Arizona Star Editor About Story Comments and Unruly Crowds

When everyone is on the scene and reporting

Maurice Cardinal interviews Michael Tippett in person, May 9th, 2007

Photo Courtesy of Flickr user KKMichael Tippett is decisive -- in a laid back kind of way. He is also the CMO and co-founder of NowPublic.com, one of the largest aggregators of crowdsourced news in the world. All of NowPublic's content is user-generated and crowdsourced, including the constantly changing list of topic headings on its home page.

We have been conditioned by mainstream news media to believe everything we read. Michael Tippet and his company NowPublic challenge this belief daily. They DO NOT want you to sit back and read the news. They want you to contribute.

Edited for clarity [When you see copy inserted between square brackets [like this], it means I (the interviewer) added information for clarity, or to briefly expand upon an issue to give it a frame of reference.]

Maurice Cardinal: Why does the mainstream news industry have such a challenge getting people who comment on their articles to remain civil?

Michael Tippett: I was just at a conference in Seattle, put on by the Seattle PI (Post Intelligencer newspaper), other local media, plus MSNBC, and bloggers. There were people on both sides of the fence, and they were saying the same thing, “the comments we get in an official capacity as a PI writer, reporter, are much more hostile.”

I think it’s this idea that if you represent an institution, a news organization, to some degree you have to dehumanize the news. You have to be objective and right down the middle - you’re not subjective. You’re not taking it from a personal perspective. If you read “The Economist” for instance, they don’t even tell you who wrote it. It’s just “The Economist” and a set of facts from “The Economist,” and uh . . . it’s true. So people believe that they’re dealing with an institution when they’re dealing with a news organization. You can’t hurt an institution’s feelings so you can be more vitriolic and more vicious. While if it’s a blog, it’s someone with a point of view and they’re taking time and putting their personality on the line. So people treat them with a little more civility because they’re dealing with a human being and not dealing with a big bureaucracy.

There is an institutional challenge. Institutions just move slowly. The companies that move fast are small, and they’ve got the Internet. Smaller companies are more nimble and there are many more of them. The reality is that because of the Internet and the kind of period we’re entering, many of the assumptions we have about basic human motivations are being challenged. This whole notion of Web 2.0 where people are willing to share freely doesn’t fit with the old model so companies like NowPublic, Flickr, YouTube, and MySpace rely on having people involved for reasons other than money. And it’s always a little bit tricky to get it right.

In many cases it’s the detail of the execution that makes you a success or a failure, and in many ways it’s an experimental approach that has to be done by many people in a sort of reckless fashion where you throw something at it to see if it works. So the whole committee approach where you have a strategy and a mission statement, and you define goals, plan things out and work things over, and have things approved by a different layer, it just doesn’t work.

The audience will tell you what they like and dislike. NowPublic is a perfect example. It was started from many points of view. My partner, Leonard Brody, is a lawyer. His family has been involved with CanWest [broadcast and print media company] for a long time so he sees it as something that impacts the news media. He’s grown up on the fringes of that business and that’s why he’s interested in NowPublic. He sees the newspaper industry and what’s happening there.

Q: Does the mainstream news media industry regard you as competition?

A: I think they’re wary. Two years ago they didn’t take us seriously. Now they are in a state of mild panic because they see the readership moving online. They see younger news consumers disappearing. Every time someone dies of old age the newspaper business goes greener. The younger generation is going to Facebook, Flickr, NowPublic and YouTube. It happens through social networks. It doesn’t happen through large institutions so they’re panicked on the readership side because readership will obviously take ad dollars away. They’re also concerned on the production side because the cost of producing it is extremely expensive if you’re doing it professionally. Whereas if you’re crowdsourcing it you’re using bits and pieces from people who were there, and who aren’t trained journalists, but who saw something and have a point of view. If you can corral or wrangle those points of view into something that is coherent then you’ve got something at a fraction of the price and in a format people are going to read. So the news organizations are looking at this and thinking, we’ve got to embrace this or it’s going to take over the industry.

Q: Have you identified what NowPublic does that mainstream news can’t or won’t do?

