I’m working on some content today for beatblogging.org about the moderation of user comments on stories and blogs.

I need your help.

How does you news organization handle these moderating duties? Are your comments moderated or unmoderated? If they are moderated, who does it? Do your writers and bloggers interact with posters?

What has worked well for you? What hasn’t worked well?

For point of referrence, this blog has a policy were everyone’s first comment is automatically held for moderation. If it is deemed appropriate, subsequent comments are not held for moderation. There are some other guidelines that garner why a post might get held for moderation as well.

It has worked well for me so far, especially since I actively moderate this blog myself and interact with readers.

Because TwentySomethingJournalist.com just launched.

You know what the worst kind of journalist is? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist doesn’t respect the newspaperman myth? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist doesn’t respect the Paper God? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist is ruining journalism? A twenty-something journalist.

What will the kids these days think of next? A site dedicated to finding innovative ways of modernizing journalism? God Lord.

On May 8th, I made a post about how a previous post from a year earlier had a resurgence in traffic.

I thought that traffic would eventually subside, but I was wrong. In less than 3 months, that post has almost doubled the amount of page views it has:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, blogging has taught so much about how the Web works. When I made that post, I never envisioned that more than a year later it would still be receiving consistent traffic.

The Web works so much different than print. With a daily newspaper, for instance, all the views for a story basically come in one shot on the day an article is published. The day I launched that post (and the day after) are nowhere near the biggest days of traffic for that post.

That post also never had a huge day of traffic, and posts don’t need to generate giant days of traffic to be able to bring in a lot of traffic to a blog in the aggregate. About 90 was the most page views that post ever received in one day, but it has consistently drawn traffic. It has about 1,400 page views now, and in a year, it will probably have between 2,000-3,000.

A couple months ago I made a big SEO push on this blog. I changed the URL structure, put the post titles before my blog name, made sure I wrote headlines with lots of keywords for SEO, developed a site map and made some other changes to the site. I knew that my summer might be busy (I did BeatBlogging.org and Stripes at the same time during June), but I didn’t want my traffic to drop off that much.

And it hasn’t. While, I haven’t been setting records, July will probably be my second-highest month in terms of traffic for the JI. Not bad, considering I don’t post that much anymore, and I haven’t had a big, really popular post in awhile (BeatBlogging.Org is where my best work is these days).

But what I do have is a lot of long tail traffic. 165 posts received traffic yesterday, in large part due to strong SEO. With each post I make (this is No. 301), that long tail traffic gets more robust. Most of my traffic comes in via search engines and referrals right now.

Every journalist should at least experiment with blogging. I have been doing Web work since the the 90s, but blogging has taught me so much about the link economy of the Web. More journalists need to understand that economy.

It’s how the Web works.

A lot of journalists got into this business because they like to tell stories.

I think that’s one fundamental reason why so many journalists have a hard time adapting to the changing news landscape. For me, it was never about the story — it was always about the information and news.

So, if the format changes, it doesn’t really bother me. I’m not married to the format or the medium. I’m not here to weave intricate narratives and tell stories.

In fact, I’m not very good at telling oral stories. But I can tell you a lot of facts, figures and information.

This post was brought on by two things. First, the other night I was getting some drinks with some journalists and one said, “I’m not a journalist. I’m a storyteller.” He talked about how he had trouble keeping his stories short and didn’t like taking out quotes and information for brevity.

Obviously, his work was more for himself than for his readers. That’s does not serve our readers well, and it certainly doesn’t help journalism.

The second part of this post was inspired by a post by Howard Owens, “Not all information needs to be crafted into a story:”

Storytelling, whether written or visual, then becomes something that is more about serving your own ego than serving your readers.

So check your ego, whether writing or shooting, and give people useful or entertaining information in an accessible package.  Save the storytelling for when you really have a story to tell.

A lot of journalism seems to be ego driven. Some journalists report on what they want to cover, in the mediums they want to report in. It has very little to do with what people actually want.

But we’re in a business. We have to produce a product that people want. And most people just don’t read the whole story (thanks to Owens for the link):

But here’s the thing: journalists have always been far more entranced by ‘the story’ than audiences. Less than a quarter of newspaper readers claim to read to the end of a story, even one they’re interested in … and of those, over two thirds don’t read every word.

