Category Archives: social networks

Social media IS engaging in the political process

I have a voice. You have a voice. Everyone using the Internet to connect with people all over the world has a voice.

We deserve to be heard.

Social media is amplifying that voice, letting us reach people and institutions like never before. Smart companies and individuals have leveraged social media to connect with more people than ever before.

But this week I had a local politician tell me my voice didn’t matter. I didn’t show up for a public hearing, and thus what I have to say — while publicly — isn’t the same. But he wasn’t just talking to me. No, he was saying that anyone who engages him on his official Twitter and Facebook accounts isn’t really engaging in the political process.

I have to ask, why would you even be on social media then? The idea being social media is to engage people.

So, what was this hearing about and why wasn’t I there? For several years now, a small but vocal minority has been trying to get a pedestrian bridge built from a parking garage to a new library under construction in downtown Silver Spring. All pedetrian bridges were expressly forbidden by CBD Urban Renewal Plan and the proposal has been voted down before. But this vocal minority won’t rest, and thus we have more hearings.

The reason I — and almost everyone else who lives in Silver Spring — wasn’t at the meeting was that the meeting was in Rockville, Maryland, at least a 30 minute drive from the proposed spot of this bridge. Why would that be? Well, to officially engage in the official process one must travel to the official place of politics, which is Rockville, the county seat of Montgomery County, Maryland.

I don’t own a car, and many people who live in the area don’t either. Silver Spring has great public transportation and is increasingly becoming more walkable (that public transportation is much better to get between Silver Spring and DC, Arlington and Alexandria. Getting to Rockville isn’t quite as easy). This is one reason why so many people in the area are against a bridge that’s designed to serve car drivers from outside of the area at the expense of local residents.

You might understand then why I was a little bit upset when one of my local politicians wrote this:

“I agree that social media has its benefits but I don’t think it substitutes for actually engaging in the process.”

How is reaching out to an elected representative to personally — and publicly — engage in a dialogue about issues not engaging in the process? Why does showing up for “official hearings” the only way to engage in the process?

This is archaic and a great way to keep people disinterested in politics. Local politicians count on low turnout at “official” events to justify decisions. “If you were so against this bridge being built in your town, how come you didn’t show up to this other town while you were working to voice your opposition to it?” As polarscribe said on Twitter, “brilliant, nobody under 50 matters.”

It is true that the way politics are conducted — especially at the local level — the process is largely aimed at older constituents. There are formal hearings held at times that younger people are often working or trying to raise their families. The idea that social media isn’t a way to engage in the political process will only further keep younger voters disinterested in politics.

But social media is popular with older cohorts too. The Internet is popular with everyone. The only thing I see old about this is how many politicians act like it’s the 1980s still.

The Internet is a transformative technology. It’s one of the biggest inventions in human history. It has the power to make the political process more transparent, open and inviting.

Let it. Embrace the Internet. Embrace social media.

Social media can help liberate the Arab world, but it can’t help me reach my local politicians? Social media can’t help me explain to my politicians why I would be against a $1.5 million bridge to serve car drivers over those of us who live in the area, while the county has had to make huge cuts to close a $779 million budget gap? That’s ridiculous.

Before Silver Spring was redeveloped and given a walkable core, it was economically depressed. The urban renewal plan forbade pedestrian bridges (also know as skywalks) because they are precisely the kind of thing that leads to an urban area becoming blighted. These bridges are built to get people off the streets, which allows cars to move faster. These areas become opening hostile to people on foot and to ground-level business activity.

My hometown of Cleveland, Ohio has them and many depressed rust belt cities do too. These cities are hemoraging residents left and right because they are little more than places for suburban commuters to work in and watch sporting events in. To the immediate residents of downtown Silver Spring, building pedestrian bridges to serve commuters from elsewhere in the county is a great way to throw Silver Spring back into the economic depression it emerged from.

Bridge proponents are pushing for the bridge under the guise of accessibility for the disabled. The argument goes that disabled people that drive to the library can’t be expected to use crosswalks on the ground level, and thus we should build a pedestrian bridge to make it easier to cross. One person even suggested that this bridge needs to be built because this library houses materials for the visually impaired.

Obviously, this is a ruse, because no one wants to admit that they support this bridge because they don’t want to step foot on the sidewalks of Silver Spring. Yes, some disabled people do drive. I would submit that the visually impaired do not.