A: Yeah. I think we do a couple of things really well. We have a network of almost 90,000 people all over the world who have things like camera phones and are accustomed to sharing. Mainstream media, when they try and get into that stuff often fail because people are used to dealing with mainstream media as an audience member and a recipient of received information, and with us, from the get go we’ve always been about participating and being involved and contributing. So we have a cultural benefit that can be difficult for them to overcome.

Q: Why do people [news contributors] become a part of NowPublic? Why does the individual want to do it? What drives them? Who are you looking for?

A: There are as many motivations as there are members. Some people are interested in financial gains. If you talk to someone in the traditional news business and tell them you aren’t going to pay people - how’s that going to work? There’s a small subset of people who are storm chasers, or they’re documentary filmmakers, or they have some kind of existing media practice that they’d like to have people aware of. If you’re a storm chaser you’re out there doing citizen weather reports. Use our site to promote what you do and we’ll group it all together and serve up the best stuff.

We had this guy send in all these amazing tornadoes [early May ‘07] two days ahead of CNN and fifty yards away from a tornado. He does this for a living and watermarks the videos for his site. It’s good for him because we’re like a distribution network and if AP [Associated Press] picks it up they pay him. We’ve got CNN looking at our site daily to see what’s bubbling up. So if you want to make money on the site you can do that. It’s also for those who want to see their name in lights, and for a lot of people that’s important, it’s an ego trip. It’s a way of having their point of view out there. They’ve got something to say and here’s a way of getting in front of a larger audience we’ve [NP] built. They can tap into without having to build it from scratch.

There’s a third group of people who use news as a form of coping with a situation or coming to terms with something. During Katrina we had 2,000 people. They weren’t in it for money or fame. Many were looking for information or loved ones, or things that had gone missing, and other people just wanted to talk about it. If you look at the London bombing, a lot of people who were blogging about it did it because they were on the bus. And look at Virginia Tech. Some of the parents and some of the victims were actually writing stories telling people how they felt about it. There was a really touching eulogy one of the parents wrote about their kid. In many cases it’s therapeutic. People want to get it off their shoulders. The motivation is the same as for a conversation. Conversations take a lot of effort and there’s risk and you might say something that you regret, but you do it because you’ve got something to say. It’s just human nature to want to exchange ideas. We’re kind of like an online conversation and we just try to focus the conversation on things that are newsworthy and have import to a larger group of people.

Q: I’ve been trying to understand how you’re going to compete with newspapers that have been around forever, but you don’t have to. What you just described has nothing to do with what they do, but you’ll be able to attract thousands and thousands of eyeballs and offer them something new.

A: Right. We have a direct relationship to the subjects of the news. Virginia Tech was a perfect example. Everyone was trying to get all the people who were there to tell their story. NBC was talking to the friends of the victims. And many of them contacted us, phoning, emailing and saying, “Look I’m being badgered by the media. I don’t want to talk to them. I want to use your system to tell people how I feel. I don’t want to put it through some [mainstream news] filter and package it up, and you know, turn it into some consumable piece of media. I want to reach people and tell them my story personally.”

We’re unpackaged. We’re direct. We’re to the source. We’re real.

Q: Out of these three groups you’ve just described (and your answer could change tomorrow) who do you see coming to the surface?

A: Today, it’s been a pretty even combination of all those three groups.

Q: Is anyone pulling ahead?

A: No, but I would expect, and we’ve seen a few signs, that people who are emotionally engaged in a subject [could rise to the surface]. They were in New Orleans during Katrina. They have a personal reaction to the news. A lot of this blogging stuff happened after 9/11. Traumatic events force people to confront what they think are important issues and to do something about it - often doing something like telling the world how they feel about it. And aggregating with people who are either like-minded or differently minded who they want to get a different perspective on. So moving forward it’s going to be people who are personally and directly engaged with breaking news events. And that’s not necessarily the people who are trying to make money, but they will be there as well.

