Author Archives: Kevin Anderson

05.03.06
by

WeMedia: Reading body language

I am sitting here at the WeMedia conference, and as a professional journalist, I of course have a degree in reading body language. It’s an incredibly important skill that all journalists are trained in. It’s what sets professional journalists apart from these amateurs. Look at the insightful analysis that the Washington Press Corps does everyday in reading the body language of our leaders. It’s essential to our role as the press in a democracy.

I’m sitting here watching someone several levels of bureaucracy above my head at the BBC, Helen Boaden. And she’s talking about blogs. Using that skill of interpretation of body language that only years of training have provided me as a journalist, I noticed that she was intensely uncomfortable when talking about bloggers and how they claimed the head of Eason Jordan of CNN last year. Bullying is what she calls it. But she’s bullish about citizen journalism.

Discomfort about blogs, but not about citizen journalism. Discuss.

(I’ll have to let Suw vouch for me that as an American I do actually have a sense of humour and sarcasm.)

UPDATE: Ms Boaden just said: “I want to know who checks the bloggers.” There’s a nugget for ya. WeMedia. More like US and THEM. And remember this, people who pay my bills. Just trying to prod us to be better so smile and breathe.

04.30.06
by

Exploding the limits of linear media

As I wrote in my last post, one of the things that we realise on the BBC World Service radio programme that I work on is that we’re joining a global conversation that is already going on in a million ways, virtual and real.

Of course, one of the ways we try to take part in that conversation is through weblogs. For instance, recently, we discussed Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to the US. We asked whether the world had something to fear in China.

We invited Dan Harris of the China law blog on the programme. After it finished, he had this to say about the programme:

Just finished my show on the BBC and found it both interesting and frustrating.

Dan went on to explain his views in a way that he thought that he couldn’t on the programme. He’s not the first blogger that we’ve had on the programme who felt frustrated by the format. As a matter of fact, Fons Tuinstra, an internet entrepreneur and China consultant, who has been on the programme said this in a comment on Dan’s blog:

At least you have a weblog where you can make your point. I have been a few times in the program and I found it an interesting chaos. It tries to focus on easy to consume tidbits without trying to really make a point.

From this and other comments, I sense that the bloggers we have on the programme sometimes feel constrained. Many in the Mainstream Media fail to realise that some of our audience now live and communicate in a world where they control the terms the debate, not us in the MSM, so I think that bloggers find it a bit jarring when they are suddenly pulled back into the old world of broadcast media where they have to cede some of their new found freedom.

Secondly, blogging is nonlinear, like many things on the internet. On radio, we have an hour for the discussion. It’s linear. The world of broadcast is also one of scarcity. Scarcity of spectrum. Scarcity of time. That is not to say that the age of broadcast is over – the BBC radio signal reaches places far beyond the reach of the internet.

What happens when you wed the nonlinear, interactive, many-to-many networked power of the internet and mobile phone networks with the global reach of radio? I don’t know yet. We have a lot of work to do to bridge the worlds of the internet, the mobile phone and the radio – especially the internet. But the glimpses of what could be keep me going, keep me pushing those boundaries between media.

I believe that the limits, the constraints, the shortcomings of what bloggers feel when they come on the radio could be exploded if we break down some of these barriers between media. I’ve been trying to do that, to create a new media for 10 years now. I thought we would be further along than we are, but the dot.com bubble and crash came along: The bubble gave us a lot of hyperactive, hyper-funded ‘me-too-ism’; then came the Crash, which destroyed many people’s faith in the Internet. I used to think it was all bad, but from the ashes of the crash came a return to the Net’s grassroots: Social software and social media.

But now I’m straying into the territory of the next post: Social Media Me-too-ism. Suw and I will have a lot to say about that this week. Watch this space.

UPDATE: Dan left a comment and said he wasn’t frustrated by the being cut off by a higher authority. As an attorney, he said: “Please remember I am an attorney, so I am very much used to being cut off by a higher force: the Judge.”

That reminded me that was another more nuanced point I was going to make but forgot. For this, I’ll blame Suw. She was watching Doctor Who on here iBook while I was trying to write this.