I have several disabled people in my condo building, and downtown Silver Spring has a lot of disabled people because it’s not car-dependent. There are ample sidewalks, ramps and curb cuts. Many of these people do not drive, but they are able to live full lives because they live in an area that makes it easy to get around without a car.

To recap: A local politician said that the only way to engage in the official political process about a bridge for the disabled in the city I live in was to somehow travel to another city to discuss it. And not being unable to make the meeting and instead sending him messages via social media does not count as engaging in the political process.

How accessible.

To every Montgomery County politician reading this blog, I am against the pedestrian bridge to the new Silver Spring library. The people who live in the immediate area largely agree. I’m going to send you tweets, Facebook messages, e-mails, phone calls.

This blog post is written in ink far more permanent than any faxed or mailed letter ever could be. It’s public and people have the power to share it and comment on it. If I wasn’t serious about this issue, I wouldn’t have written something so public, so permanent.

I may never make it to a hearing in Rockville, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a voice. Or a vote.

We have a voice

We will be heard.

Followers (or fans or friends) are not all created equal

It’s easy to get followers; it’s hard to get good followers. Be patient.

There are a bunch of tools to get people and organizations a mass of Twitter followers quickly. But raw numbers won’t help you. What your organization needs are followers that actually care about your product and want to interact with you.

That’s why I advocate slow, organic growth. Don’t go around mass following people (in the hopes that they will follow you back). Only follow people that you want to interact with and that would be interested in your organization or product.

Most importantly, create a quality experience on social media that will get people to interact with you, retweet you, link to you, talk about you and tell their friends about you. That’s the best way to get organic growth.

For instance, for our RarePlanet Twitter account, I only follow people and organizations who are involved with conservation or environmentalism or who are interested in them. We do not follow random people to artificially boost our follower account. We only follow people and organizations that we want to be social with and that would want to be social with us.

We’re also looking at ways to be as interactive as possible and be an experience that people find useful and that they look forward to. Our work on social media should be a positive for our followers/fans/friends or would-be followers/fans/friends.

We’ve had steady growth over the last few months, but what I’m more concerned about is our follower-to-listed ratio. There are people out there who have thousands of followers and are on very few lists. What this tells me is that the people following them back don’t know much about them and don’t care to know more either. When people put you on a list, they know enough about you to categorize what you do and they care enough about what you do to go through the process of categorizing you.

That’s big. Our follower-to-listed ratio is somewhere around 9 followers for every list we are on (it has been even stronger in the past). Many people and organizations that just randomly follow people have ratios north of 100-1. What does that say about the quality of the community that they are building?

Rare is a small organization that is only really known within the conservation community. We couldn’t just create a Twitter and Facebook account like a large organization and watch as followers and fans came in. We had to make our presence known, but I didn’t want to do it in a disingenuous or spammy way.

My plan (and it’s a plan that I think would work well for other small, less-known non-profits) is to provide a quality experience every day on Twitter and Facebook that isn’t just about the work that we do. We want to talk about what the larger conservation and environmental communities are up to, and we want to be a part of those communities on social media.

I also look through lists of people that I trust in the conversation and environmental space and find people to follow that I think we should connect with. I’m trying to following my 10-5 rule, which is that for every 10 posts that are talking at people (links to cool stories, videos, photos, blog posts from around the Web or work that we are doing) or asking people questions, we should have at least five tweets that are @replies to people we are following.

Do you have any tips to share about connecting with people on social media?

It’s not personal — it’s just Twitter

We don’t have to follow each other on Twitter, and it’s not poor form if I don’t follow you back or vice versa.

That’s the point of followers and followees and not friends. It’s not a connection like Facebook or LinkedIn. Just because I follow you doesn’t mean you are required to follow me back, nor do I feel snubbed if you don’t.

And if I don’t follow you back, take no personal offense, because I mean none. It’s just Twitter.

The power of Twitter is in having people create their own personal networks of people they follow. We each have different reasons why we follow people or we choose not to follow people. The main people I follow, for instance, are journalists, but they aren’t the only people I follow.

I also follow social media types, bloggers, podcasters, tech people and other people who interest me. The thing is, they might not be interested in my predominately journalism-centric tweets (often journalism + social media and new media). I get that.

