American Observer Blogs

Team-teaching is a delicate dance, and when it works, it’s as much fun and energizing for the faculty as it can be for the class. The six of of us who brought 34 students to New Hampshire this past week to report on the nation’s first primary had the benefit and the challenge of being together 24/7, which allowed us to learn from each other.

What I took away this week, as I did in 2008, is how rewarding it is to immerse yourself in a project. We, and our students in government, political communication and journalism, fanned out across southern New Hampshire to measure and study voter engagement and campaign organization. In the end, we also measured how best to work together.

We divided three days of class before heading north into our various areas of expertise. These were managed by each taking the lead in 90-minute and two-hour chunks, and we mixed up not only which person or guest speaker was at the helm but also the format. That way, lecture-discussion might precede a hands-on workshop on how to shoot video; a brainstorming session on story ideas might follow a guest who had covered the state and its quirky and important primary for more than 20 years.

We divided up logistics, too, from arranging guest speakers at the university and on-site in New Hampshire to coordinating our trips to various towns once we arrived for the field component of our semester-long class. We managed by renting minivans and working through possible scenarios about when to go to rallies, diners, bakeries, churches, shopping centers and schools so we could get a feel for life in the week leading up to the presidential primary.

Low-tech mixed with high-tech: We used paper ripped from flip charts to fill the walls of our newsroom, a hotel conference room filled with out laptops, cameras and school banners. We posted schedules and allowed students to form ever-changing various groups, depending on story ideas and longer projects.

Then, using Twitter, text-messaging , Instagram, Facebook, and Tumblr, as well as creating our own edition of an online newsmagazine, The American Observer, we talked to each other and to our audiences.

This mix of technology and conversation was always informative and instructional. What I always end up liking about working with other faculty was true again — I learn from watching them work the room or change their tone of voice or respond to questions. I also put myself in the role of student easily, listening to a colleague as he or she uses paper or PowerPoint or one-on-one to clarify a topic.

I again found myself in the role of parent as well as a professor as I figured out how much slack to cut a newcomer to the topic or the assignment. Or whether a student’s cold meant a trip to the 24-hour pharmacy or just extra time to sleep in.

And, as I know from being a parent, sometimes the best conversations happen in the car. Our vans were our mobile classrooms, but they also gave us time just to listen, such as when four students jumped in and excitedly told me how they saw a high-profile politician, quickly figured out their approach and questions and then chased her across the lawn to try their luck with an interview.

These car talks about nerves and decision-making — recounting disappointments when someone made a mistake in his approach to an assignment or forgot to charge a battery on an audio recorder — became as telling as any prepared lecture.

And because I’m team-teaching, there are colleagues to share those moments with later, who, in turn, help shape the conversation about how to improve the class the next time around. In the end, team-teaching allows me to circle back and see what worked and what didn’t. And those conversations reinforce that I have five friends now to count on for the remainder of the semester.

The course I’m teaching starting this week seemingly has everything in place: a syllabus, a reading list, reserved classroom space and a theme — presidential primaries — that excites the 34 enrolled. I’m lucky to be team-teaching with colleagues who I know will carry more than their share of the workload. But it’s uncertainty that weighs on me as we prepare for the on-site component, a road trip to New Hampshire.

We want this to be an intense, on-the-ground learning experience, one in which they apply what they have learned in journalism, political science, government and related communication courses to this field work, which is coverage of the New Hampshire primary. So some of the wonder is the same as it would be for any class, when I worry whether the students will not only get along but also thrive and learn from each other. Leaving our campus means other apprehensions, though, such as whether the logistics will work out. Will the weather be a problem? Will some students get sick? Will they enjoy, even excel, at being observers, interviewers, photographers and videographers? Will they see things in new ways, discover their own ideas? We’ve constructed a model and guideposts. The puzzle for me is whether that’s good enough.

I co-created and taught this class four years ago, when history was going to be made whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton won the first-in-the-nation primary. The enthusiasm of that election has been muted by the tough economic times that have followed, by an already-long series of debates on the Republican side, by the sureness of the Democratic nominee. The big political question now — how are Republicans making up their minds? — melds with the educational anxiety of how the class will take shape.  Translation: I’m cautiously optimistic, even about the unknowns.

Occupy D.C. heavily relies on social media.  The use of social media assists the members in communicating with one another, obtaining supplies from supporters outside the movement, and broadcasting itself live.

Some in the movement believe that social media keeps the members updated and generates commitment.

But experts claim that the media will need more than twitter, Facebook and real time broadcasting to generate continued, widespread support.

 

To hear interviews with experts and occupiers on this issue, watch the video below.

Interviews of Occupiers and expert on social media

For all my harping on here about what journalists can do wrong when they use social media, there are many obvious examples of people in our profession actually doing a service to the community by adding their voice to the social media. We’re seeing one such example unfold as I speak courtesy of today’s double-shooting at Virginia Tech.