The more nuanced point I was going to make was about nuance. There are limits to what we can pack into an hour, and I think Mike’s comment below about too many voices is spot on. It’s a fine balance. We want to include as many voices, as many points of view as possible, but too many voices becomes a cacophony of unexplored threads of thought. This is the limitation of linear media and where the internet can fill in the gaps.

Both in audio, video and text, we can explore more ideas in much richer depth than we ever could in one hour of radio. And as I’m seeing, the conversation that begins on air spins out in a million directions over weeks. We’re still receiving comments on discussions that we had in early April. Hopefully, as we plug into the online communities better, this conversation will deepen. And I’m enjoying the challenge of building bridges between the world of the internet and the world of radio.

And I’m also enjoying this conversation about this process. As a matter of fact, without this conversation, it would be a much more difficult and lonely job.

04.17.06
by

The challenge of fostering community

I’ve been away for a while, doing some real heavy lifting launching a blog at work. The programme I work on at the BBC, World Have Your Say, launched its blog now just about a month ago.

It’s been a real challenge. The technical stuff is easy, and we’re blessed with great geeks (and I say that as one of them) at the BBC.

The struggle has been two-fold. I’m going to be diplomatic here when I say the first challenge is developing a sense of ownership of this blog, this new media thing, amongst a radio team. Suw would call it adoption.

How is it core to what we do? How does it help us put out two hours of radio everyday? It’s part of my job to sell it to them.

The other challenge is selling it to our listeners. They listen to radio. What does the blog give to them? How does it enhance radio and the global conversation that we’re trying to foster?

If you would have asked me in the middle of last week, I would have said I wasn’t doing a very good job of selling it either to my team or to our listeners. I was learning the hard lesson that Dan Gillmor learned at Bayosphere: Community building is hard.

As Dan said:

Tools matter, but they’re no substitute for community building. (This is a special skill that I’m only beginning to understand even now.)

How do I help foster a sense of community using this blog wed to a radio programme with millions of listeners around the world?

Well, it doesn’t happen overnight, and a month is really a short amount of time. And the BBC blogs are being launched rather quietly and are pretty well hidden in the vast digital thicket that is BBC.co.uk. At one time, we had 1800 subsites under that domain.

And we’ve only got so much online billboard space to promote all of the things that are behind our front door.

But the last few weeks have only reinforced my fundamental view that Big Media blogs have to remember they are taking their place in a pretty well established community: The Blogosphere. We’re not top dogs here. We’re in many senses johnny-come-latelys. And my view is that we must participate as equals not arrogant superiors.

I am a blogger just the like millions of other blog writers out there, and I play by the rules of the blogosphere, not the rules of Big Media. My team is joining a global community, and we have to do it with a little bit of humility.

Obey community rules, and the gift economy of linking and quoting will pay you back for good behaviour. It’s starting to work. We’re getting comments pretty regularly now live while we’re on air. Last week, we even had a contributor from Australia send in a phone number while we were on air, wanting to take part in the programme. That’s exciting, and it helps me sell the blog to my team.

We’ve still got a ways to go, but I’m glad to be back blogging. I always say that blogging keeps me closer to my audience than the broadcast model of Old Media. That’s where I want to be. I find having a conversation with my audience much more personally satisfying than talking at them.

04.07.06
by

What would audience-driven journalism look like?

There has been an interesting discussion, both online and offline, about audience-driven journalism over the last few weeks. It’s one of the things that I’ve been thinking about for my journalism X-project.

Leonard Witt had some ideas about how the open-source movement could inspire a reinvention of journalism (podcast here – audio 4.7MB download). And Jay Rosen of PressThink wanted to kick-start some ideas at BloggerCon IV about what he called, the ‘users know more than we do‘ journalism.

I really liked Jay’s practical approach to it. He’s asking some of the right questions.

  • What kinds of stories can be usefully investigated using open source and collaborative methods?
  • Which user communities are good bets to be interested enough to make it happen?
  • What will it take to start running more trials that could yield compelling and publishable work?
  • What needs to be invented for this kind of journalism to flourish?