Conversely, I get people following me who are interested in how I go about social media (which is distinct from my thoughts on social media) and the links I post about social media. What they tweet about, may have little interest to me and my goals. We all have different reasons for why we might want to follow someone.

I follow Starbucks, Zappos and other companies on Twitter. I don’t expect them to follow me back. I follow them not because I like their products, but because I want to see how they go about social networking. I can learn from what they do.

So, while I don’t care what they tweet about, I am very interested in how they go about tweeting. Other people may follow these companies because they are interested in the content of the tweets themselves and their products.

I have two different twitter accounts that I work on — @jiconoclast and @beatblogging. There is some overlap in the people who follow those, but for the most part I have different followers on each. That make sense, because each account has a unique purpose. Understanding why people follow people on Twitter, will help you understand why it’s not personal, it’s just Twitter.

There are others reasons why I may not follow you back:

Not having a profile — If I don’t know who you are, and you don’t have a descriptive profile (with link to personal site), I’m probably not going to follow you.
You haven’t updated yet — I don’t follow people who haven’t even taken the time to post one tweet or make a profile. Now, I might be interested in what you have to say, but I have nothing to go on. The first thing you should do when you join Twitter is make a profile, and the second thing you should do is start tweeting. Then start following people. Do not reverse this order!
Your updates are protected — If I know who you are this isn’t an issue, but if I have no idea who you are and your tweets are protected, why would I follow you? I wouldn’t. I need something — anything — to go on. A good way to give me something to go on is to tweet @ me in response to something I tweet. That gives me something.
Be a spammer — This should go without saying, but it must be said. Even if you aren’t a malicious spammer, I won’t follow you. You have to offer me something more than just marketing yourself. Some of the worst offenders are news organizations with their Twitter feeds filled with links to their own content — and nothing else. Um, hello, that’s what RSS is for.

News site needs new, innovative user interfaces

We can all agree that the Web is a vastly different medium than print.

Which is why I can’t understand why almost every news site tries to emulate the user interface of a newspaper. The mediums are nothing alike, and they each have much different strengths and weaknesses. Why are we still making dynamic Web sites that try to mimic static news print?

A user interface can be often be the single most important decision in the life of a Web site. News organizations need to take this decision more seriously and need to rethink everything.

I have plenty of “radical” UI concepts in my head. These concepts are only radical to people working at news organizations who seem hell bent on trying to emulate newspapers. Today, I’m going to talk about two of my UI concepts that are considerably different than what news organizations are doing today.

The social news feed

This concept is inspired by Facebook. The Facebook news feed helps users stay up-to-date on their friends, and is the first place most users check when they log in. Every day I find interesting links left by my friends on Facebook, and without the news feed, I would use Facebook far less.

Which directly leads me to why this concept needs to be explored by news organizations. Every news site should be social and allow users to connect with each other. Every day I find content via my friends on Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed and other social networks. Imagine, for instance, if WashingtonPost.com was built around a social networking model.

Instead of being greeted by a front page with stories selected by a bunch of people who I don’t know and who don’t know me, I would be greeted by the content that my select group of friends liked. And my friends could include people who worked at the Post. Every Post employee would be required to be a member of the site (and thus their professional produced content could show up in people’s feeds).

I could follow a photographer’s photos, a writer’s stories and a columnist’s columns. I could also follow my friends blogs, photos, videos and other user generated content. Heck, I could also choose to put the Post’s headlines in my news feed as they come online (or individual sections).

As long as the Post updates its site constantly throughout the day, instead of dumping content all at once, my news feed would be a nice mix of content from the Post and from my friends in the Washington area. The problem, however, with the Post’s Web site is that I’m greeted by the same exact homepage as everyone else.

But we’re not the same. None of us is exactly the same. Our Facebook home pages, however, are entirely unique.

When you think about it, what is at the core of most news organizations? Geography. I read The Washington Post because I live in the Washington region.

I would never sign up for the LA Times Web site. I would only consume content on that site because someone linked me to it, not because it’s a part of my daily routine.

The best way to make a given geographic location come alive on the Web — a niche — is to form a social network that allows people of that geographic area to connect with each other. So, let’s really hammer home what WashingtonPost.com should be like when we log in.

There should be a feed with the latest content, links, etc from my friends and Post headlines (if I choose this last option. I could also say I only want headlines from local news and sports, for instance. Maybe I just want political stories in my feed). This will be a mixture of original content produced by my friends (who might be employees of the Post), links to content that my friends like on the Post Web site and links to content that my friends like from around the Web.

