Results tagged “journalism”

Matt Nevarra hosting

Panel:

Bella Hurrell

Bella Hurrell

"Tell me something I don't know" is a basic journalistic premise. Over 50% of traffic to the BBC website is coming from mobile devices now - so everything has to be responsive. It ha to adapt to different screen sizes.

They're expiring ways of spreading their stories beyond the site. Flat info graphics, simple, but to the point, have been one focus, They're optimised for Twitter and Facebook and link back to a main story. They need an element of wit, and certainly of interest. Respond to comments - and make improvements if the suggestions are good.

Interactives - like budget calculators, or "which athlete are you most like?" - are another good way of telling the story. The latter used scatter plots which was too "maths-y" for the mainstream audience - and it didn't work on tablet. they'd do it differently today.

They've just published a Commonwealth Games one, that looks at which event you are more suited to. And it was built mobile-first. But even before that, before you write a line of code, you need to figure out what the audience will take away from this - and that's what will bring them back.

Coffee in Tom Foolery

Four good reads that I think are worth your coffee time this morning:

  • Looking for a job in journalism? Kevin Anderson, who recently landed a great one, has some really excellent advice for preparing for the journalism job interview. His point about researching the community the title serves is very well-made, and all too often neglected by job hunters.

  • Meanwhile, Paul Bradshaw has some excellent advice for journalists looking to the security of their work, their online presence and their sources. You're not paranoid if they're out to get you, and given the nasty piece of legislation that was pushed through yesterday, I think we can assume that no online communication is secure, unless completely encrypted.

  • An interesting look at the media consumption habits of the under-24s. Consume with caution because we know that people habits change with age, but that's more than balanced by the fact that they're starting from a very different place that earlier generations.

  • Google has finally given up on its "real names only" policy for Google+. I'm not going to make the standard joke about G+ being a ghost town - as I can see clearly from my feed over there that it isn't. However, the activity there is limited to select communities - but that was the case for Twitter and Facebook at the same stage (time-wise) in their evolution.

Enjoy your coffee.

Burger bites journalist

A burger

I'm not entirely sure if this is journalists going above and beyond the call of duty, or just bloody stupid:

Assistant news editor Arron Hendy, and trainee reporter Ruari Barratt were taken by ambulance to the Royal Sussex County Hospital after taking one bite each of an XXX Hot Chilli Burger from Burger Off, in Brunswick Street West, Hove. Mr Hendy agreed to try the burger after the takeaway came in the top ten of burger restaurants in the country – as rated on the Trip Advisor website.

Sounds like a delightful experience:

Mr Barratt took a bite and minutes later suffered severe stomach pains which increased. He lost the feeling in his hands, his legs were shaking and his eyes rolled back in his head.

Verification is so very hard

Google Concept (not)

Take a look at this video:

Pretty clearly a concept video done by some students, right? That information's all there, including the account name on Vimeo. Even the most cursory of verification checks would show that up.

So, it's not like anyone would publish it as a real Google concept without doing the 60 seconds of checking needed, right?

Wrong.

Grabbing a paper at the station

Merciless attack on print nostalgists from Clay Shirky:

The most important fight in journalism today isn’t between short vs. long-form publications, or fast vs. thorough newsrooms, or even incumbents vs. start-ups. The most important fight is between realists and nostalgists.

He builds a compelling argument that the media convering the media downplay the likely demise of print, and that too many people - including those teaching in universities - lie to young journalists about the future:

If you want to cry in your beer about the good old days, go ahead. Just stay the hell away from the kids while you’re reminiscing; pretending that dumb business models might suddenly start working has crossed over from sentimentality to child abuse.

I think he misses one key point: some student journalists come in wanting to work in print. They come pre-equipped with nostalgia, and sometimes find a cozy welcome amongst academic staff who left the coalface of journalism before the digital shift happened in a big way. These sorts of students dislike being given the hard realities of life about the shift to digital - right until they see that all the jobs for young journalists being advertised seek digital skills.

For would-be journalism students interested in those emerging journalism jobs in digital, I lead the social media and community module on the Interactive Journalism MA at City University in London - well worth a look.