Like I said in my previous post, there are some projects and audiences for which this approach is best suited, and there are other stories where quite honestly, traditional methods of journalism and storytelling work just fine. Jay set up his post by having Ken Sands of the The Spokesman-Review in Spokane Washington guest blog.

We know there are local knowledge networks. Should we try to “tap into” them, or is it better to leave them alone until something happens to make partnership possible? Correspondents— we’re familiar with them. But we don’t know how to operate a vast and dispersed network of correspondents, linking hundreds or even thousands. Does anyone?

He has a few ideas: Local sports, transportation watch, weather watch. It’s all local. It’s about things people are passionate about in their own communities.

And I couldn’t agree with Ken more when he says that there’s no traction in the citizen journalism out of mainstream media outlets. Yes, as we’re about to look back a year after the July 7 bombings here in London, everyone remembers the iconic cameraphone pictures. But I think Ken is talking more about community around content rather than the flood of pictures we now get at the BBC during large news events in the UK. Is there a sense of community, a sense of participation in sending off cameraphone pics to large news organisations? I’m with Ken who points to Flickr, YouTube and MySpace.

Those sites work; the mainstream media versions—the industry calls it user-generated content—do not. Why?

I’m going to be doing some thinking out loud about these questions over the next couple of days. But one last thought before Suw and I shut the computers off for the night. We used to talk about broadcast networks, but the future is obviously in social networks. What is the role of the journalist in the age of social networks?

03.25.06
by

The MSM and blogging: It’s about the conversation

Gary had this comment on the post that I wrote about my presentation in Geneva on Friday about the Mainstream Media and blogging:

You also say “Why would we chop up content we already produce and put it in reverse chronological order?”

I understand why you say that, but I do have one answer: Because there are millions reading blogs that won’t read the other publication writing you do, but may come across your blog and begin a conversation from there.

You’re right George, but you’re right because you understand that blogs are about the conversation, not just a novel way to publish the same material that we already produce out at our audiences.

Yes, there are millions of people readings blogs. But why? Is it because it’s the same content that the Mainstream Media already produce?

There is no simple or single answer for why people read blogs, but if they are turning away from the MSM because they don’t like our content, I don’t think just because we chop it up and present it in reverse chronological order it will win our audiences back.

I think that they read blogs because they find it more engaging. Why? Because they feel a connection to the blogger. It’s social media not passive media.

For the most part, the MSM has missed the boat in blogging and that is not for lack of MSM blogs. It is because they just see it as a novel way to publish their content while still being stuck in a broadcast model or a passive print model.

It is only when the realise that blogging is about what I’m doing now, accepting the invitation that you, George, as a reader gave me to enter into a conversation with you that the MSM might actually ‘get’ blogging.

But being a MSM insider, I can tell a lot of us still consider any interaction with the audience as a threat not as an opportunity.

Many journalists see it as a nuisance at best and an unwelcome threat to their authority at the worst.

Blogging made me realise that there was a new and really powerful way to relate to my audience.

Many journalists I speak to talk about the public as the ‘unwashed masses’. Wow. How do we expect to have conversation with people we look down on like that? Answer is we can’t.

Our audiences sense that, and I would argue, that is why they are leaving us in droves.

They feel a sense of ownership with their media, but not with the stuff they dismissively call the MSM (the Mainstream Media).

Thanks for the comment Gary.

03.24.06
by

‘Can the MSM afford to ignore blogging?’

Well, that was the title given to my presentation. I’ve got some catching up with respect to posting.

The quick upsum of my presentation is that most MSM (mainstream media) blogging efforts suck. We’re guilty of engaging in thoughtless herd-like activity.

We flocked to blog because a lot of people were. We thought it was just about publishing snarky little commentary in reverse chronological order.

Bob Cauthorn over at Rebuilding Media had a great post on this last year: Memo to mainstream media: You don’t get to blog.

I play this great clip from the Daily Show taking the piss out of CNN and MSNBC jumping on the blogwagon.

Cory Bergman of Lost Remote looked beyond the humour and gives some excellent suggestions of what the MSM should be doing with blogs. (Scroll down to the ‘See why blogs make bad TV’. The direct link doesn’t work.