The university’s independent student newspaper, the Collegiate Times (@CollegiateTImes), has taken the lead in aggregating information on the condition of the victims, the location of those responsible and conditions in the many buildings on the campus that remain on lockdown. Collegiate Times staffers are clearly marshaling their resources to tweet out an accurate picture of the situation to those on campus and elsewhere — a true service at a time when rumor and confusion so often rule the day.

Kudos!

My colleague David Schultz just alerted me via Facebook to news of the relaunching of Muck Rack, a company that tracks what journalists post on Facebook, Twitter and other social media networks. Although the company has been around since 2009, its relaunched version now includes new products to analyze what journalists — one or 100 — are writing about at any given time. The site markets itself as an important tool for the journalists themselves, even going so far as to offer free access to the paywalled Muck Rack Pro to journalists tracked by the site. They also include testimonials from journalists at the BBC, Bloomberg and other companies. While there is certainly a value in being able to track what other journalists are commenting on via social media, it’s very much a double-edged sword.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse for the modern journalist. It allows a reporter to connect with readers and sources in a way that was difficult in the past. A reader can now feed information or give feedback to the journalist from the touchscreen of a smart phone, allowing for more audience participation and richer reporting. But it also leaves the journalist open to slips of the tongue (or in this case, the finger) that can jeopardize his or her credibility with the public.

Many journalists are just beginning to warm up to using social media as a reporting tool. Could concerns over extra scrutiny from sites like Muck Rack chill that thaw? Could it prompt media companies to impose stricter social media guidelines? I don’t know — thought it will probably become clearer over time.

I may not be famous enough yet to warrant scrutiny, but I’ll be even more cautious about what I write online. As Schultz noted, “Muck Rack is watching you.”

Normally, as I noted to my colleagues last week, it’s a bad idea for a reporter to use social media to air grievances about an editor or other company management. But every rule has an exception. This rule saw its exception go on full display last month.

Most people in the journalism industry know the Jim Romenesko saga, so I won’t bother with a detailed description of the case. In brief, Romenesko’s editor at the Poynter Institute conducted an investigation into Romenesko’s use of aggregation in his renowned reporting of media issues. Romenesko, who was already set to leave Poynter soon, asked for and finally got management to accept his resignation. But before he did, he used social media to try to clear his name in the midst of the controversy. Romenesko recounted the situation on his new site, JimRomenesko.com, Nov. 18.

I decided to deal with it by going on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and asking: “Have I ever summarized your posts? Was I fair, or did you feel I stole your words? Please let me know on Facebook.”

 

Romenesko did not use social media to burn bridges with his company per se, although I would imagine feelings between Poynter and Romenesko will remain raw for a great deal of time. Rather, he used it to give his own side of the story and to defend his reputation. Since a journalist trades on his reputation, it was important for Romenesko to preserve it for his own future viability as a media critic and journalist. His efforts appear to have paid off — the journalism community has almost universally supported Romenesko in the wake of this controversy. This is effectively a populist exoneration since plagiarism is journalism’s cardinal sin.

 

 

One of the primary aspects of citizen journalism is mobility. And with the creation of iPhones and Android phones, it’s become easier than ever for citizen journalists to find, shoot, upload and share their content. So here’s a couple of super-awesome apps that every journalist (citizen or professional) should have on their phones.

1. MeReporter: Created for iPhone and Android phones, this is the must-have app for freelancers. This is currently the only app not affiliated with one particular news network, and, more importantly for freelancers, the company might also pay users who create content by licensing it to news orgs for them. So till BBC comes knocking, you can also upload your own reports and broadcast them from this app.

2. DropVox: DropVox is a voice recorder that automatically saves your audio to your Dropbox account! It saves as you press the stop button, allowing you to record another interview/soundbite while your audio is saving.

The advantage is its ability to record an interview on a phone and then access the audio from any computer. Unfortunately it doesn’t record broadcast quality audio and the iPhone’s own voice memo will give far better sound.

3. Showcase: Showcase allows you to record audio or import audio and photos to create an audio slideshow. It also allows you to use audio or photographs already on your Apple device or take photos and record audio. You can then edit them together and export the video file in a variety of sizes over a wireless network, upload it directly to YouTube or email the file.

 

4. Teleported: This app is the closest thing to teleportation, transporting you anywhere in the world by allowing you to see photos taken on mobile devices shared on social media, including Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and Instagram.

You can explore photos shared near you or see those taken anywhere in the world by using the map and see images being shared in real-time. It’s an amazing app which promises users a pictorial insight into a news story as it breaks.

5. Adobe Photoshop Express: This app will allow you to edit photos on the go! When you find the need to crop an image, sharpen it up or correct the exposure before posting to a blog or news site, this app can become your lifesaver.