LiveblogreportWP.jpg

Some time ago I was interviewed by Karin O’Mahony about liveblogging and its use in a journalistic context. The report was published a little over a month ago, and I've finally had the chance to dive in.

First of all - a caveat. It focuses exclusively on the journalistic rolling liveblogs that are commonly used by media organisations, rather than other forms of liveblogging, some of which pre-dated the media use. This irks me a little - these forms do not develop in isolation within journalism, but are informed by both the tools and practices that emerge on the web, none of which is really acknowledged within the research. But I'm slowly reconciling myself to this - the long-running time-stamped format has become the primary journalist use of the concept, and that largely emerged within journalism.

That said, I think the report does an excellent job in capturing the core elements and challenges in creating a viable live blog, with a creditable amount of time give to the practicalities. There's a useful 10 point guide, partially derived from my own contributions:

Liveblogging in 10 steps

  1. Write quickly
  2. Be human, not opinionated, in your tone of voice.
  3. Be extra aware of sensitive information, conflicting information and unverified information.
  4. Be social: take in readers’ comments and contributions and use social media for sourcing – but be aware that social skills are built up over a longer period of time and treat these sources as any other sources. Get to know your audience.
  5. Be transparent about when you cannot verify – but also when you are sure: link to sources and interesting material. Open up the journalistic process to your readers.
  6. Do not lose the overall perspective on the bigger story – summarise from time to time.
  7. Do not be mentally locked into the first narrative that emerges – be able to construct an emerging narrative from the emerging facts over time.
  8. Make sure you are totally familiar with the technical tools so that you can focus entirely on the writing and research
  9. If possible (for scheduled events), be prepared and read up on the subject.
  10. Be creative with ways to fill the gaps when no information is coming through.

There's some interesting discussion about restructuring sites around livblogging for news-centric organisations, and well as the challenges around verification, with the emerge of determined hoaxers as a significant problem.

It's a useful piece of work, and a good contribution to the on-going discussion about new forms of journalism. Grab yourself a copy - it's free - and dig in.

Download As It Happens: How live blogs work and their future

bw-blogging.jpg

You might have noted a lack of long form stuff on here in recent weeks. That's partially because it's marking season and I'm very busy right now, and partially because I've actually been publishing some long form stuff elsewhere.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a long think piece for journalism.co.uk about the rise of explainer journalism, why we'll see more evergreen content, and the concept of stock and flow content.

It was a nice example of my teaching at City converging with my consultancy, and the need to start developing a vocabulary of terms to pass on those ideas to students and clients.

It was also very well received, with plenty of hot, hot Twitter action around it.

The digital transformation ghetto

Earlier today, I wrote a follow-up, looking at the three stages of digital transformation that traditional publishing businesses go through as they try to adapt to today's online environment for journalism, in the light of the leaking of the New York Times innovation report.

I'd be very interested to hear what you think of them…

Thumbnail image for Evening Standard Erection

An e-mail from the Ada Lovelace Day folks dropped into my in-box the other day, mentioning that Roma Agrawal would be speaking at Ada Lovelace Day Live. That set a little alarm ringing in my head that I'd seen her name before recently, and meant to write about it.

You see, I was reading a profile of her in the Evening Standard, after picking up a copy left on a train, and after getting slightly annoyed at the "Gosh! An attractive female engineer!" tone of the piece, nearly choked on my coffee when I got to this line:

This softly spoken 30-year-old in a yellow dress is the woman who made sure the biggest erection in Western Europe didn’t fall down.

Seriously?

Did we really need to go there - connecting her dress and the word "erection"? Do we really have to focus on this talented and successful engineer's sex appeal?

Honestly, I expected to see that the author was a man - but no, it was Susannah Butter, evidently a woman. And I was shocked enough that I ended up grabbing a photo, intending to write about it.

Am I reading too much into this - or is this a gratuitous and unnecessary sexualisation of a feature about an engineer? Would we ever consider commenting on the dress and sex appeal of an equivalent male engineer?

UPDATE: As it turns out, Roma has already written a response:

This one sentence contradicts the core message of the article: that women can excel in engineering and other male dominated industries on their merit. I believe women should be judged on their skills and contribution in the workplace and shouldn't have to fear being sexualised.