Q: Newspapers are starting to realize that articles that connect with people personally on a micro level attract the most comments. [Debbie Kornmiller, an editor and Reader Advocate of the Arizona Star’s StarNet.com also agrees with this statement. I interviewed her a week previous for Assignment Zero]

A: Yeah. Look at the way a news story is constructed. If there is a shooting on the street BCTV will come down and interview eyewitnesses. “Did you see this? What did you see?” And that person [being interviewed] would say, “Oh, he ran out of the store. He shot him.” And they’d do that two or three times and then interview the cop. Then they’d package it all up, summarize, and broadcast it.

We’re doing the same thing in some ways, but instead of giving you a microphone we give you a computer and “you” can write something, and “you” can write something, and “you” can write something. And there’s no bill.

Q: Are you getting rid of the middleman?

A: We’re helping the middleman.

Q: How did you pick the topic headings [channels] on your homepage?

A: Actually, there’s an issue on the site that’s a bit of a navigational design flaw. We have a larger group of categories [you only see six or seven at a time on the homepage] that include “major channels” that appear as a result of popularity [in the navigation bar].

Q: So, they change dynamically?

A: Right . . .we’re “crowdsourcing the categories” too. And we’re going to build something so it’s easier to find the ones that get less eyeballs.

Q: How popular is Health on NowPublic?

A: It’s not as popular as Weather, Politics or Culture.

Culture and Politics are the two big ones.

Q: What is your demographic?

A: It’s younger, 18-35 and skewing on 25-35. People get into news after they graduate.

Q: I don’t see Real Estate, Finances, Auto - the big moneymakers for newspapers.

A: I think you’ll start to see that emerge over time. Early adopters on any site are going to be the ones who are most passionate about things. They tend to be culturally and politically based subjects, but there’s no reason to think that car enthusiasts and health professionals are not going to come later on.

Our view is to be as hands off as possible.

Q: Your main navigational links to channels are generated dynamically, dependant on how often a viewer interacts with a subject. Algorithms process the traffic and place a heading on each page based on popularity. Does this mean that people are not being lead, but are being drawn by their own interests?

A: Right. Our homepage [regarding channels] is not 100% obvious. We’re building an algorithm that accurately reflects what people think is newsworthy. Two things define the homepage. One is popularity, and the other is a flagging system [everyone gets to vote]. And we have “wranglers.” They corral information and have a weighted vote. The homepage is made up of the best stuff, and the best is defined by the amount of votes you get, plus the number of page views. So we’re not showing viewers totally obscure stuff, unless people think it’s good and voted for it [another alternative goes mainstream]. And we’re not just showing you the popular stuff. It’s a mix of the two.

We crowdsource the news gathering by having people who eyewitness it send stuff in, and then we crowdsource the editorial by having people able to affect the order of the stories by their behaviors and votes and interests.

It’s true for all the channels. They are all defined that way.

How do you educate your contributors so they have freedom to do what they want, and still remain civil?

Well, we’re being laissez faire about comments. We don’t’ censor people or delete stuff. We really don’t have to. The level of civility is very high on our site. And part of it is because we have people who come here that are a little more high-minded than they would be elsewhere.

The biggest problem we’ve had in terms of expectations is that people want others to be “more” serious. A lot of people are news junkies. They’re people who are very engaged in what is happening in the news business and they’re disenchanted with mainstream media so they come to our site.

Q: Have you done research or studies?

A: We haven’t had to because our users tell us. There are studies, the PEW institute, that have done a lot of research. It’s an opportunity for us, because that’s what news organizations are. Institutions are built on trust, and once they lose the trust, well, that’s their only currency right.

Q: Does mainstream news media create a closed-loop news system to keep driving their readers past their advertisers?

A: Right. Like a hotel casino. You always have to go through the casino to get to your room.

Q: Just like Safeway [grocer]. The milk is at the back of the store. NowPublic does almost the exact opposite. You are off-linking and leading people away. You’re managing the aggregation, and processing the traffic through your hub.

A: We’re like Google that way.

Q: How do you monetize it? What will play out in the next year?