Yes, sometimes journalism is storytelling, but as Owens notes, we should save the storytelling for when we have really good stories to tell. I see so many feature, anecdotal and other non-news ledes on stories that are really just news stories.

Let me tell you something: I have stopped reading a lot of news stories because I didn’t want to put up with another boring feature lede on a news story. I wanted the news, and I wasn’t willing to wait for some journalist’s ego to go by. And I’ve read some great non-news ledes and they were usually on great feature stories.

If you’re a storyteller, it’s no fun to have to truncate your stories. Is it really a good story then? Is blogging a good storytelling medium? Probably not.

But if you’re in the business of providing facts, figures, information — news — you’ll find blogging and Web journalism to be amazing. The Web (and its mobile cousin) provide a great deal of immediacy and depth that print never could. The Internet is an awesome vehicle for information.

Too many journalists think of themselves as storytellers and not as journalists. People ultimately want journalism so they can be informed. I think if we concentrate on making journalism that people want, we’ll find ourselves and our industry in much better shape.

And sometimes people want great stories, but let’s not force every news item into the storytelling format.

I’ve spent the last two years producing journalism in a myriad of formats and the last year arguing for ways to modernize and make relevant journalism in the 21st century.

I’ve argued for reinventing journalism. I’ve argued for journalists to let go of everything they’ve ever known.

Ultimately, informing people is my passion. I care deeply about journalism. I hope that’s what you’ve taken home from my blog over the past year.

I don’t care so much what medium or what form it takes. I just care about giving people information. I just want to make journalism better than it is.

I’ve been presented with a great opportunity to do just that, which is why I’m joining the Beat Blogging project with NYU’s PressThinker, Jay Rosen. Together we’re trying to discover how beat reporters are pushing the practice of journalism using Web tools like blogging and social networking.

Jay is one of those professors who gets it. He understands that journalism needs to change, and he has actively been pursuing ways to modernize journalism with projects like NewAssignment.Net, AssignmentZero.com, OffTheBus.Net and, of course, BeatBlogging.Org. It’s an honor to get to work with someone who has dedicated his career to improving journalism.

This project gives me the opportunity to do just that: improve the practice by adapting it better to the Web. It’s something I really believe in. And when I believe in something, I give it my all.

David Cohn did a fantastic job of getting this project rolling. But now it’s his time to push the practice of journalism further with his start-up Spot.Us. David is the kind of person journalism needs more of — smart, dedicated, innovative and, most of all, entrepreneurial. He got the Knight Foundation to give him $340,000 for his innovative idea.

David knows the future of journalism will look nothing like the past. He is actively working to make journalism better. We all need to be.

I’ve been out of college for two years, working to produce content that people care about. But now I can finally say my career has begun, because I’ll get to spend everyday working on the next phase of journalism, adapting the core practice of journalism — reporting — to the web.

That’s what Beat Blogging is all about.  Right now, there are beat reporters rethinking what it means to be a journalist. They are using new tools to do their jobs quicker and more effectively, while also engaging their communities better. Those are the journalists we want to highlight.

Join me as I scour the World Wide Web for the people who are pushing the practice of beat reporting. It promises to be an informational and wild ride.

P.S. Check out Jay’s post about Beat Blogging, where he looks back at the project six months in. Jay lays out how the project has gone and what the future will hold.

Lost in the whole Rob Curley/LoudounExtra “flop” flap is that innovation is never easy.

Heck, six out of 10 start-ups fail within the first four years of operation (let alone individual ideas and products at a start-up). And for some reason people are using the performance of LoudounExtra.com (it’s still going by the way) to cast judgment on Curley, his ideas and hyperlocal journalism in general.

Some people are going as far to use the WSJ piece as a “told you so” to hyperlocal journalism. Some are even personally attacking Curley and calling him a fraud.

With this kind of climate, how many journalists are really going to want to try to stick their necks out and attempt some real innovation? That’s what Curley did. No one ever said innovation was easy or that it always works as planned.

Curley would probably be the first to admit that LoudounExtra could have been better. It could have served its readers better. Lessons were learned from the site.

Innovation is a bumpy road.

But that’s just the thing. Sometimes you can have a great idea with great execution and still not perform as well as you thought you would. That doesn’t make what you did a waste of time.

No one said trying to innovate and build better journalism was easy. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose.

Curley has had many successes. He’ll learn from his lessons in Washington and make better, more useful and cooler products in Las Vegas. People shouldn’t use one site as a carte blanche to dismiss everything he has ever done.