Declan Curry

The above photo was circulating Twitter yesterday, and at least two media outlets - Romenesko and FishbowlNY - ran it as an example of a BBC captioner having a bad day.

They found the image and they ran with it. They didn't contact Declan or the BBC. And today, they're both apologising.

As it happens, I was at university with Declan - we worked on Imperial College's student newspaper Felix together. I'd seen the photo before - when he posted it to Facebook, sharing a joke he'd written himself. Yup, the caption was by him - and was the best part of a year old:

click on the comments link to see the discussion

And there we have it. Two media outlets turned their journalistic instincts off when presented with something fun on social media, and made fools of themselves.

You don't get to stop applying the basic techniques of journalism just because you found something on social media. Verify, check, double-source. Or you'll be apologising to your readers - or your editor - pretty quickly.

Data journalism at work

Allison Schrager has a problem with data journalism:

But I worry that data give commentary a false sense of authority since data analysis is inherently prone to bias. The author's priors, what he believes or wants to be true before looking at the data, often taint results that might appear pure and scientific. Even data-backed journalism is opinion journalism. So as we embark on this new wave of journalism, we should be aware of what we are getting and what we should trust.

How, though, is this different from traditional journalism? Inevitably, a journalist brings her bias to any story - and however hard we strive to eliminate that, it will find expression, whether we like it or not.

There's some very useful advice towards the end of her post about how to avoid distorting the data too much, and how to make sure that you're looking at the whole story, but she doesn't address that central question hinted at my her use of "a false sense of authority".

My gut instinct is that people are more wary of bias in data journalism, because there's a tendency to believe that the "numbers don't lie". And they might not. But how you chose to present them has a very big impact on the message a particular truth tells...

That's art, my friend, not science

Tim Hartford wrote about how misinformation can be beautiful for the FT a little while back:

Data visualisation creates powerful, elegant images from complex data. It's like good prose: a pleasure to experience and a force for good in the right hands, but also seductive and potentially deceptive. Because we have less experience of data visualisation than of rhetoric, we are naive, and allow ourselves to be dazzled. Too much data visualisation is the statistical equivalent of dazzle camouflage: striking looks grab our attention but either fail to convey useful information or actively misdirect us.

Visualisation, in particular, is in danger of dressing art up as science. You need to be very careful that the data tells the story it actually claims it does, and that you don't distort things for the sake of a more compelling "angle" or aesthetic representation.

And, y'know, check your own assumptions at the door when you dive into this. But this is all good, standard journalism practice anyway - not something new or unique to data journalism.

The fox knows his pivot tables, that's what...

Of course, this whole discussionon has been triggered by various interviews that Nate Silver has given around the launch of FiveThirtyEight. Matthew Ingram sums up the discussion pretty well:

When it comes to using data of any kind in the creation of journalism, Silver says that traditional journalists are quite good at the first two steps of the process -- namely, the collection of data and the organization of it into a news story or other format. However, they often fail to do as good a job at the next two steps, he says, which include the explanation or analysis of the data and some kind of generalization about its future implications.

Lurking in this is an explanation for the current obsession with data journalism: traditionally, we've only had very limited access to significant datasets. The arrival of digital technology has made collecting, sharing and analysing datasets significantly more simple, and so has opened up a whole new field of journalism, that we've only scratched the surface of before. It's difficult to complain about this (although some people try...), because more sources of stories is pretty much always a good thing.

But for an industry which tends to bend liberal in its politics, journalism can be very small "c" conservative in its outlook. There's an inherent suspicion of the new that anyone who has been working in online digital development will be familiar with. Coupled with the mistrust of journalists that the last few years of revelations has engendered, it's not a surprise that people are slightly suspicious of what we're doing with the numbers.

An oasis of fact in a desert of opinion

However, I think that the Economist's robust defence of Silver and his approach to journalism actually gets to the heart of the matter. Right now, we have far, far too much opinion-based journalism and not nearly enough fact-based reporting.

As the piece concludes:

There is, and always will be, a place for bullshit--or if you prefer a more dignified construction, a place for arguments driven by ideas, belief and feeling rather than data. Positivism is in no danger of sweeping such journalism away in toto; American newspapers and airwaves are full, far too full, of shouters, table-bangers, aspersion-casters and heartstring-tuggers. They drive ratings and traffic (and inspire blogposts). But to the extent that Mr Silver's mission is to shrink bullshit's share of our national conversation, I can only wish him Godspeed.