A: The reason we do that, is because it’s what people want. They don’t want pop-ups and framed stuff. They don’t want the walled garden. So by providing a better service to people they’ll come back to us more often and then we can sell them ads. Advertising is part of our revenue plans moving forward. It’ll subsidize the operation to some degree. I think where we’ll make most of our money is as a brokerage service to mainstream media. We have a deal with the AP where we’ll be working with their bureaus in the states to supply stories and footage from people who are there. They know we’re way ahead of them on that so they’re looking at us and saying, “If you get good stuff send it our way.” And of course, as is the case with anyone who sends stuff to AP you get paid, and we’ll get a percentage. We’ve become a news gathering service for mainstream media who in some ways will do a better job of analyzing that stuff when it comes in, but is not in a position to collect it as well as we can. We provide a huge service by taking a major line out of their news gathering production.

Q: Are you privately funded?

A: Yeah. I started this in the garage two years ago and look at how big it is now, and this quickly. I knew the opportunity was going to be over in eighteen months. I was ahead of the curve. I was too early and should have waited. Two years ago when I told people about the concept they were kind of puzzled and they didn’t really get it, but now, post YouTube, post blogging, post Flickr, post all of these worlds, everyone gets it. We’re at the point now where we can see, just in terms of the market place acceptance, that the tide has turned dramatically. The audience knows it. If you listen to the endless calls, or if you talk to newspaper professionals they recognize it now. It’s a burning issue for them.

Q: When you see something so progressive happen so quickly it makes it easier for the average person to get onboard too when they realize that, “a new president walked into the White House, and she used crowdsourcing and citizen journalism to help make it happen.” It’s amazing how Barack Obama is leveraging YouTube. He’s everywhere online. Oprah for President isn’t so far-fetched when you consider the market she already manages.]

A: There’s a think tank in DC called the Bivings Institute. They predicted NowPublic is going to be one of the companies that will impact the U.S. election, and I think they’re right. We’ll certainly have some impact. We’re actually in the midst of, and I’d like to tell you all the details about this because we’re going to launch in the next week. We’re working with a group of citizen journalists in Washington DC alone. These are people who work in the Justice Department, who work in every branch of government.

We’re going to have a huge presence in DC. There’s not a story that can’t be covered with that many people. The group that we are working with is the Cleveland Park Listserve. Bill Adler is the guy behind it. We will be launching our "Crowdsourcing the Capital" project next week by kicking off our first meeting in a DC bookstore.”

Adler moderates the Washington DC-based listserve, which according to his Web site is the largest neighborhood email list in the country – as of May 24, 2007 they have 5,232 members

By having people in this power center, as well as people in the Heartland and various other places where politics has a personal affect on their lives, and tying all these stories together, you really can start to build political momentum. When you think about how important the news is to political organizations – if they control the news they control personal outcome. Well, the news is now public. Nobody controls it anymore, so it’s bound to become more democratic.

Excerpt from The Bivings Institute website . . .
“But in the last few years we've seen a number of websites launch that specialize in aggregating user generated news stories. These sites include NowPublic, Our Media, NewsAssignment.net and OhMyNews and each has developed its own network of citizen reporters.

I expect one of these networked news sites (or one that hasn't launched yet) to emerge in the next few years as a leader. And I think stories these sites break about the 2008 Presidential election could be the catalyst for this breakthrough.”

Q: Crowdsourcing and citizen journalism will especially impact mainstream news companies because traditional new media operate “between” industry, politicians, and the public. Crowdsource networks break down walls and provide transparency. When you do that, truth comes out. Will companies like NowPublic redefine the definition of truth?

A: Yeah, I think to some degree. I had a conversation last week with a news executive in Seattle about nineteen year old kids who often come to Canada to drink because the drinking age in the U.S. is twenty-one. The newsperson said, what’s our angle on this? Are we writing from the perspective of parents and saying, “Watch out. Your kids are going to get drunk in Canada,” or are we writing from the kid’s perspective and saying “Heh, go north of the border and you can go clubbing where it’s legal?”

I said [to the news executive], “You know it’s funny, because you’ve basically pulled the rug out from under the whole objective argument. Your newspaper is not objective. Your newspaper has a voice that is a subjective voice. It’s just official subjectivity. [You’re saying] “We’re the conservative voice, we’re the liberal voice, we’re the voice of concern, or the voice of the younger generation.”

[However,] it’s not objective. It’s a certain set of facts that you’ve [traditional media] chosen to write about because it’s interesting to a group of people you’re serving. So what has passed for objective truth is not objective, it’s a point of view. When you have multiple points of view you start to see things in a more complete way.