Obviously there are lots of apps out there that let you to do this, including Camera Plus but it’s worth having this free app on your phone in case you find yourself in a situation where you have photograph that needs cropping before it can be shared.

6. UStream: People from Cairo, Egypt to Occupy Wall Street protestors in Oakland are now able to broadcast live video from their mobile phones directly to millions of viewers!  And you can do this by broadcasting LIVE on Ustream.The UStream app allows anyone to share their point of view with an unlimited global audience for free!

 

 

 

7. CitizenSide: Citizen news-media giant, Citizenside is trying to bridge the gap between traditional news outlets and amateur photographers and videographers by acting as a sales agent.

The homepage states that payments can go up to 75 percent but user reports say the real rate is around 50-65 percent of whatever price they demand when they sell your work. Also, side note, when you upload a video or photo to Citizenside, you agree to give them a 3-month license to sell your images.

8. Viddeo: This is an iPhone app that combines video, audio, image recording and editing capabilities with broadcast quality audio editing to produce .mov video files.

It’s a free app that includes sharing videos by Wi-Fi with other devices, sending them to Youtube or by ordinary email. Voddio can also be used to produce slide shows as videos, or three-track audio only projects. Trust me, it’s a pretty awesome app for Apple iPhone users.

 

On October 4, 2011, a congressional subcommittee held the latest in its series of hearings on Internet privacy. The hearing—titled “Protecting Children’s Privacy in an Electronic World”—focused on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulations implementing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The FTC is waiting for final approval before the regulations are passed.

In early May 2011, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced H.R.1895 which, if ultimately enacted, would amend the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Most notably, the legislation would require social media to independently verify the age of the person seeking membership and expand the protections of the original Act to children below 17 years old instead of those below 13 years old.

Some in the legal profession argue that judges should expand privacy-related common law to include a special or quasi-fiduciary duty between social media providers and members that could not be voluntarily modified by a user agreement.  Existing longstanding common law is not likely to change very rapidly, if at all, to accommodate any new causes of action.

Since judges are not likely to simply expand law for there to be significant change, Congress will need to pass laws that regulate the area.  Such legislation is not likely with well-funded social media lobbyists hired by large companies such as Facebook to protect their interests.  The Supreme Court may find such legislation unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

 

As I noted in my last post, the American Society of Newspaper Editors has determined a core set of 10 best practices journalists should follow when using social media. I’d argue that those 10 guidelines could be condensed even further, down to one overarching rule — use common sense. Or, as The New York Times social media editor Liz Heron said earlier this year, “don’t be stupid.”

I’d argue that’s the main thing for journalists to keep in mind as they represent themselves online. Just as my father used to say people should wait 24 hours before they mail out an angry letter (back in the days when people actually wrote letters), reporters should count to 10 — or some other arbitrary number — and think about whether it’s wise to tweet (or retweet that comment.

One need only look to the news to see evidence of controversy stirred by people posting online without considering the consequences. Consider the case of Emma Sullivan v. Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). Anyone who’s followed the news in recent days knows the story — an 18-year-old Kansas high school student in the group Youth in Government tweeted out from Brownback’s speech to the group to note that he “sucked” and to introduce the now-infamous hashtag #heblowsalot. Brownback’s political team caught the tweet and pressured Sullivan’s high school principal to get her to apologize. The ensuing public outcry has since forced Brownback to issue a public apology to Sullivan.

As a matter of free speech and 1st Amendment rights, Sullivan is of course entirely in the right here — she sould be allowed to be critical of elected officials and to communicate her grievances. But was her tweet wise or a display of common sense? Of course not.

It’s the hyperdigital equivalent of something I myself did 11 years ago. When I was a 14-year-old eighth-grader in 2000, my social studies teacher decided to hold a mock presidential campaign and election, which the entire class helped run. Someone who was less than pleased with the whole thing contacted a local radio talk show host, who in the midst of the highly contentious national campaign proceeded to criticize my teacher on the air for trying to “brainwash” students with liberal propaganda. As she was my favorite teacher that particular year, I was more than a little upset — and being both naive and emotional as all teenagers are wont to be, I proceeded to lash out at the host via e-mail. I quickly thought better of it, but not before the host e-mailed back to say he was tempted to read my comments on air. I proceeded to apologize and he graciously wiped the e-mail from his computer, so the matter ended there. My saving grace was that this all happened back in 2000, when people were less apt and less able to make things like this viral. If it happened today, as we see with Sullivan’s tweet, it might have been a very different story.

The lesson journalists — or anyone, really — should take from this is to carefully consider what you write online. You might think the testy exchange you have with a disgruntled reader will remain in private inboxes, but it can be easily broadcast on any platform one chooses. Virtually nothing on the Internet is anonymous or private anymore — it takes a special kind of naivete to believe otherwise. We all get angry and upset, but it’s best to air our emotions offline, where the whole world can’t read our grievances.