Jordan Scrivner

How News Organizations Can Create a Mobile-First Strategy

I used to watch the crowds in airport lounges when I traveled, studying how people read newspapers. Even with circulation declining, you could see people reading newspapers intently. Especially after 9/11, people would have plenty of time to read while waiting for flights, and newsstands stocked a variety of papers to choose from.

Look around an airport lounge now. You'll see more people looking at their phones than holding newspapers.

( Continued... )

Good to know, but, still, a bit late.

- - - - -

In the E-mail Era, Who Owns the Interview?

Some time ago I was interviewed via e-mail for an article and, as I often do, after providing answers to the nine questions, I asked the following: "Mind if I republish these answers in full on my blog after the piece goes live?"

It turned out that the journalist actually did mind. In fact, in the correspondence that followed, the journalist explicitly refused me permission to publish my own answers before changing her mind and saying I could -- but without the accompanying questions she had supplied.

( Continued... )

Personally, I LOATHE doing e-mail interviews and haven't run into this problem. However, it's something good to think about (in my opinion).

- - - - -

How to Get Real-World Journalism Experience as a College Student

[ ... ]
So, how does one get experience while still in college?

There are many ways to do this. I outline half a dozen in my book, "Breaking In: The www.jobspage.com Guide to Newspaper Internships."


( Continued... )

Aside from the blatant plug for his book, Grimm offers a few useful tips.

- - - - -

Match Your Diction to Your Mission in Writing

[...]

If you have good diction, it means that you enunciate words clearly, the way Brian Williams does as NBC news anchor, or the way jazz singer Diana Krall performs "I've Got You Under My Skin."

But that is not the primary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "diction" as "the choice and use of words in speech or writing." The key word is "choice." In most cases, writers choose words that fit their topic and appeal to their audience. You will choose a different set of words if you write for "Reader's Digest" than if you write for "Playboy." The language of a blogger will differ if that writer is choosing words for a blog on politics, or sports or parenting.


( Continued... )

Nothing that most of us don't already know, but it's a good reminder of the impact that tone can have on a story.

- - - - -

Tip Sheets: Online & Multimedia

A collection of Poynter articles relating to journalism online. It's a hefty list and there are quite a few nifty links.

Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'If my kid were in Detroit, I'd try to burn the place down'

The Detroit Public Schools took another blow in the national media yesterday courtesy of Fox News commentator Shepard Smith.

"If my kid were in Detroit, I'd try to burn the place down," Smith said during a discussion on the district's record-low test scores.

( Continued... )


Oh Fox News...

Waking thoughts on a strange technological paradigm shift

Seen a lot of screaming and ranting from both sides of the aisle on this topic over the recent years, and figured I might as well throw my two cents out into the street on this a-here internets.

First of all, to the people who scream that the death of print media = the end of society: Shut up.

( Continued... )


flemco says a lot of the things that have been repeatedly said here, and then some. He's not a journalist, but he's someone who consumes the news and "gets it," in my opinion.

Courtesy of this rather good TV ad for The Sun.

So, I just came across this, and it piqued my interest. I'd like to get folks' thoughts on situations like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/11/tiger.woods.injunction/


( The whole article, for people who don't like links )


So far, this is what I can say for certain:

1) We're not idiots
2) We all know what these "circumstances" are
3) If they sought this injunction, that means they have a good idea these photos do indeed exist, and likely were fully consensual at the time they were taken (likely, but not certainly)
4) There is absolutely no real news value in publishing these photos whatsoever
5) Without a court injunction, if these photos were/are obtained by the tabloids, they would remorselessly publish the Hell out of 'em, and they'd never go away.

Beyond that, I'm torn, so I'll pose the debate to y'all here. I don't expect anyone here to be thrilled at the concept of the courts blocking what are, essentially, journalistic undertakings, even when they're under the rubric of sleazy tabloids. But, of course, the problem arises that this becomes a precedent, and the next time the court wants to block something for the "good of the state" (ie, evidence of police abuse which could "undermine public faith in law enforcement" or such), the same policy could be relied upon. But does this necessarily mean that this will be a "slippery slope" and will go beyond simply curtailing unsavory practices of tabloids?

Then there's also the question of whether the "unsavory practices of tabloids" need any curtailing at all. Or, another way to put it, has Tiger given up his right to privacy (in whole or in part) by choosing to be such a public figure (which he has chosen)? I don't mean that as a generic question, but specifically in terms of journalistic ethics. Even if we don't believe in printing that kind of shit ourselves, should we care that tabloids go hogwild over someone, who, really - and let's be honest - has created this mess all by himself?

Lastly, of course, this isn't the first time the courts have stopped something like this, which does beg both the questions of how often this happens, and whether this practice is different in England than in the US (or elsewhere). I know England has a lower threshold for libel (or, in non-legalese, more things count as libel), but this isn't really libel. The US has explicit speech guarantees (explicit in terms of the guarantee, and explicit in terms of the types of speech which is protected). They do get de facto ignored pretty often, but still get sometimes upheld.

Thoughts? :)

"The Ineptitude of the Bordentown NJ Police"

Haines Towing, Inc. from Bordentown NJ unlawfully took a bus without the owner's consent, and the Bordentown NJ police said it is legal.

On December 11, 2009, around 9:00AM in the morning, a bus company entitled S&J International Travel Inc. had a bus broke down in the New Jersey Turnpike. The driver called the Haines Towing, Inc., located in Bordentown NJ, to have the bus towed to a Ford Dealer. The driver paid for the towing and believed that Haines Towing would do their job and tow it to Ford. However, Haines Towing towed the bus back to their garage. Haines Towing would not release the bus back to the driver. Haines Towing is evidently committing theft.