The homepage should also tell me if I have messages from my friends, requests or any other interactions I should check out. It would also display the comics, cross word puzzles and games I want to consume and play on the site. Beyond that, I should get an update on what’s happening in my groups. Let’s call these Post Groups for posterity sake.

These are user generated groups. I live in Silver Spring. There could be a group formed for citizens of Silver Spring to discuss what’s happening in our area, post photos, blog items and add to the overall coverage and understanding of this area. Heck, there could be a group for my apartment building and the street I live on.

There could be groups for local sports teams, PTAs, city councils, etc — whatever really. If the Post wants to be a guide to the Washington area, it has to let the people guide it. These Post Groups would help greatly increase engagement on the Post site.

At its core, Facebook is a tool. At its core, WashingtonPost.com is a news site. There is a reason I check out Facebook way more than WashingtonPost.com. It’s because a tool becomes part of my life and routine, whereas a news site is only something I check when I actively want to consume news from that site.

The desire to consume news from a single source fades in and out of consciousness. Much of the content on a given news site can be consumed elsewhere. There is no direct reason to tie me into a single news site.

There really is only one Facebook (MySpace and Facebook are distinct). There is really only one Twitter (name any other micro blogging site that has taken off like it has). Those sites have got me locked in, but no news site has (some news aggregators have, however).

I would consume far more news content on WashingtonPost.com if the site itself was a tool. I read more news stories from Twitter than I do from WashingtonPost.com. The people I have chosen to follow on Twitter often link to some great content.

It’s content that speaks to me, and the links that show up in my Twitter feed are very useful. After all, I’ve chosen to follow these people for a reason. But Twitter is also a tool that I use and enjoy.

I go Twitter first and foremost because it’s a tool for interacting with people, and I use it for my job. But along the way, links pop up in my Twitter feed. WashingtonPost.com would get far more traffic if it became an indispensable tool that people felt compelled to check multiple times a day.

Along the way, I would surely consume more content for the Post. My Post feed would have content that interests me, group members would be linking to quality Post content and I would be checking around Post.com a lot more because I was already there for other purposes.

Now, this doesn’t mean this is the only way news would be presented on WashingtonPost.com. There would still be a standard looking news site UI for non-members (these people obviously don’t have friends on the site), and many people wouldn’t be into the news feed UI concept (mostly older people that aren’t into social media).

Still, WashingtonPost.com and most news sites could do a better job at the very UI they are trying to master. ESPN.com’s recent redesign was mostly an effort to understand that less is more. It does a better job of displaying content, while confusing people a lot less.

Guess who would love the news feed UI? Precisely the people that news organizations have trouble connecting with — younger generations. Facebook is a part of my daily life. So is Twitter. So is Google Reader (love the recommended items from my friends on Google Reader).

There is no traditional news site that is a part of my daily life. All the sites that are a part of my daily life are tools. They all allow me to connect with people.

News sites are very poor at allowing people to connect with each other and to form social bonds and groups. This must change ASAP.

The other great part of the news feed UI concept is that it doesn’t take daily effort on the part of news organization. It’s dynamically created for each user by the Web site itself.

The world view

GlobalPost just launched today, and I knew before I went there that it had a standard UI. There is nothing that the founders said about the site that lead me to believe that they would be trying something radical or unique when it came to the Web site itself. You can read and hear all about the vision for GlobalPost.com here.

I’m deeply disappointed in this UI. Not because it’s worse than a normal news site UI, but because I really feel like they missed an incredible opportunity to create a very unique UI that it seems to me would jump out to any one who thinks critically about what GlobalPost aspires to be.

The main UI for this site should be a dynamic map or globe of the world (I say main, because there is no reason we can’t have multiple UIs. As RSS becomes more popular, an RSS feed should be thought of as a malleable UI option). As new content is produced from various correspondents, it should pop up on the map with a pin point. People could mouse over this pin point, read a brief about the content (what it’s about, what kind of content, etc). and then decide whether or not to click to consume more.

GlobalPost tries some of these concepts, but it insists on leading with old, outdated UI concepts. There are some map concepts on the site, like here, but they seem more tacked on as a visual gimmick than a re-conceptualizing of the UI. And there is nothing dynamic about their map content

This map/globe concept obviously must be taken further. Let’s say I wanted to learn more about Iraq. I could go to the Middle East and then click on Iraq and have its provinces and cities show up. I could then view content by smaller geographic locations and see where the latest content came from.