But that’s not the point of this post. This is about the restrictive culture that many journalists seem to foster right now. Jay Rosen of NYU and PressThink probably said it best about the unwillingness of many journalists to try to innovate:

News people who wonder why their industry gets creamed by Google and Yahoo are the same news people who dismiss an idea after it fails once.

Google has a culture where innovation and, gasp, failure are celebrated. To not embrace failure (or stumbling in the case of LoudounExtra) is to basically write off ever taking a risk. Even the best stumble from time to time.

The past few weeks have been filled with rumors about a new version of Apple’s wildly successful iPhone. But no talks about the iPhone’s spiritual ancestor, ???????? ????? ????????the Apple Newton. It was a failure.

The Newton has been an inspiration for much of the PDA market. Perhaps without the Newton, Apple wouldn’t have the iPhone. Everyone talks about another famous Apple product, the iPod, but how many people talk about Apple TV (or about its meager success)?

For every product Apple releases, many more prototypes never make the market. And even some of Apple’s products that do make it to the marketplace, like the Newton, end of failing. Failure has only made Apple work harder to innovate.

Failure must also make journalists work harder to innovate. Many innovative projects will fail. But we cannot allow ourselves to fear failure.

It’s fair to criticize LoudounExtra, because it didn’t go as planned, and we should learn from each other. It’s fair to point out how the project could have worked differently (no one, even Curley’s staff at WPNI is saying that LoudounExtra didn’t have faults or that they couldn’t have done things differently). It’s perfectly fair to dissect the project and what WPNI was trying to accomplish.

It’s not fair, however, to look at LoudounExtra and use it as proof that new, innovative forms of journalism aren’t possible. It’s not far to say that just because one project didn’t do well that another, similar project couldn’t succeed with some tweaking.

What happened with LoudounExtra does not reaffirm the status quo. The status quo certainly isn’t working. Journalism needs innovation.

Nor is it fair to look at the failure of other start-ups like Backfence.com and say that because of them hyperlocal journalism can’t succeed. Mark Potts, one of the founders of Backfence, has been learning from past hyperlocal attempts to try to understand what will and won’t work:

Backfence is gone, LoudounExtra is struggling, and neither Pegasus News nor Outside.In can be labeled a commercial success at this point. So what’s the right formula for hyperlocal?

I think the answer lies somewhere at the intersection of all of these models. You need sharp technology, lots of databases, aggregation of existing blogs and content, and lots of low, low-cost user-generated content. Professional content is good, too, if someone else is paying for it. You’ve got to be intensely local (LoudounExtra, by covering a 520-square-mile county, missed the boat here). And then you’ve got to market the hell out of the resulting stew, with aggressive community outreach, grassroots campaigns and, if you’re fortunate enough to be attached to traditional media, a print counterpart and the boost you get from an attached media Web site.

It’s not fair to look at every journalism start-up that falters or fails and say, “I told you so.” Many of those failures will directly lead to the successes of other start-ups in the future. Some of those failures will teach us the lessons needed to turn this industry around.

Will Sullivan is correct to point out that change doesn’t happen immediately:

Change is hard.

Trying new things at a media organization that’s claim to fame is on the Pulitzer name is especially hard.

99 percent of innovation is failing, then dusting yourself off and trying things a different way. If people in your own company aren’t interested in helping you succeed, then maybe it’s time to move on.

We all get that journalism organizations are facing tough economic times, but it is irresponsible to assume that every new idea or project that is tried will be an overnight success. Maybe even LoudounExtra will be a success if its given more time to marinate.

I’m glad to see journalists like Sullivan standing up to the parade of journalists that want Curley’s hide. I’m going to leave you with some final thoughts from entrepreneurial journalist Steve Outing:

News companies, especially, really need to inject some entrepreneurial folks into their operations. Entrepreneurs fail, learn from it, and move on. They don’t give up.

One of my good high-school friends signed up for Facebook last week.

Yes, the same Facebook that, had you listened to the digerati, has jumped the shark.

But Facebook hasn’t jumped the shark. It’s still becoming more popular and adding more features. Facebook may have jumped the shark for the kinds of people who have to try every social networking service in its alpha-invite-only stage, but it certainly hasn’t for everyday people.