Q: So you put all the information out there and let the visitor to the site make up there own mind?

A: Yeah, and contribute and disagree and bring in their own expertise. They’ll often know more than an editor. Think of the monumental task of an editor. They get parachuted into a story they know nothing about, and in half an hour become an expert. It’s impossible. Whereas if you just have the people who are involved in the story, describe it, there’s no learning curve.

Q: What will happen when core contributors to NowPublic get bored while waiting for news to spontaneously combust?

A: We have multiple roles on the site. You can contribute current or breaking news, and you can also be a wrangler, and corral others. Read through the site, and find something that is great, and flag it, or if you see something that looks fishy use our crowdsourcing tool to construct stories that you think are important. You can also alert us to things you’ve seen on the web that you think deserve more coverage. Our relationship with AP lets us send them stories. So if you see something that is amazing, and no one is writing about, you can use our tools to create a network, and the network will focus more people on the story who can contribute.

Q: So this is a process that has never existed at any time in history?

A: I don’t think it has. The technology never existed.

Q: Does it have serious social significance? Will it change the way people think and live?

A: Yeah. We’re in a knowledge creation business. If you were a philosophy professor you’d call it an episteme. It’s a systemalogical framework - the way knowledge is understood, and differentiated from belief. We are changing the way knowledge is constructed. History is the basis for which all rational thought is based.

5/21/07

When opening up too much leads to chaos

Maurice Cardinal interviews Debbie Kornmiller from the Arizona Star via telephone, May 18th, 2007

Debbie Kornmiller has been in the news business professionally since 1981 – 26 years. She is currently responsible for the “comments” section, which as she describes, is regarded by her employer, the Arizona Star, as “customer service.”

Her official title is “Reader Advocate.”

How did it come about that you are in the position of being responsible for the “commenting” segments?

The customer service position has been in existence on and off at the Star newspaper since the 70’s, and during times of “budget cuts,” it is the first department to be retired and then brought back when the economy looks rosier. Ms. Kornmiller feels that their readers need to be heard in the newsroom in a consistent fashion and that nothing makes them madder than when they are ping ponged through the system and no one listens. She is the one stop shop. As she explained, her role is to “listen and help, and either fix it, have it fixed, or explain why it will never be fixed.”

She held this “customer service” position way before online commenting on articles came into existence. Although not personally responsible for setting policy, Kornmiller has spent considerable time deciding what to do with online comments, how to monitor people who comment, and how to give them freedom of the Web while maintaining decorum and remaining civil, which of late has been a challenge for her newspaper. For clarity, others within the organization set policy and monitor the comments sections while Ms. Kornmiller manages operational responsibilities.

Q: How long has the Arizona Star been involved in “commenting?”

The Arizona Star newspaper launched online commenting in 1995, but dropped it in 2000 due to civility challenges. They resurrected it in 2005, when, as Ms. Kornmiller describes, “it became fashionable again.” They brought it back as “unmonitored conversation,” which again quickly grew out of control.

The challenges in the early years with civility occurred when “very loud voices in the room crowded out” people who were trying to manage a civil conversation.

In the beginning profanity was a big issue, and to a lesser extent it still is today, but like all similar online conversational platforms profanity now takes a back seat to threats, intimidation, and spiteful responses that are hateful and racist. The Star had conversations about the “F” word, and agreed that if it wasn’t appropriate in print, it was also not appropriate online, but then what about the variations like frick’n, frigg’n, or that old standby, F’n. They considered and debated what was appropriate or not. They also discovered (if you’re familiar with forums it’s not surprising) that most of the comment threads eventually spun into issues unrelated to the article. In the Star’s case the recurring theme was/is immigration issues. Ms. Kornmiller said they even had recipe and food articles flame out at the Mexican border sixty miles away. Ola!

Ms. Kornmiller feels that they had a better handle on “commenting” when they brought the feature back a second time because they were more prepared. Regarding rules and guidelines the second time around, she said, “We tell readers that this is our house and when you come to someone’s house there are standards, whether being polite or kind. We set the standards because it is our house. And if you don’t like the rules of our house go to someone else’s house, or create your own house, but this is what you need in order to live in our house.”

