple’s walled garden.

The announcement that the WSJ is upping it’s online video would, on the surface, seem to be a simple illustration of the point. But theres a bit more to it:

The Journal has expanded its video content in spite of its contract with CNBC, the leading business news network on television, and in spite of the fact that The Journal’s parent has its own business network, Fox Business.  The CNBC contract expires in about 15 months, but already Journal reporters tend to appear more often on Fox than on CNBC.

The shifting approaches of print in particular to the challenge of keeping your voice in a spreading market, often rests on the idea of impartiality. An alignment to Fox is as blunt a move to prove the point as you can get. But if you want to establish a ‘voice’ then video can be a key part of that changing ‘brand’.

Newsless broadcast

But there is also a shift on the other side of that relationship. There is a very clear by broadcasters towards product and not a service focus. That will leave a gap that print will have to backfill. Yes there is a big investment in online delivery services but the commercial driver is very much a product proposition. Most of the large broadcasters are seeing a real benefit in exclusive and value-added programming online. The ‘watch again’ of the iplayer-like channels, the webisodes and web exclusive episodes are all examples of how broadcast has ‘finally’ found its feet online.

I think that news is low on the agenda in a broadcasters strategy. For broadcasters, news is very much a service. It’s often something they have to do as a requirement to a license or a sop to public service. It’s easier to advertise around the x-factor than it is news at ten and that’s where the money will go. Non-broadcast providers will pay the price for that.

If you buy in your video from a third party, expect the prices to go up and the quality, range and relevance to go down. 

LocalTV

Here in the UK, we also have the looming Spector of localTV. There is obviously a new market to explore there. I’m skeptical about the range, depth and return that market will have for journalism but, hey, it never hurts to consider it.

So video gives you a good opportunity to extend your identity and cut free those ties with an increasingly newsless broadcast sector. Just invest a little in understanding the technology underlying the new platforms.In the long run it might be a better investment than simply paying to be on those platforms.

I read a few interesting posts over the last few days. The first was I’m Glad We Didn’t Have Facebook or Twitter on 9/11.

That’s the real problem with attempting to make sense of 9/11 using social media: The former requires deep thought while the latter feeds on immediacy. Ten years and millions of articles after 9/11, we’re still trying to come to terms with what happened that day. We’re still sifting through the debris and our collective emotions in order to find whatever it is we lost, or to explain why things are the way they are now. I have a hard time believing 9/11 tweets or Facebook updates would have changed any of that for the better. And by now they’d be forgotten anyway, buried under 10 years of more shouting into the abyss.

The second was (a trail for) a piece in the press gazette by the Guardians Paul Lewis on the way the riots have proved the need for paid journalists

“Some people argued the digital era would see paid journalists replaced by an army of citizen reporters,” he said.

“The riots proved otherwise: people might consume news differently, but they still want it told straight, and by reporters on the ground.”

I found myself agreeing with both posts but was a little uncomfortable about that.

The 9/11 post made so much sense given the recent experience of the coverage of the riots on twitter. Not that I am, for one moment, equating the events. No, its more the position that the rumour and hearsay where dangerous, pervasive and perhaps even a distraction from more important stuff.

Perhaps Lewis’ point about the need for journalists in that is even more valid but that in itself makes me feel uncomfortable.

What next, Journalism?

I suppose I can sum up my discomfort in terms of a question. “Ok journalism,. What are you going to do next?”

If you are that important and social media needs your influence and control what are you going to do to keep your place at the table? Do we have to wait for another riot or MP’s expenses or wikipedia to prove that you are doing journalism? All great work but not a huge hit rate given the number of you out there.

Visible not critical

Of course the truth is that there are loads of journo’s doing loads of great things at every level. Really good journalism. But we don’t hear about them. At least we don’t hear about them because we are often too busy telling people why all the other stuff is not as good.

So maybe I feel uncomfortable because, whilst twitter would have had a roll to play the rumour and lack of facts would have been a nightmare. But maybe it would have been a necessary evil. Maybe it would have had to be there to fill a gap.