robinjp / Robin J Phillips

This is troubling.

CBS reports that the U.S. Justice Department asked indymedia.us .. an independent news organization .. for information about  who visited the site on a certain day.  

All information means IP addresses, visitors' e-mail and home addresses, Social Security Numbers, and credit card numbers

A grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Web site to keep quiet about the request for information. In essence, indymedia.us was handed a great story and a gag order on top of it all at the same time.

The subpoena (pdf) demanded all IP traffic to and from the site which describes itself as "a grassroots network committed to using media production and distribution as tools for promoting social and economic justice."

I applaud CBS News and blogger Declan McCullagh for pointing out how this issue raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights.  That's all spelled out here.

It is still unclear what case the Justice Department was pursuing.  And the subpoena has been withdrawn. Oh, and the date in question: June 25, 2008.

A snowball of criticism of Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post's media writer and a paid CNN show host, is growing and becoming very interesting.  

In an  article by Eric Alterman, a CUNY professor of journalism, he outlines what he calls
'Howard Kurtz’s myriad conflicts of interest' including:

• Kurtz is married to former Republican political consultant, Sheri Annis. He often writes about her former and potential clients.
• Kurtz’s job as the paid host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” “presents an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules.

Slate’s Mickey Kaus has written extensively about conflicts corrupting Kurtz's reporting.

And earlier this week,  Edward Wasserman of The Miami Herald asked "would The Post allow a reporter who covers energy to be paid on the side by a big oil company?" He adds:

'Now, I take conflict of interest seriously, and I've suggested it's the signature ethical issue of the new media age, with more and more people who offer news and commentary depending on multiple income streams from sources that may be implicated in what they say as journalists.'

That last point is a big one.

It is essential that we train the journalists of the future -- professionals who survive the new age, bloggers drawn to reporting because of a passion for a topic, and those people who will end up being 'citizen' journalists (whoever they may be).
 
Mainstream media institutions continue to lose dollars and the trust of their audience and the biggest reasons for that are denial and arrogance.

Denial of the need to redefine the way they do business and recognize that technology has opened up doors to lots of competition.

And arrogance, well, as Alterman points out:

' TV news is firmly within Kurtz's beat, and (the paper's ombudsman) wrote that "being paid by CNN presents an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules." '

...  And yet, it continues.

The New York Times this morning accused The Washington Post's executive editor Marcus Brauchli of being a liar.

At issue is the Washington Post Salons planned during the summer at which lobbyists and others were to have access to Post reporters and editors.  The Salon idea was shut down quickly after Politico broke the story.

Brauchli at the time said he didn't realize the gatherings were to be off the record.  And fingers were pointed at Charles Pelton, the marketing guy who was getting the Salons up and running, as the bad guy. Pelton resigned in September.

The NYTPicker points to a brief in the NYTimes corrections column today in which the Times makes it clear that that it now has evidence that Brauchli lied last July when he told the NYT that he didn't know the paper's controversial corporate-sponsored dinner parties would be off-the-record.

Why would you ever lie, misspeak, exaggerate to someone paid to have a long memory?

How quickly those in the news biz can forget that they are surrounded by people in the news biz.  How many of us have worked for editors who are shocked that it is impossible to keep secrets in a newsroom?

It's common that newspaper marketing folks have a different set of scruples than those of us in the newsroom.   We keep an eye on them, making sure that ads are clearly identified as ads, that there is a  separation between sales and editorial.  It is not common that editors lie publicly or that they are called out publicly by other journalists.

For more inside baseball about today's story, check out Gawker.

Or if you want to check out the WashPost's social media guidelines, which presumably Brauchli signed off on, check out PaidContent.

' "material connections" (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers.'

Chris Geidner, @chrisgeidner, a lawyer who writes at Law, points out that The Washington Post has started slipping ads into its Twitter stream.

This is how the ad looked on its @postpolitics site.

The good news is that it is clearly marked as a "Featured ad".  There's no bait-and-switch here.  They aren't teazing us with a headline that links to an ad. 