Instead of being a UI gimmick, the map can also have layers of data. One would be the base layer with provinces and cities. Another layer would show population breakdowns around the county. Another would show ethic and religious breakdowns of the population around the country. Another would show what kind of industries each area had and so on.

You would think a site like GlobalPost would focus heavily on cartography. How can you really show the true story of a country without good maps with good data? The answer is you can’t.

GlobalPost seems to have a blog UI concept that has many newspaper-qualities to it. This UI fails for anything but written content. GlobalPost has a timeline of key events for some countries, but the UI of the site makes the timelines hard to use.

GlobalPost seems to want to include some encyclopedia content, which is great. I think they should try to include a lot of this kind of content. It should be be a site where people can learn in depth the back story and current story about a nation.

Right now, GlobalPost has rudimentary back story content (far less than, say, Wikipedia). That must change. And using a UI that has a great map/globe will greatly help tell that back story.

Besides the map/globe concept, GlobalPost could have lists of the latest content from each region. Are these simple lists really that much worse than the current GlobalPost design? Also, GlobalPost needs much stronger — and unique — individual pages for each country.

Here is my advice to the new GlobalPost.com:

More back story — It’s nice hat you included information about countries, like population, GDP and the other basics, but you need more. GlobalPost should have more information than the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia combined about a given country. Tell the real back story of a country. Make this site a great resource for students and others in need of quality research. When people want to know more about a foreign country, the first place they should think to turn to is GlobalPost.com.
Rethink the UI — A quick glance at this site leads me to believe it was made with either WordPress or Drupal. Why? Because it looks like virtually every other news/blog hybrid. The thing is GlobalPost is a pretty unique vision. How many other news organizations — let alone blogs — want to do what you do? It’s a unique site with a unique vision. It deserves a unique UI.
Drop the gimmicks — The rudimentary map concepts feel gimmicky. Either use a map/globe metaphor to provide a better user experience or drop the concept all together. Sometimes compromise really means just compromising your whole operation.
Breathing room — The timeline of key events is a good idea. I’m not sure, however, why it has to be crammed into such a small place. This poor UI decision is hampering an otherwise good idea. Don’t be afraid to have more than one page template to display content.

The final world

These two UI concepts are radically different? Why? Because they are vastly different news operations. A UI should be tailored to a site’s needs and vision.

The Washington Post wants to think of itself as a guide to everything Washington. That’s why WashingtonPost.com needs to get social and have a news feed ala Facebook.

GlobalPost wants to be a resource for information both past and present about select countries in the world (maybe one day expand to virtually all countries). Well, it needs a UI that is tailored to presenting information about geographic areas. GlobalPost.com screams for a more visual UI than the site has — a UI that could help paint a better picture for users.

Now, each site could have more than one UI. Both could have a standard UI (and the Post would need one for non-members). But both sites really need a much more dynamic, lead UI.

GlobalPost is a 2009 news startup. Why is it so heavily focused on text? That boggles my mind.

It worried me when almost everyone brought on board at GlobalPost was an older, ex-newspaper person. I thought they would need some Web people to shake things up a bit and provide some strong Web guidance. My worries seem justified in the lack of innovation the site currently displays.

Maybe they are just in a beta stage right now, but they need to really re-think things fast. I’m a foreign news junkie, and I’m not sold on GlobalPost.com. That’s a problem.

I haven’t seen or heard much in the news industry that leads me to believe we’ll see radical, innovative UIs anytime soon. Most of the people making the decisions are the old guard. They aren’t Web first people, and they just want to emulate their favorite medium — print — on the Web.

Most consultants are former newspaper people too. We can’t honestly expect these people to come up with UIs that will appeal to younger generations or to come up with UIs that will greatly increase engagement, traffic and time spent on Web sites.

Age is not the core issue, but most news operations are lead by older — mostly male — people, and they develop products to fit their own sensibilities. Some of these people — those who pine for the past — need to retire or get out of the way. They simply don’t have the ideas or the leadership to revolutionize news organizations.

And nothing short of a revolution is going to save most news organizations.

Social is the key part of social media

With more journalists jumping on the social media bandwagon, it’s good to remind people that the key word in social media is social and not media.

