Comments for Pursuing the Complete Community Connection http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com Steve Buttry, C3 Innovation Coach, Gazette Communications Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:01:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else by   links for 2009-12-23 — contentious.com http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/some-journalists-get-uncomfortable-with-the-transparency-they-want-from-everyone-else/#comment-3856   links for 2009-12-23 — contentious.com Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:01:00 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2763#comment-3856 [...] Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else « Pursuing th... "Any journalist who uses email for interviews should understand that using email gives the source the ability to prove that you asked a manipulative or opinionated question (if you did) or that you used an answer out of context (if you did, and if the question might provide some context for the answer that your story didn’t). If you and the source later have a dispute about what was asked and answered and what you promised or didn’t about the direction of the story, you would be in a ridiculous position claiming that the source can’t use your emails. [...] [...] Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else « Pursuing th… "Any journalist who uses email for interviews should understand that using email gives the source the ability to prove that you asked a manipulative or opinionated question (if you did) or that you used an answer out of context (if you did, and if the question might provide some context for the answer that your story didn’t). If you and the source later have a dispute about what was asked and answered and what you promised or didn’t about the direction of the story, you would be in a ridiculous position claiming that the source can’t use your emails. [...]

]]> Comment on The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions by A model for journalism… | Hypercrit http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-internets-rivers-of-gold-transactions/#comment-3842 A model for journalism… | Hypercrit Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:05:29 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2779#comment-3842 [...] A model for journalism... By Michael Becker | Published: December 22, 2009 “We’re the com­mu­nity watch­dogs! We bark when there’s trou­ble, alert­ing not only the author­i­ties but also the pub­lic, which needs a check on those author­i­ties, that some­thing dubi­ous, dane­grous or pos­si­bly ille­gal is going on. Now if you’ll just pur­chase this spe­cial hear­ing aid for $49.95 you’ll be able to hear our sig­nals when we bark…” (via Jay Rosen, on a com­ment to a Steve Buttry post) [...] [...] A model for journalism… By Michael Becker | Published: December 22, 2009 “We’re the com­mu­nity watch­dogs! We bark when there’s trou­ble, alert­ing not only the author­i­ties but also the pub­lic, which needs a check on those author­i­ties, that some­thing dubi­ous, dane­grous or pos­si­bly ille­gal is going on. Now if you’ll just pur­chase this spe­cial hear­ing aid for $49.95 you’ll be able to hear our sig­nals when we bark…” (via Jay Rosen, on a com­ment to a Steve Buttry post) [...]

]]> Comment on Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else by Amy Gahran http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/some-journalists-get-uncomfortable-with-the-transparency-they-want-from-everyone-else/#comment-3832 Amy Gahran Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:50:47 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2763#comment-3832 Hi, Steve. I've been wrestling with this particular issue for years, and first posted about it in 2005: Reporters: Are YOU 'On the Record'? - http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=81653 If you want to see some REAL journalistic arrogance in action, check out the comment to that post I received from one newspaper business editor: "The reporter is taking the initiative to establish the conversation for their purposes of publication. If you'd like to do the same, then it's YOUR responsibility to take your own initiative to establish a separate conversation. Suggesting you're going to piggy-back on the reporter's hard work in developing an idea, identifying sources and establishing a conversation with someone such as yourself is borderline unethical. If you don't like the rules of engagement, then decline the interview. Sincerely, Matt Branaugh Assistant business editor Daily Camera ------------- My response to him: ...I disagree completely with this. What "rules of engagement?" Where does it say that a source is forbidden to mention a media interview until the story is published? Reality check: A reporter does not "own" a conversation or interview. The reporter is calling me to request my information or assistance with a story. That makes it a two-way exchange from the start. What about the reporter "piggybacking" on MY hard work or expertise by interviewing for a story which will definitely benefit the paper, but may or may not offer me any benefit? It's all a matter of perspective. I personally don't see any basis for news organizations to claim ownership over or embargo status for interviews (especially on generic topics), absent a specific agreement to that effect. If a reporter is indeed working on a story which would be sensitive for competitive or other reasons prior to publication, then as a source I'd be open to the reporter negotiating with me not to blog about the interview until after the story is published. Like I said, NEGOTIATION is the key. Reporters and editors should learn to negotiate on this. Also, what about the benefit to the news organization of bloggers generating interest in an upcoming story, especially if it's on a general topic? In some cases that could offer considerable benefit to news organizations. Where's the balance of power and potential value then? It can cut both ways. - Amy Gahran Hi, Steve.