Q: Is news media’s responsibility to educate and inform the public?

Kornmiller's response: "I personally have not shouldered any of that. We simply say, here are the rules you will abide by. We keep those rules on every page as a reminder of how readers should behave - like a set of guidelines.”

When I asked if guidelines were always in place on the site she said “no” and that they eventually came to realize they needed something online to give readers direction, and pointed out that unlike professional writers, readers do not have a journalistic code of ethics as a reference. She also explained that professional journalists in general have a sense of good or bad behavior, what’s over the top, or just under the line, what’s good for a tabloid, and what a newspaper writer can do. Ms. Kornmiller did suggest however that it might be a good idea to “get readers together and create one.”

Q: Why are some readers so aggressive? Has the Star tried to win them over?

Kornmiller's response: “I haven’t personally, but when readers are taken out of the conversation [banned] they have called our executive editor or managing editor wanting to know why. Or, when someone posts something that might be questionable, there is someone who will then shoot an email to the three people who monitor [content segments] and say, “Have you seen what so in so is saying?”

I was curious to know how the Star prevents people from manipulating the conversation to lure readers away to other blogs or competitors, and Ms. Kornmiller said they are not actively concerned about it, but she did say, ”Sometimes a conversation takes an unexpected turn, and you may have readers try and get it back on track.”

Interestingly, StarNet’s guidelines comprise only four short paragraphs, the first two being:

** 1.) We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.

** 2.) Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.

Basically, the first two paragraphs are not guidelines as much as they are “legal terms of use and effective tools to prevent people from luring readers away to other blogs or even competitive news media sites.” In fact, the last two paragraphs also describe “terms of use” and there are almost no constructive guidelines except for the line above stating “Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services . . .” which is what I was referring to when I asked whether the Star prevents people from manipulating the conversation and luring readers away to other blogs or competitors. I asked because I was curious to know how they protect their audience from being raided by the competition. Many traditional news companies still operate stringently under the old business model where you aggressively protect your intellectual property. It’s all they know, and all they have. The same situation occurred in the late 90’s when the music industry chose to fight their customers instead of learning to develop a new marketing strategy. We all know the outcome – today at least 80% of music is traded illegally online. The music industry lost, and consumers won.

I also noticed later in the StarNet guidelines they state; “. . . we're removing the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.”

It seems odd to take this drastic measure on a news site that allows people to comment on news stories. What happened to “fair use” respective of news reporting? If you use a brief example of another’s work as a reference tool to make your point it is legal, ethical, and standard operating procedure in the industry?

Intellectual property issues aside, what the Star literally means is that they are removing the option of placing “href” tags (link code) into a comment, because in the next paragraph they describe a “scratch pad” where you can practice applying HTML code before you have to post a comment in perpetuity online. Good for new users, but a bit confusing especially when a person wanting to comment is looking for more positive direction. The “legal terms of use” read more like a “what NOT to do” as opposed to a “what to do” helpful guide. The tone and wording start people off on the wrong note, and are not very inviting or friendly, which is completely opposite of how Ms. Kornmiller regards the value of the comment sections and blogs. She sounds genuine and passionate in her quest to create an amiable atmosphere, but her personality is not reflected in the so-called guidelines.

I asked, “Is there a core of readers that follow the rules?” and Kornmiller replied, “Yes. There are also groups of readers who try to welcome new readers and also try to tune out those who are the loudest."

The Star comments section uses “Thumb Up & Thumb Down hand icons to reader-rank acceptance of comments so I asked if the thumb strategy adds to the quality of comments. Ms. Kornmiller replied, “. . . it’s a sign for people new to the conversation. If they don’t want to read certain types of comments they could skip over them.”

S“We had a program where everything was commentedable. You could comment on all stories but it was too cumbersome [for the newspaper] to monitor,” said Kornmiller. She went on to say, “To monitor every single story was too laborious. We don’t have someone who’s title is “full time monitor.” We have a core group of people [three] who go in and monitor. Instead we restrict stories [meaning that readers cannot comment on every article they see online].