Who can argue with that? I meet more journalism students interested in becoming opinion columnists than I do those interested in data journalism. I've talked to managing editors at our national papers who despair of finding graduates keen to get on a do reporting, rather than writing leader-type columns.

Data journalism is actually a form of back-to-the-roots movement, of focusing our journalism back on finding facts and the stories within them. We're just using different tools to do that.

Talking of team diversity (as we were), how about age?

For all but a very small minority of people at the top, the corporate world is a cult of youth. The 'up or out' mentality favours younger employees, if only because they have more rungs of the corporate ladder before them, have fewer competing responsibilities, and are cheaper. But as a communicator I know that messages that resonate well with one audience (in this case, shareholders), don't necessarily meet the needs of others (such as society, local communities, employees), or indeed benefit the company itself in the long-term. That's why some enlightened companies are adapting to the challenges and even benefits of an aging workforce.

This seems to be particularly common in journalism businesses, where the number of 40-plus people in the companies is often significantly lower than the 20 to 40 bracket. Some of them take the PR shilling, some of them go freelance (hello!). But what happens to the rest of them?

Microsoft accesses a blogger's e-mail without permission to track the source of a leak:

One of the revelations in this week’s case of a Microsoft worker who leaked pre-release Windows 8 software was that Microsoft accessed the Hotmail account of the blogger to whom the data was leaked. And it did so without a court order.

Your sources are not safe in Hotmail (now Outlook.com). (In fact, the standard guidance of "get online sources who need protecting offline as soon as possible" applies…)

The editor's desk

Today was a good day. A hard and difficult day, to be sure, but a good day.

Around teaching the Newspaper MA students, and a meeting with Jon and Ben about the Interactive MA, I was with the Financial Journalism MA students at city, doing technical and web tutoring on their budget day website. And what an experience it was. It made me realise how much I miss the buzz of a busy newsroom. It's been some years since I work din one full-time now, but I do crave the feeling of being part of a team working towards something, and my current menu of work isn't really giving me that. Something to consider.

The reason that all this came to a head is that this team of students were working exceptionally well together, and the adrenaline rush of working to a tight deadline around a major news event was harnessed well, to create productivity and great reporting, and not dissipated in stress and anger.

And that's despite the amount of people working on a single WordPress install maxing out the database connections repeatedly - something to think about for next time we do something like this.

Financial MA students 2013/14

One thing I've noted this year is that a diversity of students makes for a better learning experience. Two of my cohorts have been much more diverse in age, country of origin and experience before joining the class, and that seems to bring a different dynamic to the group - one that's very positive.

Diversity and the lop-sided enterprise

It's an interesting contrast to offices I've worked in years ago, where the recruiting policy seemed always to be "more people like us", leading to a surprisingly toxic work environment. A whole bunch of people sharing common outlooks and weaknesses doesn't actually create a very good team. Both their strengths and weaknesses are amplified, making for a very lop-sided enterprise.

Which rather brings to mind Emily Bell's commentary on the hires going into Vox and FiveThirtyEight:

Well, Project X may now be called Vox, but the great VC-backed media blitz of 2014 is staffed up and soft-launching, and it looks a lot more like Projects XY. Indeed, it's impossible not to notice that in the Bitcoin rush to revolutionize journalism, the protagonists are almost exclusively - and increasingly - male and white.

I love you, Bro-grammer

This theme was picked up in an excellent Medium piece by Zeynep Tufekci:

Simple: among the mostly male, smart, geeky groups that most programmers and technical people come from, there is a way of existing that is, yes, often fairly exclusionary to women but not in ways that Silver and his friends recognize as male privilege. When they think of male privilege, they are thinking of "macho" jocks and have come to believe their own habitus as completely natural, all about merit, and also in opposition to macho culture. But if brogrammer culture opposes macho culture, it does not follow that brogrammer culture is automatically welcoming to other excluded groups, such as women.