It’s great to have friends who are pushing the envelope, and to be with people who are willing to try new things. I love my digerati friends. But we cannot lose sight of what the average person is doing.

When I say non-wired, I don’t mean someone without a mobile phone, computer or the Internet. But I mean people who don’t live and breathe Web 2.0. In fact, they probably don’t read Wired magazine, and isn’t that the ultimate barometer of one’s wiredness?

Let’s look at Twitter as a good example. If you just listened to bloggers and the digerati you would think that Twitter is the hottest thing going today on the Web. Oh wait, it’s jumped the shark because of frequent outages recently.

In reality, Twitter has less than 2 million users in the world. In many ways, Twitter isn’t even mainstream, let alone clones like Pownce. In comparison, Facebook has more than 70 million active users.

My friend is like the majority of Americans — high school diploma, has a computer with Internet, uses a mobile phone but doesn’t have a blog, probably doesn’t know what the hell Web 2.0 is supposed to mean (does anyone, really?) and probably has no interest in joining Twitter.

Ultimately, we have to build products that not only interest people on the cutting edge, but that also provide functionality that average person can and will want to use everyday.

For my friend, the time was right to join Facebook because its functionality made sense for him. I don’t think he’ll be joining Twitter (or FriendFeed) anytime soon.

It’s a simple question: What should news organizations stop doing, today, immediately, to make more time for innovation?

And it’s a simple answer: News organizations should stop pretending like it’s the pre-Internet days. Most news organizations are still legacy-first. Newspapers still care more about the print edition than the Web edition. Beats are still centered around making content for print edition.

The same goes for broadcast. Even the best news organizations often have separate Web staffs that produce editorial content for the Web product. But that makes no sense.

Why have two staffs to produce editorial content, when most employees could be creating content that works on multiple platforms? That’s what I mean by rethinking staff resources.

It’s simply a matter of making employees and content work for us. Duplication of work is a great way to stifle innovation, because most news organizations are under a tremendous budget crunch and can’t afford to waste resources like that.

It’s easier to go from Web-first to print than the other way around. Why? Because the Web is incredibly flexible.

It can do all sorts of content incredibly well. Print, for instance, can only do writing, and photos to an extent, well. And print even has major limitations on written content that the Web doesn’t have (arbitrary story lengths, anyone?).

Let’s take the example of a beat reporter. Some beat reporters have begun blogging, but their blogs are often treated as one more thing to do. That’s hardly a way to promote innovative content. In fact, one-more-thing syndrome is a good way to promote staff burnout.

Rather, a blog should be the heart of a beat reporters arsenal — not the 15-inch story. Any time a nugget of information comes in, a beat reporter should blog about it (or post to Twitter or both). As news comes in a blogger can either add to his original post or make a new post.

Twitter updates take seconds to write, but make fantastic notes for longer written pieces later on. This keeps readers updated and interested.

At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, it will be a lot easier to put together a 15-inch story. A beat reporter will already have notes (Twitter is great for this) and several post of content to work with.

But imagine the reverse scenario. A beat reporter concentrates on producing copy for the print edition first. This means no meaningful content will be posted until a story is completed for the print edition (or stories). This also means the story may be an aribitrary length to fit print needs — not the story’s needs. Many beat reporters who operate like this will occasionally dump smaller news items into their blogs.

When people ask “how can we make more time for innovation,” it’s really more about using time more wisely than about making more time. Think about it. Blogging and Twitter are naturally mobile friendly, which saves us even more time while reaching an even broader audience.

That’s another bird killed with the same stone. Any good blog has at least one RSS feed (if not multiple ones for comments and sometimes categories). Google Reader is a fantastic (and free) mobile RSS reader. Without doing any extra work your content is already mobile friendly.

And I don’t have to explain how ridiculously mobile friendly Twitter is. So, now a beat reporter isn’t actually doing any extra work, but he is hitting the Web and mobile with full force. And because of the way blogging and Twitter work, it’s extremely easy to make a print story from all writing that has already been done.

We need to make our content work for us. This means making our content smarter and rethinking how we us staff resources in news organizations.

This is my May post for the Carnival of Journalism. It is currently hosted by Ryan Sholin over at Invisible Inkling.

Amy Gahran has a fantastic blog post about a possible toxic culture forming at many journalism organizations and within the field of journalism.