Traditional journalists are used to a one-to-many publishing approach. They are used to being arbiters of what information gets disseminated. They are used to pushing information to people but not accepting it.

That’s fine for a print world. Print is a one-way medium. Nothing wrong with that.

But social media is really about being social. It means interacting with people. It means two-way communication. And it means journalists no longer control what and how information is disseminated.

Social media is not yet another place to push content onto. It’s not a repository for content from another medium. It’s its own medium.

It deserves — no demands — its own content. Social media can be a great way to connect with users. It can also be a great way to build a network of sources.

Beat blogging is all about using social media, blogs and other Web tools to build a larger network of sources. Beat blogging is a give and take. It requires journalists who are willing to interact with people and provide users with a service.

Social media can really help journalists report better. I think it can help make our jobs easier. But only if we are social on social media.

Being social comes down to interacting with people. It means not always using social media solely for work purposes. Now, I’m not sure if all editors and publishers are comfortable with this approach.

I think many newsroom managers want their reporters to get on social media to help disseminate existing content. I also think many newsroom managers are just jumping on the bandwagon to help save their careers (they hear people talking about Twitter and decree that their employees need to get on it). But journalists and journalism would greatly benefit from people understanding how to best use social media before attempting to use it.

News organizations need to have concrete plans for what they hope to accomplish with social media. Once that’s established, they can then look at which tools make sense for their organizations and individual employees (I’d never recommend the same tools for all employees).

A news organization wouldn’t seriously get into blogging without a blogging editor to help journalists out. Nor should news organizations decree that employees get on social media without guidance and without at least one point person to guide them.

Some simple tips for news organizations who want to get on social media:

Form a concrete plan before attempting social media as a news organization. You have to be able to answer, “What do you hope to accomplish with social media?” If you can’t answer that, how will you know what to do with social media? You won’t.
Under no circumstances should you encourage employees to experiment with social media for work purposes without giving them clear guidelines as to what is and is not appropriate. Somebody will mess up.
Don’t force everyone onto social media. Not all employees will be good at it. It is what it is.
One size does not fit all. Twitter might make sense for one beat, while YouTube for another. Maybe Flickr would be great for your photo staff, but it may make a lot less sense for your cops reporter. This is where a plan comes in handy.
Ideally, you should have a social media editor (could be combined with the blog editor as both are social platforms). If you want social media to be an important part of what your news organization does, you should have someone in charge of your vision for social media. This person should observe what employees do, provide advice and be a go-to person for questions.

Here are two great podcasts about newsrooms conducting social media and beat blogging training.

Twitter is a great learning tool

Twitter is a great place to learn.

Don’t believe me? Spend a few hours following knowledgeable people (creating a good network is the key to success on Twitter).

Ask a question. See the responses you get. I started a podcast at BeatBlogging.Org a few months ago, and before I started, I asked my Twitter followers for advice.

What’s the best way to cheaply interview people around the country? What’s good recording software? Where should I host my podcast?

I got lots of suggestions. Twitter allowed me to start my podcast in no time, and I got good advice on what to try and what to avoid. Because of this, BeatBlogging.Org hit the ground running with a great podcast.

No expensive consultants needed. Check out my latest post on Wired Journalists about how to quickly, easily and cheaply start a podcast. Thank my Twitter followers after you read it.

My Twitter community (everyone’s is different) is always helping me by answering questions and posting informative links. It makes my life and job so much easier.

The level of noise in your Twitter feed is directly related to who you choose to follow. It’s not personal. It’s Twitter.

And the caliber of responses you get back is directly related to the caliber of tweets you make. Want knowledgeable followers? Create value for your followers.

Tweet informative links. Start conversations on Twitter. Respond to people when they ask questions.

Twitter is ultimately all about community. The quality of your Twitter community depends on whether or not you really want to be a part of a community. If you only use Twitter for marketing of content that you create elsewhere, you’ll lose out on a lot of what Twitter is really all about.

I would encourage all journalists to get on Twitter. Trust me, you’ll learn a lot.

Jay Mariotti made the right decision to leave the Sun-Times

The real question is why he stuck around so long.

If fact, I don’t understand why any star print columnist or beat reporter doesn’t just start his or her own Web site. The Dallas Cowboys Blog for The Dallas Morning news can get hundreds of thousands of page views in one day. And that’s without a really good beat blog that really harnesses the power of the Web and social networking.