There's an obsession in certain hiring circles about making sure new hires are a good "cultural fit". I think that - in journalism - you actually want people who are a slightly poor cultural fit. Journalism at its best is a team game with a little bit of internal friction. Journalistic teams who are too matey, too similar in mindset and too comfortable slip easily into a common worldview bubble that excludes that sort of boundary-pushing, challenging journalism that makes a publication really stand out.

From Diversity, Quality

It's utterly right to make the argument for diversity from a cultural point alone - but it's worth bearing in mind that there is another argument that supports the same results, that of building a better team, even is that's a team with a few more rough edges. Journalists need people around them to challenge their worldview, reporting and conclusions - because that internal process makes for better journalism, and better service to the community you're reporting for. Too much uniformity within teams creates that toxic "us versus them" reporter versus audience dynamic that I've seen too many otherwise good journalists slip into.

Beware. And hire uncomfortably.

Journalism Startups

Don't you hate it when somebody leading a journalism business slips into jargon? Sarah Lacy of PandoDaily does exactly that when quoted in a Quartz piece on why funding is piling into new journalism ventures:

"Suddenly, the market for content just opened up," said Sarah Lacy, founder of PandoDaily, which has secured about $4 million in venture capital since 2012. "It's dramatically changed. I think a lot of it for me was Vice getting valued at $1 billion. No one had seen anything like that in the content space. And they're trying to speak to a very specific audience that's hard to reach in a deeply authentic way. It's certainly not something you're phoning in. It's not a pre-written press release. It's not a listicle."

As a commenter puts it:

Vice is deeply authentic?

This isn't actually about authenticity - which is one of those buzzwords that's in danger of following "engagement" into a semantic void - but about being web native. Too many of the ventures of the past have been of the "do what we used to do, but online" form - online magazines or newspapers that borrowed the tools of blogging to do much as they did before. If you were lucky you got some web thinking in there, but if you weren't they was just a straight replication of print formats. Think that doesn't still happen? Look at most tablet editions of magazines and how badly they sell.

Life amongst the web-natives

What we are seeing is the emergence of journalistic forms that are deeply web-native, and that use well the expanded toolbox digital gives us. Without the very high overheads that traditional publishing businesses carry, and using clever, light-weight tech, they're rapidly building towards sustainable models of online journalism - even if they don't look like the forms we know. That does two things: it makes them potentially sustainable, profitable web businesses - and that makes them attractive to VCs. But it also changes the context of the debate about the future of journalism.

Let's be honest here: I'm pretty much one of those grumpy old "these markets are conversations" Cluetrain Diehards, and I'm pretty proud of that. (And if you have no idea what I'm talking about that, follow the link and consider yourself SHAMED)

But there's one conversation I'm very deeply uninterested in having - and that's "does journalism have a future?"

That's a finished conversation, because the answer is very clearly "yes". The growing pool of profitable, online-fiesta and only business proves that. It just doesn't look like the business we had before.

The Journalism Conversation Concluded

The new forms of journalism emerging aren't just shovelware from print. They let go of the idea of the printed page and the press deadline, and experiment with new ways of storytelling, and new ways of creating package of material, that wouldn't have worked in print.

Startups like Vox and The Intercept don't look much like the papers that once sheltered their founders. Sustainable tablet editions aren't page-tuning PDF replicas of your print edition, they're titles like The Magazine, a sustainable iPad and web business, with a successful print Kickstarter behind it.

The only question left is "is there room for the existing businesses in this new future?" And that's a challenging question.

Adapt, Evolve or Die

To follow the paths of those start-ups, the existing businesses need to drive down their cost base ruthlessly, without cutting back on the content creators - which is what many of them are doing. They need to get over their obsession with big projects, and big buildings. They need to become - well, completely different businesses.

I don't see that happening. I'm not sure it's possible.

And so, we come to a hard conclusion: that the lessons learned from those agile startups can't be learned by the big publishing businesses - they'll have to forge their own path. And the clock is ticking - leave it too long, and those startups will take all the attention away from you. And where the attention goes, the money goes. You can't wait for someone to show you the way - that's why I was so hard on "best practice" a few days ago - you have to forge your own path.

Journalism does have a future. Paid journalism does have a future. Are you able to be part of it?

This is the eighth in a series of 31 substantive posts I'm going to try to write through March.