I’ve been wrestling with this particular issue for years, and first posted about it in 2005:

Reporters: Are YOU ‘On the Record’?
- http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=81653

If you want to see some REAL journalistic arrogance in action, check out the comment to that post I received from one newspaper business editor:

“The reporter is taking the initiative to establish the conversation for their purposes of publication. If you’d like to do the same, then it’s YOUR responsibility to take your own initiative to establish a separate conversation. Suggesting you’re going to piggy-back on the reporter’s hard work in developing an idea, identifying sources and establishing a conversation with someone such as yourself is borderline unethical. If you don’t like the rules of engagement, then decline the interview.

Sincerely,

Matt Branaugh
Assistant business editor
Daily Camera

————-

My response to him:

…I disagree completely with this. What “rules of engagement?” Where does it say that a source is forbidden to mention a media interview until the story is published?

Reality check: A reporter does not “own” a conversation or interview. The reporter is calling me to request my information or assistance with a story. That makes it a two-way exchange from the start.

What about the reporter “piggybacking” on MY hard work or expertise by interviewing for a story which will definitely benefit the paper, but may or may not offer me any benefit?

It’s all a matter of perspective. I personally don’t see any basis for news organizations to claim ownership over or embargo status for interviews (especially on generic topics), absent a specific agreement to that effect.

If a reporter is indeed working on a story which would be sensitive for competitive or other reasons prior to publication, then as a source I’d be open to the reporter negotiating with me not to blog about the interview until after the story is published. Like I said, NEGOTIATION is the key. Reporters and editors should learn to negotiate on this.

Also, what about the benefit to the news organization of bloggers generating interest in an upcoming story, especially if it’s on a general topic? In some cases that could offer considerable benefit to news organizations. Where’s the balance of power and potential value then? It can cut both ways.

- Amy Gahran

]]> Comment on Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else by Steve Buttry http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/some-journalists-get-uncomfortable-with-the-transparency-they-want-from-everyone-else/#comment-3831 Steve Buttry Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:57:55 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2763#comment-3831 Absolutely. When I pulled back the curtain a bit in my reporting days (showing someone how meticulously I verified information by contacting them to do so), it always built credibility. It's interesting in this case that the reporter didn't mind revealing her position on the issue to Bradshaw, but feels as though she must shield it from the public. Absolutely. When I pulled back the curtain a bit in my reporting days (showing someone how meticulously I verified information by contacting them to do so), it always built credibility.

It’s interesting in this case that the reporter didn’t mind revealing her position on the issue to Bradshaw, but feels as though she must shield it from the public.

]]> Comment on Some journalists get uncomfortable with the transparency they want from everyone else by paulbalcerak http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/some-journalists-get-uncomfortable-with-the-transparency-they-want-from-everyone-else/#comment-3830 paulbalcerak Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:48:35 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2763#comment-3830 I feel like this is a problem that extends beyond the interview. Journalists—particularly investigative journalists—are driven by "pulling back the curtain" on various agencies, people, etc., but don't want to let readers into <em>their</em> behind-the-scenes processes. So essentially, they're selling exclusive access on the basis that "people want/need to know this" and then turning around and saying "oh, but they can't know about me/us/the news org." People <em>do</em> want to see inside the newsroom and they want to feel like they're part of the process. News orgs are denying that because, well, that's not how it was done in the print days, but in doing so, they're (inadvertently or otherwise) turning away a huge segment of potential advocates. I feel like this is a problem that extends beyond the interview. Journalists—particularly investigative journalists—are driven by “pulling back the curtain” on various agencies, people, etc., but don’t want to let readers into their behind-the-scenes processes. So essentially, they’re selling exclusive access on the basis that “people want/need to know this” and then turning around and saying “oh, but they can’t know about me/us/the news org.”