But what Cory says:

Putting a blogger on the air or even adding an anchor blog on the web is just scratching the surface, and in some cases, counterproductive. The real goal is institutionalizing the blogging philosophy throughout the news organization, and that may not even involve a blog. How can we open up? Be more accountable?

My view is that the challenge and opportunities for the MSM are much more cultural than technical when it comes to either blogging ourselves or engaging with bloggers.

From a technical standpoint, blogs are just simple, light and powerful content management systems with an emphasis on cross linking and the ability to comment.

And there is absolutely no compelling reason for a journalist to put their content in a blog format just to put their content in a blog format. Why would we chop up content we already produce and put it in reverse chronological order?

There are compelling reasons for journalists (not the citizen variety but us old school sorts) to use blogs: 1) Open up and have a conversation with our audience 2) reinvigorate the immediacy of our journalism.

The programme that I work for, World Have Your Say, on the BBC World Service just launched a blog on Wednesday.

We did it because we are trying to be a new kind of radio programme, not just a call in, but an interactive radio programme where our debates are inspired by the conversations our global audiences are having about news and current affairs, then start online and grow on air.

It’s not just about us using a blog to push more content at our audiences but to engage in a conversation with our audiences.

And I really think that blogs could be used for radically fresh and live reporting. But we in the MSM, by and large, aren’t doing it.

03.23.06
by

Stepping outside your job description

One thing I didn’t have time to blog from the morning session was about a project by YLE, the Finnish public broadcaster.

It was a huge cross platform experience called Rappin with Sebelius, to attract a younger audience to a 40-year-old music festival.

They had SMS ring tones, a rich website with community tools including blogs, and they streamed not only much of the music but also commentary.

Producer Anna-Kaarina Kiviniemi talked about some of the challenges. “It requires stepping out of your job description.”

Her teams needed to forget what they were originally supposed to do to complete the task at hand, she said.

“We had different tools, different working cultures. It was quite a challenge to understand each other,” she added.

This still remains one of the biggest challenges with multimedia production – bridging cultures.

I can only think of one time in the last 10 years when I said: “That isn’t my job” (And I only did that because I had been doing so many things at the time that weren’t my job that it was the straw that broke my back that day.)

I speak whenever invited to journalism students, and they all ask me what they need to learn. They ask about various applications or technologies.

And I say, applications come and go, but you need to be ready for a lifetime of learning. Also, as Jeff Jarvis often says, burn your business cards. Job titles are more restrictive than they are helpful at this stage.

As multimedia storytelling develops, specialities and specialists will appear, but we’re far from that. Right now, we need radically multi-skilled journalists and media creators.

03.23.06
by

Cross media teams

Eric Chaverou with Radio France is a multimedia reporter. We need more more multimedia reporters.

But I’m starting to see a theme here. Ten years into new media/online/interactive media, whatever you want to call it, we’re still struggling with integrating work processes and even more than that work cultures.

Eric said that Radio France created a small team of multimedia journalists because they were having difficulty getting their traditional radio staff to work for the web. He said:

The majority of radio people in Radio France told me that is not my job to make something for the website.

They spent a year following the recovery of one of the towns hit by the tsnunami. They went back every three months. Here is the result.

It is a really impressive effort, and they found that it was too complicated to ask their traditional journalists to do.

This morning, Dominique, talked about the tensions between the TV and interactive production schedules. TV still comes first.

Eric says the multimedia teams are now accepted six years. Before they were radio reporters so they had some legitimacy.

Now, he says it will be difficult to fold the multimedia teams to be folded back into the radio teams, although he thinks that is how it should have been from the start.

A colleague from Radio France asked them if it was difficult to juggle the demands of multiple media.

Eric replied that the reporters focus on the sound first and still photos second. They do not shoot video.

“I don’t want to pit radio against the internet.” he said.

Why is this still internet versus radio or versus TV? We’re still thinking in terms of platforms and not in terms of content.

We talk about cross platform content but what about cross platform thinking?