I highly recommend you read Amy’s post and think about it. What she is basically saying is that many journalists are overcome by hubris or a journalistic arrogance, as Sam Zell put it. Those toxic journalists believe that they alone can produce good journalism, and they believe only established media outlets can produce journalism.

Obviously, attitudes like that are not helping journalism. We only have to look at insurgent operations like Politico, TechCrunch, Talking Points Memo, etc, etc, etc to see that this is simply not true.

I’ll add a few more toxic ideas from journalists to append Amy’s list.

1) We are the gatekeepers — This is the No. 1 reason why user-generated content is not taken seriously at news organizations. Yes, some UGC is corny and stupid, but other UGC is impact and powerful. UGC is sometimes the best way to report on disasters, as we saw with 9/11 and the recent disasters in Myanmar and China.

This is a major reason why most newspapers don’t accept photos from events like high school sports. But what’s the point in trying to send a photographer to ever high school sport to snap a few shots, when every high school game has several parents who take hundred of photos? We should harness that power. Everyone would be better served with a partnership like that.

This ultimately stems from the belief that only journalists can produce meaningful content. That is demonstrably false.

2) Someone else should be responsible for my training — Most of us did not have an employer pay for our education. So, why are so many journalists moaning that they would get with the program if only “someone would pay for me to get training?”

Listen, you’re in a dying industry (at least what we used to know of journalism). Layoffs and buy-outs are all around you. Do you think having a passive attitude is going to save your career? Hell no.

Journalism needs doers. Journalism needs thinkers. Journalism needs go getters.

Plus, even the most expensive account at Lynda.com is only $400 a year. That’s nothing, and you can learn a ton of really useful stuff in a year from that site.

3) The public needs to be better educated to appreciate our greatness – This one comes courtesy of @kev097 on Twitter (Kevin Koehler). Basically many journalists believe that if more people had educations and read more and understand the world more and blah, blah, blah they would appreciate newspapers more.

The issue — as many journalists see it — is that people are not smart enough to appreciate journalism. You know, the journalism that many journalists insist on giving us, regardless if we want it or if it is useful.

But here is the funny thing: First, many journalists are not exactly pushing the digital envelope. Many journalists are behind the average American when it comes to technology and Internet adoption. I still hear about how a lot of journalists don’t see the need to get Internet access at home. I had an editor in the last year (freelance work) who didn’t even have an e-mail address. I always had to call him on the phone (what?).

Who is the non-educated one now? Plus, journalism was never a field where having a college education was a necessity. The idea that journalists are somehow smarter, better educated and more learned than the average media consumer is ridiculous.

The problem is us. It’s never the consumer. That’s business 101.

Amy sees the changes in journalism as positive for not only our audiences, but also for journalists:

The way I see it (and I’m far from alone in this view), right now is a time of immense opportunity for journalism and journalists to take on a broader and even more vital role in society. It’s a chance for journalists to not only continue doing good work, but maybe also to have more impact than ever before. If they can make this progress within updated, adapted news organizations, fine. But if not, they can find ways to do it independently, collaboratively or by founding new supporting institutions or businesses.

Plus, new approaches to journalism can simply be more fun. As a group, journalists don’t seem to have nearly enough fun. In particular, engaging directly with your community can be fun and rewarding. Learning to monitor and improve the spread and impact of your work can be fun. And the process of learning anything new at all also can be a lot of fun. In fact, that basic craving for continual learning is what drew many of us to journalism in the first place. Remember that?

Paula Froke has jumped headfirst into the world of online and multimedia journalism with her upstart blog, Paula’s Adventures in Multimedia.

While she may not have been born a digital native, she has quickly become an enthusiastic adopter. And as the Deputy National Editor for the AP, she is a manager, not a content producer. So she doesn’t have to learn all this stuff, but she has anyway.

That’s the kind of manager journalism needs. Her blog is helping to inspire other mid-career journalists to try new things. Paula’s blog has been making its way around the journalism blogosphere, and people like Mindy McAdams have been impressed with her work and spirit:

I’m also in love with a new blog called Paula’s Adventures in Multimedia. Paula is a journalist somewhere, I don’t know where, but she’s taking us along for the ride while she and her colleagues learn to make slideshows and do podcasts and shoot video — and it’s really fun!

Below you’ll find an interview I had with Paula recently. The cliff notes of it is this: Learning multimedia and online journalism is fun and not nearly as difficult as you think.