That makes me wonder how useful they will be to the advertiser.  Not sure if I'll ever click on a link that says "Featured advertiser" and I know I'd never click on one that says "Pheedo: Pioneering rss advertising solutions" which is the page to which last night's ad tweet was linking.

There is nothing new in the game of slipping advertising in to look like editorial content.  Some of the ugliest ads in newspapers are designed to look like little stories.  But there are rules to keep the ad and marketing staffs honest.  Ads need to be clearly marked as ads. 

Otherwise you water down the content.  And that's the biggest issue here.  Twitter feeds are already full of self-promotion.   I plan to Tweet this blog as soon as I finish it.  We all Tweet things we are interested in, work we have done, stories we've written or photos taken.

But that's what our followers sign up for... and why they stick around. They like what we have to say.

But I don't follow news Twitter sites for the ads.  If the ads water down the content, followers will flee.  It'll be interesting to get an honest look at how many people actually click on those Twitter ads.

Hate to stand up here frightened on top of this slippery slope, but I think the best thing I can say about The Post's ads is thank goodness they are clearly marked.

Interesting, but somewhat shocking, piece on how the New York Times' editors pick the 60-plus stories that make up the links on the Home page.

Here's the shocking part. Both the A1 editor and Home Page editor talk about how the newspaper and newspaper stories drive their decisions more than the readers.

"You know, I would say if I had more time I would probably try to investigate more in what our readers are doing," Jim Roberts said. "I guess I would rather know some broad trends, than some specific minute to minute thing," like whether readers are more interested in science news or fashion reports.

That's not the print Page One editor.  That is the Home Page editor who says he doesn't have time to check out the Web analytics.

As the Observer piece says, Jim Roberts, The Times’ associate managing editor and NYTimes.com’s digital news editor, is the man making most of those Home Page judgments, along with his team of editors and a home-page producer.

Surely, one of them is checking to see what the reader actually wants to read.

Day 5 of my Final Week at work.
What a glorious 'It's a Wonderful Life' sort of day I have had.

Leaving the newsroom on my own terms: Wonderful. Leaving with doors open and the possibility of collaborating in the future: Priceless.

At newspapers, when someone leaves they send a parting note to the whole newsroom. It's just tradition. Some are poetic, some funny, some are bitter, some stained with tears.

I wrote mine this afternoon. I am leaving the newsroom for a job in journalism education. Before I pick up the new gig, as a Web managing editor at the Reynolds Center based at ASU, I am taking a week off, a week with no bosses. A week in which I hope to have many Perfect Moments.

Before I head off for that break, let me share my final thoughts in the newsroom and my parting message to those I leave behind:

Wow. I thought this note would be easier to write.
After 4½ years, 5 jobs, 6 bosses, 7 desks, countless colleagues and friends, I am warmed by how big and strong my Arizona Republic/azcentral family has become.

I thank each of you for the part you played in my time here. We have done some great work. We have worked long hours. We have kept each other buoyed during tough times and have enjoyed the fun and creative times together.

As I cleaned out my desk, I enjoyed these artifacts:

- the ever-popular ‘Newsroom Reorganization 2005’
- a well-thumbed 2007 Information Center job ‘catalogue’
- the short-lived best seller, Monday Concept Survey Oct. 2006
- a prescient July 24, 2005, business section with a CP headline “Bubble trouble?”
- a Ward Bushee (former editor) fold-up paper doll .. downloadable
- copies of the bane of my existence for several months … Pump Watch & its sexy cousin Energy Watch
- and several souvenir copies of December 2006’s “Whatever Happened to… “ year-end feature.

All of these items are on auction and the proceeds will be shared among this year’s Pulliams (super special interns).

As I said to many of you around cake a few minutes ago, this has not been an easy decision to leave, but I am drawn to an opportunity that is very exciting. I have enjoyed my time here and am grateful for all the opportunities that came my way and those that I went out and grabbed.

I urge everyone here to speak up, share ideas, stick your neck out and make your time here an adventure. Last night someone asked me what skills they would need to work online. No. 1 is the skill to speak up and let those desires be known. And beyond that, you’re a journalist. You’ve already got all the skills necessary. The tools, you can learn.