There is still a lot of thinking to be done about how to tailor content for best presentation on multiple media not to mention multimedia platforms, but this isn’t about technology or organisation structures, this is about the business cultures.

More about that in the next post.

03.23.06
by

EBU Conference: Control freakery and Mozart

Henrik Heide of Danish Radio kicked things off by talking about a Mozart event that similar to BBC’s Beethoven Experience.

Denmark is a hotbed of media convergence, in no small part because of Ulrik Hageruup, the editor NordJyske, a pioneering cross platform media operation.

I often quote Ulrik in presentations when he says: “If there are more changes going on outside your window than inside, then you’re in trouble.”

Back to Henrik and Geneva. He started off saying that Danish radio had no idea “how difficult it would be to control content” with their Mozart project.

Before the launch he said: “We were in control. Everything was plannned.”

“We did not want too much trouble with the record comapnies. We are public service broadcasters. We thought there wouldn’t be any problems,” he said.

Already in the early sessions, there is a theme developing: Rights.

Things were going quite nicely until with about 300,000 downloads over the first few weeks, and then they saw a spike in traffice.

They have 300,000 downloads overnight, three-quarters of them from outside of Denmark.

They had been Digged!!

From Henrik: “Digg is a little nerdy website about technology and so on.”

Suddenly, “we had to talk to the record companies about 1.2 m downloads,” Henrik said.

And the files were in the wild even high quality files encoded. surround sound. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in the room with Henrik and the record execs.

(UPDATE: I spoke to Henrik at the lunch break. He hasn’t spoken to the recording executives. He’s waiting for them to call…)

But I liked Henrik’s take away: “Forget control and learn social engineering.”

03.23.06
by

UPDATED: 8 commandments of cross media

UPDATE: I just got this message from Damien Marchi, a Senior Producer with Streampower. He developed these 8 commandments in a thesis on cross media projects he wrote before he joined the company. They are great rules to work by Damien. Thanks for the e-mail, and let me know about that blog when it launches.

Dominique Delport with Streampower is just giving a really interesting presentation about a cross-platform interactive television programme on France5, Cult TV.

He said that 30 to 40% of the programme is video content generated by the viewers. Wow.

He just laid out his 8 Commandments of Cross Media production:

Commandment 1 Interact with the show. Give the power to the audience.

Maybe obvious to say today, but they really want to have the control. They can see whether it is real or false, Dominique said.

The agenda of the programme is driven by the viewers. Viewers vote on topics all week long. They set the agenda for the next week.

And he says that public TV was not particularly focused on its viewers. (EBU is a pan-European group of public broadcasters, which the BBC is a part of)

Commandment 2 Increase users’ stickiness. Extend life length of the show. Some audience watching show on TV and on the web.

And be aware of how the audience wants to communicate. Originally, they thought SMS would be the way the audience would communicate, but their younger audience was using e-mail and video blogging (using webcams) more.

Commandment 3 Give users access exclusive access not seen on television. Half hour is spent with guests after show, and web users are given specific musical bonus.

Commandment 4 iIncrease user loyalty. Work so that your viewers recommend the show. They have many contests and challenges organised on the website

Commandment 5 Continue the show on the web.

Commandment 6 Enhance the watching experience so that it follows the viewer whenever and wherever they are. The programme features video chat with guests.

Commandment 7 Promote the programme with P2P, social networks. Viral, word of mouth marketing.

Market the show with the hosts of fan forums. Invite key members of online social forums on the programme. Target underground activity and get the maximum number of people involved. It will get the show even more known and spoken about. target underground activity. get maximum number of people involved

Commandment 8 Increase revenues. This was the very last objective of public tv but many public broadcasters are moving to dual-source revenue streams with their public support being supplemented with advertising and cross-promotional revenue.

But he noted some of the challenges of creating this programme, one that brings together web cam contributors from around the world.

They have a production teamo of 40 people for one programme. A poverty of riches for most organisations.

And Dominique said that the clash of interactive and TV cultures provided challenges. And he said:

TV needs are not the same as interactive and web needs. And TV always comes first. The web always comes second.

I wonder if this will always be the case?