1) I know your time at Poynter in January was one of the inspirations for starting your blog. What were your multimedia skills prior to then?

After 23 years as a print-only editor, I got my feet wet last year by shooting — but not editing — one video and producing one podcast, both as introductory training efforts in what was then our multimedia service for younger readers. That inspired me to buy an HD camcorder and a new laptop. Then I taught myself basic video editing with iMovie and did a couple of personal videos. Howard Owens’ list of 2008 objectives for non-wired journalists gave me more ideas and goals, and that combined with Poynter kicked everything into higher gear at the beginning of this year. Literally. I wanted to start the year off well, so I shot a personal video on Jan. 1, edited it on Jan. 2, and uploaded it to YouTube — a major thrill.

2) What are your multimedia skills today?

My skills are still relatively rudimentary, but I’m confident that if time and my position allowed, I could fairly easily shoot and edit an acceptable news video for Web publication (with iMovie; I still need to tackle Final Cut). I was astonished and delighted when a complete stranger saw one of my personal videos and asked me to produce a video of him for entry in a reality show contest (I declined — I’m not THAT confident — but now he’s trying again and wants me to do part of it.) I could produce audio slideshows and podcasts, again if time and circumstances allowed. I certainly have a far, far greater understanding and appreciation of the power of all of these formats.

3) Why did you end up starting your blog?

I supervise traditional print editors whose job as it’s now defined involves being appreciative of other forms of journalism done in our other departments, but not actually doing it themselves. Like me, I think they were both intrigued and intimidated by the possibilities of the evolving world of journalism — but weren’t at all sure how to get started themselves. As I gained more comfort and appreciation through what I was learning on my own, I wanted a way to share that with everyone on the staff. A blog seemed ideal — I could talk about it in a casual way, and have a multimedia format with which to share the results of my own efforts and theirs. It’s given me a chance to take a “learn as I learn” and “if *I* can do it, you can too” approach and to encourage them to learn in a low-key, fun kind of way. I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m willing to look foolish for the sake of learning, and I think that’s helped. It also gives me a way to let them do guest posts and share their own video, slideshow, podcast and Web site creation efforts.

4) What’s the biggest thing you have learned from it?

How fun, fulfilling and liberating this kind of work is. It’s been absolutely fascinating to learn how to convey stories in ways far beyond what I’ve done all my life. A second thing: There is, in fact, a fair amount of crossover among the formats. A lot, though certainly not all, of what makes a good story and what’s required of a good editor and a good reporter is similar from format to format: compelling detail and quotes, vivid color, strong drama, cohesive structure, and of course, accuracy, integrity and ethics. I think the more you learn in each format, the better you get in all of them.

5) How hard was it to set up your blog and begin producing multimedia content?

The blog itself was remarkably easy to set up. I did it literally in between bites of pasta while hovering over my laptop in the kitchen the night I returned from Poynter. Once I got the idea in my head, I was so excited about it that I just plunged in. After that I just kept plunging. For better or worse, I took a scattershot approach — delve a little into video, a little into audio, a little into HTML, invite others on the staff to share what they’re learning … the result was something not at all structured and therefore perhaps not all that instructive or helpful. On the other hand, it is indeed a recounting of what I learn as I learn it, and I think there’s something to be said for getting a broad exposure to as much as you can in the early goings.

6) How do you see your new skills impacting your journalism career?

They certainly open up a lot more possibilities in every area — as a manager, as an editor and as a multi-format reporter. I mean possibilities for me personally, and possibilities for far more meaningful journalism reaching and touching a far wider audience. It’s extremely exciting.

7) Do you have any advice for mid-career journalists looking to learn new online/multimedia skills?

Short answer: Just do it. And have fun.

Longer answer: While I took a wide-ranging approach, it might be more reasonable to pick one area that’s especially appealing to you, whether it’s creating a personal Web site, starting a blog and uploading photos to it, borrowing a camera and shooting some video, doing a podcast or whatever. Find a knowledgeable co-worker or friend or a cheap intro course — for instance, whatever the local Apple store offers, even if you don’t have a Mac! — to help get you started. Take advantage of a wealth of online resources for tips and techniques. Consider tapping into your personal life for opportunities to practice — I’ve been doing videos of New York Cycle Club rides, which give me plenty of chances to work on shooting and editing. Don’t be afraid to look silly or to fail. Seek feedback from others. Study the work of those who excel at this. And — have fun.