The Interhacktives at work

Today, I taught my last formal class for this year's class of Interhacktives at City University. The two terms I teach them in have gone astonishingly quickly, but I've enjoyed it very much. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with what they've learned, both in their final assessed piece of work and in their careers to come.

And as something of a parting gift, I wanted to leave them with five general pieces of advice for their no-doubt brilliant future careers:

1. Know your kit

Android versus iOS, Mac versus PC, Canon versus Nikon. None of this matters. All of them are perfectly good bits of kit that will allow you to do you job. Just make sure that you're familiar enough with them that they effectively disappear, leaving you to focus on the journalism. Don't rely on your work IT department to provide you with what you need - they're always behind the curve and are working to different agendas. Make the right kit choices for you, and put the time in to make sure you know how it works. It'll pay off in spades, because it gives you the time and the skills to produce really good work. Which leads us to...

2. Invest time to save time

Digital journalism is about working clever, so you can work hard but effectively. The best time investment I've put in during the last few years is learning Markdown. This is a "language" for writing web copy fluidly, without having to hard code the HTML and without the time delay of constantly going up to click on the formatting buttons. So far I've written this post - links, crossheads and all, without touching the trackpad once. All the formatting has been done using Markdown, and it'll be translated to HTML when I publish. WordPress supports it. Medium supports it. SquareSpace supports it. Great skill to learn, because it makes me faster. Find things like this. Take the time to learn them.

3. Never be afraid to experiment

People who tell you what the "right" way to use an online service are usually wrong. Why? Because these things change over time. Like any social system, the dynamics are constantly changing, and the evolving technology beneath them - and around them - just accelerates that process. IGNORE any article that tells you how to use a new social platform within the first month or so of that platform's life - maybe the first six months. Behaviour patterns take a while to emerge, and even longer to settle down. The people who create the service are often atrociously bad at understanding how it will eventually be used. Learn by experimenting - and by watching the experiments of others.

4. Find your peers

I've had a cohort of friends and colleagues around me as long as I've been doing digital journalism. The likes of Kevin Anderson, Robin Hamman, Joanna Geary, Alison Gow, Sarah Hartley, Andy Dickinson, Graham Holliday, Martin Stabe, Glyn Mottershead and Paul Bradshaw have been influencing my thinking for over a decade, and way too many others to list have joined that on-going conversation about digital journalism in the time since. We've shared experiences, knowledge, failures and successes, and through that driven the field forwards. This field is moving too fast for any one person to keep up with on their own - so find people you trust, and continue sharing your experiences with them. If those are your classmates, so much the better.

5. Don't obsess about journalism

Many of the things that will change journalism won't come from within journalism. Pay attention to what your peers all over the world are doing, sure. But cast your net wider. Many of the disasters we've seem in media's attempt to develop online community have happened because the people behind it haven't looked outside the media frame of reference. There's experience, learning and methodology that's been developed over two decades that's been ignored or missed simply because the discussion about the future of news has turned inwards. Disruption comes from the outside: if you want to see it coming, you need to be looking the right way.

This is the fifth in a series of one-a-day substantive posts I'm going to try to write through March.

So, I knew there would be at least one day in this idiotic project of mine when it would be really hard to get it done.

I wasn't expecting it to be day three.

For various reasons - that pretty much come down to a tube strike - I've just delivered a full day's training for a publisher client of eConsultancy, and then gone on to do two and a half hours with one cohort of students at City University. That, gentle reader, is one long and cognitively intense day.

So, I'm sat on a train rattling its way back to the coast, sat just across from a grumpy man watching video on his iPad, and trying to see if I can think of anything coherent to say this evening. Here's one thing:

I love niche journalists.

Loving the niche reporter

There's something in me that loves working with really good journalists who have drilled down into a reporting specialisation and can ride the wave of their readers' enthusiasm for a subject. It doesn't matter how dull some of these subjects might seem at first glance; if you really roll up your neuro-sleeves and get stuck in, you can find what's fascinating and exciting in any subject at all - and that's an incredibly valuable skill to have right now.