S&J International Travel Inc.'s official called Haines Towing and got in contact with Haines's representative named Chrissy. The representative, Chrissy, said the company would not release the bus. The reason given was: The company's name S&J International Travel Inc. is similar to the name of the company Haines Towing has a gripe and lawsuit with. In addition, S&J International Travel Inc.'s company address is located in Rockville, MD, the same town the accused company was also registered. The accused company's name was S&J Travel , d/b/a Lotus Tours, Inc. Hence, Haines Towing believed that S&J International Travel Inc. is related to S&J Travel and told S&J International Travel Inc.'s official to pay them $143,199.30 - the amount Haines Towing is currently suing S&J Travel for. S&J International Travel Inc.'s official informed Haines Towing that they do not have any relations with S&J Travel; they do not even know the company S&J Travel. Furthermore, S&J International Travel Inc.'s official also faxed Haines Towing the company's registration document. The document clearly states where S&J International Travel's company address is located. The address is completely different from that of S&J Travel. Yet, despite the evidence, Haines Towing still insist S&J International Travel Inc. is either related to or is S&J Travel in disguise. Haines Towing refuses to release S&J International Travel's bus.

With no other choice, S&J International Travel Inc. contacted the Bordentown, NJ police department. At 10:34AM, the police officers went to Haines Towing's shop. S&J International Travel, having faith in the police, naively believed that the police would bring justice and get their stolen bus back from Haines Towing. That belief was crushed. The police did not get the bus back. In addition, the police claimed that the actions of Haines Towing are legal.

In despair, S&J International Travel Inc. called the Bordentown police department for an explanation. One of the police officer that was in charge of this automobile theft case picked up. The police officer, Officer Weinisch (Badge #3268), informed S&J International Travel's representative that Haines Towing have the legal right to hold S&J International Travel's bus without S&J International Travel's (the owner's) consent. The reason Officer Weinisch gave to S&J International Travel's representative was: Haines Towing have a court letter stating that under default judgment, the company S&J Travel d/b/a Lotus Tours, Inc. owe them $143,199.30. S&J International Travel's representative replied that they are not S&J Travel, therefore, Haines Towing do not have the right to forcefully and illegally hold the company's bus; Haines Towing is essentially stealing the company's bus. Upon hearing the word "steal," Officer Weinisch immediately came to the defense of Haines Towing. He said that Haines Towing is not stealing S&J International Travel's bus; Haines Towing is not forcefully holding the bus. He followed up that statement with: "Haines Towing have the right to hold your bus because they have a court letter and they suspect your company may have relations with S&J Travel." He further insist that this is a civil case, not a criminal case and told S&J International Travel's representative to stop saying that Haines Towing is stealing the company's bus because they're not. S&J International Travel's representative then asked him: "So are you saying that Haines Towing can hold my bus for an infinite amount of time until they find something? So you are saying that they can hold my bus for a month or a year, as long as they want, even though they do not have the owner's consent?" Officer Weinisch said: "Well, it wouldn't be a year," - he paused - "but they do have the court letter." S&J International Travel's representative replied: "My company have nothing to do with the company Haines Towing is suing. What Haines Towing is doing right now is stealing. They are taking my vehicle without my consent and not giving it back. They are committing theft." Again Officer Weinisch told the representative: "It is not theft. We know where the vehicle is. They are not stealing the bus. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. There is nothing I can do." Officer Weinisch continues to tell the representative that Haines Towing is not committing theft even though they are holding the company's bus without the company's consent. Officer Weinisch insist that Haines Towing's actions are legal. Officer Weinisch tells the representative that he cannot do anything.

The definition of theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Now, here are two questions I posed to the public:

Is Haines Towing Inc. committing theft?

Did the police officer fulfill his duty as a police?

Thanks for reading.

Editor and Publisher to cease publication.

Well, the days of "breaking a story" are pretty much over and I'm looking for some advice, actually.

Locally there is a new federal investigation into one of our police forces accused of racially profiling and brutalizing Latinos in the area.

I work for a Catholic magazine news show (I used to be a daily news producer in a fairly large market... so I have a pretty good hard news sense) and I convinced my boss to allow me to do a "hard" feature on this story over the summer. That was before the federal investigation, but after many local complaints. The Catholic angle is the priest whom police arrested after he started a project to catch them profiling. There was security video of the arrest, and of the police actions (which were shady... you see them in the back looking for the camera equipment), the priest's own video where officers ask him what he was doing with the camera (and they later lied on the report saying they thought he had a gun... the video clearly shows they know it was a camera...) etc.

Now, I have, from my summer story, sound from the priest, sound from the mayor, and EXCLUSIVE sound from the police chief. I don't know why he interviewed with me, but he did. And he's NEVER TO THIS DAY SPOKEN TO ANYONE ELSE.

So, since I work for a religious weekly magazine show that doesn't care about news, and even if I could use the footage or work on another angle to the story nobody would watch it...

What can I make of this exclusive interview I have? Can I give it to another news station? Can I freelance the story perhaps so I'm not technically using my boss's equipment?

Is there any way I can use this? (Without losing my job)

Why the Media Is Taking So Long to Die: Michael Wolff

I participated the other night in an oddly formal, anglophilic, Oxford-style, for-and-against-the-proposition debate on the topic of (you guessed it) the mainstream media. I was on the side arguing (you guessed again) that it should be buried as fast as possible.

( Continued ... )


I forgot I had bookmarked this article and meant to share it when it was originally posted. I don't think Wolff is saying anything new, but it's a question I've asked myself more than once.