Duty to inform us about Paris Hilton?

Peter Himler calls me (at least via link) one of the “self-anointed new media pundits” and lumps me in among those who “believe the live media interview (is) outmoded.” While I appreciate the link (no such thing as bad publicity), I think he misunderstood what I wrote. At least he misrepresented it.

Calling what I wrote “vitriol” is a bit much. But the good thing is because what I wrote is available for everyone to see (and not buried in a reporter’s notebook), people can reach their own judgment.


:Updated – Peter weighs in with a nice comment below. Thanks for the clarification, Peter.

Actually, what I said was I thought all sides in the controversy had overreacted. Of course there’s a place for the phone or in-person interview… that’s the way we do most of them. And I suggested a way Calcanis and Winer could have done the interview and still have had their “cover” through an audio recording. Journalists quite frequently record interviews; in principle, there’s no reason why Winer or Calcanis couldn’t do the same (provided they cleared it in advance with the reporter.)

My disagreement with Levy was with the sky-is-falling nature of his lament, and his contention that journalists are “not acting out of self-interest, but a sense of duty to inform the population.”

Of course there’s some element of truth in that; as I said, we all have a mixture of motives behind what we do. Some of our motives are noble like that, but also in that mix for journalists is a desire to be first with the story, or get the exclusive.

For example, in my work we have had examples of representatives from two competing network morning shows interested in the same story. When one found out that the competitor had interviewed the subject earlier that day, the reporter put away the camera, packed up the lights, and went back without the story.

Did the story suddenly become something that was no longer important information for the public? Obviously not. Looking for the competitive leg up meant the second network didn’t want to cover the same story as the first.

That’s all fine. They have businesses to run, and a big part of their calculation is what they think will increase ratings. And, in Mr. Levy’s case, if he’s not thinking about writing columns that will attract and engage readers, you can bet his editors are.

Which is why I get a little impatient with journalists who act like everyone in business has ulterior motives, while they as journalists are above it all…just “acting…out of a sense of duty to inform the population.”

“Duty to inform”…is that why Barbara Walters got the post-jail exclusive with Paris Hilton?

So…the phone interview isn’t dead, nor should it be. But when Mr. Levy writes his column, or Mr. Vogelstein his article, they get to take time to say things in exactly the way they want.

Like I am right now. The Republic is not imperiled by some interview subjects like Calcanis and Winer asking for the same consideration. The journalists are free to refuse the request, and then the subjects can decide whether they want to participate or not.

We do lots of media interviews. We’ve done many by email, often suggested by the journalist for his or her convenience. I don’t think the stories were “impoverished.”

If anything, Vogelstein’s story (if he still writes it) will be more impoverished by not including Calcanis and Winer at all than it would have been by at least getting their considered remarks for consideration. He could have done the email or blog interviews and then decided not to use any of the statements, if he didn’t find them useful or genuine.

My fellow “self-anointed” pundits like Dan Gillmor, and Jeff Jarvis simply aren’t doing what Peter insinuates when he says:

The call for all interviews to be conducted via email is short-sighted, if not naive, from a PR perspective.

No one is saying all interviews should be conducted by email. That’s a red herring. Ironically, Wired is exploring crowdsourcing, collaborative journalism. Online interviews with Calcanis and Winer would have been in keeping with that.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , ,

NY Times to Depend on Video Syndication

Even the New York Times realizes that its video success depends on syndicating its video to blogs and other web sites, not in just driving traffic to the nytimes.com site.

That’s the report from Lost Remote. Here are some of Steve Safran’s highlights from Martin Nisenholtz’s presentation:

“We started to create original video for the web – and grew a desk from a handful to 25 people completely integrated into the newsroom.”
Our teams abroad have video cameras. We’re starting to build the full infrastructure.

“Video costs have dropped dramatically. The video we now produce – the majority requires a specialist in the field. This notion that the print reporters would be able to produce videos still hasn’t taken shape yet, but the trend is taking shape.”

“What does it take to get a print reporter to do this? After about a half a day of training, the print reporters do get the basic skills they need.”
“To reach a broader audience, the Times must distribute its video outside of NYTimes.com. We believe we need to go outside the walls to make this work.”

“By this strategy we get to put our video in front of a much bigger audience than we would by (keeping it at) the NYTimes.com.”

“It’s possible that something like AppleTV is going to be the living room’s iPod. That’s going to fundamentally change the way programming takes place and, we’re very early in this, but we’re determined to take a role in this.”

Goal in the next 18 months: “We want to have four to five times more streams generated outside NYTimes.com than inside it.”

“We do believe that in video, brands matter. Content choices are expanding at a dizzying rate. Brands serve as a beacon out there. We think that is one of our differentiators out there. And we think quality matters, too. Good is still good and bad is still bad. I still put my money on the guys in the Times newsroom than on the amateurs. That’s not to say there won’t be good amateur content.”

“The advantages that the new folks on the block have is that they have nothing to protect. Even though the New York Times is 156 years old, we’re still new in video. Failure (in video) is not a step backward for us.”

“Avoid square pegs. Web video is not TV… The whole format is radically changing.”

“The blogosphere is very important for moving video around. These are the new rules of the medium. We’re starting to think of ourselves not only as creators but as programmers as well.”

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,

CBS is Willie Sutton

The famous thief allegedly said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” The announcement by CBS that it will syndicate its content on various sites instead of trying to drive traffic to its own portal is a welcome admission that a variant of Sutton’s Law applies to media, too: go where the people are. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

CBS, after a year of experimenting with various Web initiatives, says that forcing consumers to come to one site — its own — to view video hasn’t worked. Instead, the company plans to pursue a drastically revised strategy that involves syndicating its entertainment, news and sports video to as much of the Web as possible. It represents a stark departure for the TV industry. Most of CBS’s major competitors, including Walt Disney Co.’s ABC, General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal and News Corp.’s Fox, are to some degree all betting that they can build their own Internet video portals.

Starting this week, an expanded menu of CBS’s video content will be available for free to consumers on as many as 10 different Web sites ranging from Time Warner Inc.’s AOL to Joost Inc., a buzzy online video service that is just rolling out. The company calls its new venture the CBS Interactive Audience Network.

This reminds me of a strategy I employed when I was communications director for a member of Congress. The traditional model until that point was to mail postcards to a community accouncing a town hall meeting. Usually a handful of people would show up, and they were typically “the usual suspects.” We heard of some colleagues turning to radio advertising for their meetings, but took it a step further, holding the meeting at the radio station, and having the meeting over the air.

OK, so that’s kind of an early-1990s example, but Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet. Today we have on-line chats and the YouTube campaign.

But the point remains. If you want your content to be seen, go where the people are. When YouTube has a critical mass of 100 million streams a day, see that some of them are yours. Don’t require people to come to your site before they can see your content. Make it searchable. Give others incentives to promote it. Some traffic will come back to your site.

Jeff Jarvis has a good comment on this, too, and an even better observation back in March about the CBS-Viacom split, and who got what.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,

People don’t get RSS

At least not the way they understand email. That’s why a service like Rmail (which was bought last month by NBC Universal) will be important, particularly until the browsers that incorporate RSS become ubiquitous.

Instead of requiring an RSS aggregator, this site lets people get feeds delivered straight to their email inboxes.

I tested this in my Blogger blog, because for some reason WordPress.com doesn’t let you paste in JavaScript routines. If you check out my sidebar in Blogger, it’s a really nice interface.

I like WordPress a lot, and I’ll bet that if I purchased the CSS customization I could get Rmail to work, but one of the ideas behind this blog is that everything you see here is free…just to emphasize how free and easy it is to use these new media and social media tools.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,