People do want to see inside the newsroom and they want to feel like they’re part of the process. News orgs are denying that because, well, that’s not how it was done in the print days, but in doing so, they’re (inadvertently or otherwise) turning away a huge segment of potential advocates.

]]> Comment on The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions by Steve Buttry http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-internets-rivers-of-gold-transactions/#comment-3825 Steve Buttry Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:13:32 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2779#comment-3825 Couldn't agree more, Jay. David Campbell makes that point well in his piece, so I linked to it rather than repeating it, seeking to keep this post brief (something I don't try often enough). But I'm glad you made the point. Couldn’t agree more, Jay. David Campbell makes that point well in his piece, so I linked to it rather than repeating it, seeking to keep this post brief (something I don’t try often enough). But I’m glad you made the point.

]]> Comment on The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions by Jay Rosen http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-internets-rivers-of-gold-transactions/#comment-3824 Jay Rosen Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:10:04 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2779#comment-3824 "We're the community watchdogs! We bark when there's trouble, alerting not only the authorities but also the public, which needs a check on those authorities, that something dubious, danegrous or possibly illegal is going on. Now if you'll just purchase this special hearing aid for $49.95 you'll be able to hear our signals when we bark..." Make sense? As I said to you on Twitter, Steve: an additional argument you might add to those you make here is that paywalls <i>prevent the broad distribution of results</i> that make investigative reporting worth supporting via paywalls. If the work can be funded by transactions, then it can have the <i>even broader reach</i> that the Internet provides compared to newspapers. “We’re the community watchdogs! We bark when there’s trouble, alerting not only the authorities but also the public, which needs a check on those authorities, that something dubious, danegrous or possibly illegal is going on. Now if you’ll just purchase this special hearing aid for $49.95 you’ll be able to hear our signals when we bark…”

Make sense?

As I said to you on Twitter, Steve: an additional argument you might add to those you make here is that paywalls prevent the broad distribution of results that make investigative reporting worth supporting via paywalls. If the work can be funded by transactions, then it can have the even broader reach that the Internet provides compared to newspapers.

]]> Comment on News organizations need mobile-first strategy by The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/news-organizations-need-mobile-first-strategy/#comment-3823 The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:16:40 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=2560#comment-3823 [...] If you’ve read this blog much before, you will notice that transactions are key to both my Complete Community Connection business model and my mobile-first strategy. [...] [...] If you’ve read this blog much before, you will notice that transactions are key to both my Complete Community Connection business model and my mobile-first strategy. [...]

]]> Comment on A Blueprint for the Complete Community Connection by The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/a-blueprint-for-the-complete-community-connection/#comment-3822 The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:16:35 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=761#comment-3822 [...] you’ve read this blog much before, you will notice that transactions are key to both my Complete Community Connection business model and my mobile-first [...] [...] you’ve read this blog much before, you will notice that transactions are key to both my Complete Community Connection business model and my mobile-first [...]

]]> Comment on C3’s business services: Direct sales by The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/c3s-business-services-direct-sales/#comment-3821 The Internet’s “rivers of gold”: transactions « Pursuing the Complete Community Connection Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:16:26 +0000 http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/?p=862#comment-3821 [...] December 22, 2009 by Steve Buttry I have become a bit tiresome, I suppose, in pushing my views that news companies need to stop pursuing paywalls, move beyond advertising and find a more prosperous future in direct transactions. [...] [...] December 22, 2009 by Steve Buttry I have become a bit tiresome, I suppose, in pushing my views that news companies need to stop pursuing paywalls, move beyond advertising and find a more prosperous future in direct transactions. [...]

]]>