Imagine the possibilities. More on that in a minute.

Mariotti threw a few bombs on his way out, including about how he believes that newspapers are dying and how the future is on the Web. He is absolutely correct, however.

First, let’s look at Mariotti’s claim that newspapers are dying. Vin Crosbie believes more than half of today’s 1,439 daily newspapers in the U.S. won’t exist by the end of the next decade. In fact, the Sun-Times is a prime candidate to not be around much longer.

The Sun-Times Media Group was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. That doesn’t happen for being too good. It happens when a stock falls below the minimum trading value.

Despite what many curmudgeons would like to believe and like to have you believe, newspapers are not in a cyclical down period. Many are about to be down for the count.

For a sports columnist like Mariotti, there is little incentive to stay in print. He can make more money in other mediums that have less turmoil.

Many of the best sports writers like Rick Reilly are being bought up by ESPN (for $3 million a year), Yahoo!, CBS Sportsline and other Web sites. Before the Web, print — especially newspapers– was just about the only place for a star columnist to work.

Because of the monopolies that newspapers had, columnists were at the mercy of newspapers. That has flipped with the Web. Now anyone can be their own publisher and become successful like Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.

I’m sure Mariotti was well paid by newspaper standards, but those standards aren’t very high (and just a fraction of Reilly’s new salary). Frankly, the standards of most newspaper Web sites aren’t very high either, which is one major reason why Mariotti left the Sun-Times:

To showcase your work … you need a stellar Web site and if a newspaper doesn’t have that, you can’t be stuck in the 20th century with your old newspaper.

If I were Mariotti, I’d start my own Web site and post my work there. Yes, he could go work for ESPN full time like many of his former print colleagues have, but then you are at the mercy of ESPN, which is notorious for being overbearing and controlling. Or he could join an online-only sports site.

But why bother? If I were Mariotti, I’d focus on building my own brand with my own Web site and social networking presence. With the right technical help, he could have a kick-ass WordPress installation, where he can publish his latest thoughts about whatever, whenever. He could also embed video clips, build interactive features, have a weekly podcast, interact with users and do all sorts of things that he couldn’t do at the Sun-Times.

Plus, his Web presence would be very 21st century, unlike the Sun-Times. If you’re a columnist, imagine a site that has all of your posts tagged, so that users can quickly and easily discover content. One of the most frustrating aspects of newspaper Web sites is the disarray that is their archives.

And most newspaper Web sites are unsearchable. So many page views are lost because of these technical deficiencies that a basic, free WordPress install doesn’t have.

I’d also start a Twitter account and begin building a fan base with strong user interaction. I would, of course, interact with users on my beat blog as well. Then I’d look into other social networking opportunities.

This is what Mariotti and any sports writer needs to get started: a laptop with a Web cam for video columns, a smart phone, a beat blog (WordPress is a great option), Google Apps for mail and word processing, a Twitter account and Viddler/YouTube and Seesmic accounts to put that Web cam to use.

He probably already has a laptop and smart phone. The Web technology I listed is all free. The only things that will cost money are the domain name (about $10 a year), hosting (might only be hundreds a year) and probably some technical and consulting help to set this all up.

Mariotti, if you’re reading this, start a beat blog. Don’t wait.

We have already seen a lot of top sports writing talent leave for ESPN.com, Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sportsline and others in the past year. I think the exodus of sports writing talent from traditional print publications is just beginning, because not only can big-name sports writers leave for online publications, but they can also now easily and cheaply start their own Web sites.

The great journalism education debate

What is the future of journalism education?

Many people have taken issue with journalism education, especially in the U.S. One major concern is that journalism education appears to be behind the industry and rarely out in front, innovating. Many people even advise against majoring in journalism.

But let’s step back from the criticisms of journalism education and ask, what should journalism education be like? Forget the tenured has-beens and the slow moving deans, what would an ideal journalism program look like in 2008?

Would it even be four years? Would it be a certificate program? Would it be a major that required another major?

Would it be a minor? Would it be heavily cross discipline, relying on other majors and departments for core courses?

Before I get to far into this post, I want to caution that these are just ideas that I’m throwing around. I don’t agree with all of them, but I am hoping to get a conversation started. Honestly, I’m making this post because I don’t really know what the future of journalism education should be.