All of us who are connected to this here internet thing have one thing in common: we're suffering from information overload. There's a reflexive viewpoint that suggests that things would be better if we went back to just having a few selective gatekeepers publish for us, but that very clearly isn't going to happen. Genies have an almost pathological aversion to going back into the bottle, whatever fairy-tales tell you. The there's the Shirky position of "we need better filters". But I distrust constant algorithmic filtering of what I see - filter bubble ahoy! - and rather enjoy the idiosyncrasies of good old human selection.

Attention crisis journalism

The common response of people seems to be flight into speciality. When presented with overwhelming levels of information, you look for tools or processes to just narrow down to the subjects that are most important to you. For example: how many national or international news stories did you really car about today? The only one that's actively crossed my radar (on an admittedly busy day) has been the developing situation in the Ukraine, that tickles away in the back of my brain, making me feel nervous that, if we're not very careful this could turn into something bigger and nastier than we expected.

How many stories in the worlds of journalism, publishing and tech have a paid attention to? I've read about a dozen or so, and saved a similar number into my "read later" apps of choice.

The glut of national news

Here's the thing: I think the news business is the wrong way around. I think we have way too many people producing the general news and opinion that most people have only a snacking interest in, and way too few working in the real niches of information and interest that people have an almost unlimited appetite for. The disruption we're going through right now is that imbalance of supply and demand starting to work its way through the system.

National newspapers are getting ever more desperate in their search for sustainable business models now the bundling effect of the printed package has gone, while the under-supply in the niche sector has largely, in the consumer space at least, been met by the rise of the enthusiast blogger in the space. This is amateur in the true sense of the word - someone who does it for love, not money.

This is why consumer mags are having such a torrid time transitioning to the web - why pay to read slightly distant journalists writing about your passion, when you can read the words of passionate participants for free? I suspect the collapse of the consumer magazine will happen sector by sector - how many computer games mags are left on the shelf? - and will lead to the destruction of many well-know brands, simply because the publishers have left it too late to start answering the question of their role in this changed world.

The new consumer publishing ecosystem

But that's OK - as we've seen in the gaming sector, new professional entities hiring journalists have emerged, who explicitly exist in that diverse ecosystem of amateur and professional. They interact with - and recruit from - the passionate bloggers. That trend will only accelerate.

Right now, it feels like a great time to be a niche journalist - because as our existing institutions crumble, we can seen new ones rising. I'd feel a lot more uneasy if I was committed to generalist reporting - because we're not seeing similar new institutions launch in that space.

Learn to love the niche, my friends. It's where the hot publishing actions is in the attention crisis age.

This is the third in a series of one-a-day substantive posts I'm going to try to write through March.

Politico examines how badly wrong newspaper experiments with video have gone:

News organizations have learned that the traditional television model doesn't pay online. It costs too much to shoot and produce, and requires too much from their reporters, who didn't get into the business to be TV stars. More important, readers aren't interested, which means advertisers aren't satisfied.

My goodness. Taking a format from an entirely different medium, adding a high cost base and assuming it'll all work isn't a recipe for success? Who knew?

This is a really interesting development: Reddit is working to facilitate journalistic liveblogging activity on the site.

[Reddit has...] become a place where new forms of journalism occur, such as the reporting on breaking news events like a shooting or the war in Syria. To help make that even easier, Reddit has launched a "live blogging"-style feature that will eventually allow anyone to function as a kind of Reddit-based news reporter.

Reddit is quietly becoming a powerhouse for in-the-moment journalism. Not bad for the site that everyone wrote off as "the one that lost to Digg" seven years ago...

The Have-A-Go Self-Improver

This is an interesting insight into learning:

If I was to rank the ways in which I actually learn it would look a little like this:

  1. Having a go myself
  2. Having it demonstrated
  3. The internet
  4. Books

The first three are, in some way or another, conversations.

I've spent a lot of the last nine months delivering training. The vast majority of it is stuff I learned through 1 and 3, delivered via 2 with as many encouragements to use 1 as I can.

When it comes to digital skills - in journalism and elsewhere - the ability to learn by having a good old go at it is incredibly valuable. Why? Because the environment around us is constantly changing. A good training course can get you up to speed - but without some ability to self-teach, you'll slip behind again.

And the key skill to doing that is assessing what went well and what went badly, and having another go…