Now personally, I am thrilled that I am able to make this move to a new and exciting venture without leaving town. As Jill Cassidy says (and I keep quoting), Starbucks is right in the middle between 200 E Van Buren and the Cronkite Building. Let’s have coffee.

And, I want you to promise that I’ll never be the subject of a “Whatever Happened to…?” feature. You’ll know where I am.

Here's an interesting idea.
Monetize the audience, not the content. 

At first I thought that meant ask wealthy people to pay more..  yeah, right.  But no, it's more the corner drug dealer model.  (No offense to anyone. Drug dealer or newspaper publisher.)  Instead of making users pay up front for content, give them a taste of your news, let them read several stories and then, when they come back for more, ask for cash.

That keeps your content in the searchable world. 
It keeps you from turning off the unique visitors, which are really the only way to grow these days.

But there is one problem.

This puts those age-old demands back on an ever-shrinking newsroom.
Editors and reporters: You have to tell good stories and preferably ones that people can't really get anywhere else. Go local. Go smart. Make readers want to come back.

Late-add:  The New York Times describes online membership plans.

This is an interesting piece from The Washington Post ombudsman on the "salon" scandal.

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander spells out the conflicts inherent in offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" including reporters and editors for a fee, as much as $25,000. Alexander concludes that the "episode has left a scar that will be visible for years, and it has badly shaken the newsroom."

Still shocking to me is that no on spoke up as the events were being planned.

Neither Publisher Katharine Weymouth nor Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli can recall anyone raising concerns, although both say they wish someone had. Several lower down in the newsroom say they didn't speak up because "they assumed top managers would eventually ensure that traditional ethics boundaries would not be breached."

Plans went ahead until a lobbyist handed a leaflet for the event to (non-Post) reporters. And on June 2, Politico.com reported on the salons.

Somewhat arrogantly, Alexander explains to the reader that "Historically at quality newspapers such as The Post, a firewall exists between the business and news departments to ensure editorial integrity and independence."

Well, those firewalls exist at far less grand newspapers than the post. What is still shocking to me is that no one from the newsroom questioned the idea of the salons during the weeks they were being organized.

But the good news is that The Post does have an ombudsman who gave us an insiders' look at the scandal.  Andrew Alexander is just one in a long line of  veteran journalists hired from outside The Post to keep an eye on how the paper is doing and respond to disgruntled readers. 

He began his job in February. I'm sure he got more than he bargained for.

Mashable's Stan Shroeder asks Should a Social Media Editor Use Social Media.  I've been wondering the same thing. 

When The New York Times reassaigned one of its editors, Jennifer Preston, to be its in-house expert on Twitter and Facebook, that was big news, a first in the nation. The move made it acceptable for all other newspapers to assign a full or part-time social media expert.

A leaked internal memo said "we ought to learn how to reach those people effectively and serve them well."

Jennifer is our first social media editor. What’s that? It’s someone who concentrates full-time on expanding the use of social media networks and publishing platforms to improve New York Times journalism and deliver it to readers.

I was thrilled.  I have helped guide my news organization into Social Media in part because I love it. I thought that I'd be able to learn more by following the work of someone given the resources of the NYTimes and a full-time position to think big thoughts about how news organizations can best use social media tools.

At the time, I did a quick online search to see what Jennifer Preston's Social Media footprint was like.  I found very little. But she had a strong first 10 days.

@NYT_JenPreston's  first tweet was May 26.   She began by asking others how NYT's should use Twitter.  Like any newbie, she stumbled with @replies and other Twitter protocol.  In response to a sort of #followfriday note I sent her full of Twitter users from azcentral/The Arizona Republic that she might follow, she struggled with how to @reply to me, Robin.

But then on June 9, silence.

I think Shroeder has a good point when he says: "Twitter has been at the very core of various social media-related movements and occurences, and a social media editor for a large media publication, with over 9000 Twitter followers, is expected to actually use the social media tools at her disposal."

But the nytpicker, a web site that devotes itself to the goings on inside the NYTimes, sums it best. Being a Social Media Editor isn't just a job, it's a way of life.

So, @NYT_JenPreston.  I thought I'd learn from you, but perhaps you should follow me.