First, we must admit that a journalism major or certificate will never be required to be a journalist. In fact, a four-year degree used to not be a requirement at most news organizations. Now it is, but you’ll still find a lot of journalists without journalism degrees, even in top posts.

Then we must admit that journalism education at the undergraduate level is much more akin to technical training than higher education. I majored in political science and journalism. Poly sci was very academic and theory based. Journalism was very hands on and job oriented — like technical school.

If most journalism programs are essentially job training programs, then why are they four-year programs? Why do many employers want someone with a BA, when a journalism certificate would probably suffice? Most journalism is learned on the job. Wouldn’t it make more sense for perspective journalists to take a one to two year certificate program, while getting more professional experience, instead of spending four years studying journalism?

There are several ways to handle a certificate program. It could be something that people do instead of a four-year degree or it could be something that people do in addition to a four-year degree (nursing is similar to this, but it pays a lot better). Imagine a perspective science reporter majoring in biology and receiving a journalism certificate.

Wouldn’t that better prepare someone to be a science reporter than a four-year degree in journalism? Double majoring isn’t the easiest thing to do in the world, especially across departments and colleges. And frankly, does a science reporter really need four years of journalism education?

Some schools only offer a journalism minor, which requires a student to have a major in another subject. A minor could offer the same training as a journalism certificate program. Maybe it makes sense for colleges and universities to require that journalism minors and majors have another major (and I’m thinking more along the lines of economics, poly sci, a science than something like English).

Then there is a cross discipline approach. For instance, let’s say a school offered an entrepreneurial journalism program. Wouldn’t it make sense for students to be required to take courses such as economics, marketing and business management?

And I can’t imagine having an entrepreneurial journalism program that doesn’t require some Web development and computer science courses. These computer and business classes would be core requirements for the major.

By cross discipline, I don’t mean just taking a bunch of random Arts and Sciences classes, like many journalism majors are required to take. I mean requiring specific courses, particularly in areas that could help make someone a better journalist. Most journalists are lacking when it comes to computer and business.

Frankly, I don’t think courses on how to blog or use Twitter are appropriate for four-year colleges and universities. Those sound like something straight out of adult education. Today’s 18-21 year olds don’t need help learning to blog or how to use social networking.

Usually, its their professors who do. And the students who don’t use or understand social networking are probably not the kinds of people news organizations are looking to hire. What young, inquisitive college student needs to be shown how to use social networking and blogging?

It would be a very poor sign for journalism and journalism education if the kinds of students that j-schools attract are technologically deficient in comparison to their peers. Journalism has become a field that requires people to have a strong grasp of technology. J-schools needs to be attracting students who embrace technology, not trying to teach basic Web technology to uninquisitive students.

Nobody taught me how to blog, and, fittingly enough, the best resources about how to blog are found on blogs. Twitter is one of those things that the only way to understand how to use it and its usefulness is to dive right in. Nobody can teach you the value of Twitter; you have to experience it.

And what college student hasn’t at least played around with Facebook and MySpace? Those are not the kinds of students j-schools and certificate programs need.

What do you think journalism education? Should be a four-year program? Certificate? What would it teach?

What are the course courses of a journalism program (college and certificate)?

Here are some thoughts from people on Twitter:

kev097 Definitely. I think the journalism major is, prima facie, an antiquated concept.

AllieHull , Mizzou strongly recommends picking up another major, or a minor.

johnrobinson Uh, I didn’t take a single journalism course in college. Learned all on job. Turned out OK.

gmarkham we offer a two-year diploma and a four-year degree. most of the newspaper-ready students leave after two.

cnewvine I hypothesize that requiring a 4-year degree is one of the ways newsrooms get out of touch with their communities.

eyeseast My journalism program was a minor, which I liked.

ehelm I liked the way Medill’s journalism major required so many non-journalism classes, including 2 concentrations outside J-school.

coolgates learning how to leverage technology should be a big part of the puzzle, too.

AllieG By far the most interesting and useful class I’ve taken so far was Ethics of Journalism.

mthilmony Didn’t have 2nd mjr. but I knew time in school was wasted – finished in 3 yrs. in journ. so i could get it done and get a job.

howardowens The best bloggers not only have degrees, they have experience, so maybe to cover courts, law degree and two years practice exp. Journalism degree, optional.

It’s good to have non-wired friends

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.