________________

StarNetCode of Ethics

Rule #1:
"The Arizona Daily Star and StarNet expect staff members to seek and convey the truth in all aspects of their work."

Lee Enterprises - Parent to Arizona Star- Top Priorities 2007

Rule #1:
Grow revenue creatively and rapidly

_________________

I asked if Ms. Kornmiller thought they would have better success this time around or was she concerned the Star might not be able to manage it the way the owners and publishers, Lee Enterprises, expect?

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “Our owners have a guideline for the chain of what they expect on online comments.” I then asked if she was fearful that the Star might not be able to keep the comments section alive due to uncivil responses, and she quickly replied, “No, no, no, that’s not a problem at all. Our owners Lee Enterprises said there needs to be some monitoring of the conversation . . . and they’ve given guidance to monitor. Now they didn’t say how, and they didn’t say when. I’m sure there is some bigger discussion on this. They’ve given us some guidelines to live by.”

In the last two U.S. presidential elections politicians used early adopter versions of citizen journalism and crowdsourcing to sway voters. And in the upcoming primaries and next presidential election on November 4, 2008, crowdsource companies are already assembling huge citizen journalism networks in an effort to have even more of an impact. Some see it as a boon to democracy, while others feel it could subvert political strategies that have historically been managed through traditional news media companies.

I asked Ms. Kornmiller, ”Considering that citizen journalism and crowdsourcing help politicians win elections, how do you think it will trickle down to the news industry?”

“I think there is great skepticism [regarding whether cj is feasible]. We have tried citizen journalism with our blogs. I’m meeting with all of our bloggers in the next month to go over our code of ethics because we’ve had what we would consider at least in-house breaches of that code, and to explain what plagiarism is, and how to source things. I think there is a big learning curve,” said Kornmiller.

She went on to say, and the following is critically important, “Regarding citizen journalism, you have to find the citizens who can do it. They have to have some stake in why they’re doing it. Politics is a natural fit because it’s [covered by] people who have passion about something. But I don’t know if you have that same passion about fire district meetings. So when the stakes are higher, when you know there is more passion about the subject, it seems to me then you have to be more cautious about the sourcing.”

I prefaced the next question by saying, “Citizen journalism and crowdsourcing break down walls and create transparency. In the traditional analog world, sometimes the truth is kept secret or modified in an effort to generate profit. Quite often the public doesn’t understand how business works, and they feel that everything should be put on the table.”

I then asked, “Will we have to redefine the definition of truth?”

“There a fine line between censoring and . . .” and Ms. Kornmiller jumped in to say, “As long as it’s tasteful. As long as your not saying bad words and using racial slurs, you can have as much truth as you want. You just have to have it in a polite conversation.”

When I asked, “What happens when they step over the line and criticize advertisers?” Ms. Kornmiller replied, “We haven’t encountered that yet, but I think we would be tolerant of that. What I think the public hasn’t done is . . you have a very small segment of the population that understands the power of online comments or blogging. And once it becomes more mainstream it because more powerful and you have to monitor it in a much different fashion.”

I then asked, “So, are we still in an early adopter phase?” She replied, “I think so, again, people are still trying to decide how much time they have for news and information. If you want to do more blogging you’re going to have to turn off the tv, or reject something else in order to spend more time blogging. I don’t think traditional bloggers are doing it [blogging] at work. I think traditional workplace information seekers are looking for news and they are reading and not necessarily participating during the workday because that’s the rules of the workplace. You can go and look at a site, read reports, read newspapers, and your employer will never know the difference, but once you start commenting your address is shown in the history.

I asked, “Is it hard for you to take ideas upstairs and talk to your owners and publishers, people who are making financial decisions?” and she quickly replied, “No” with a laugh. “We’re a pretty open place. Anybody can have an idea about anything. How do you think we got knitting? We had a brainstorming session about what blogs we have, and came up with some new ones. Blogs are [managed] in-staff except for two community websites that have community bloggers. You don’t find your expertise in the blog you take your expertise to the blog.”

Q: What surprised you the most with your commenting project?

A: “That people can find so very ways (sic) to be mean-spirited and hurtful. In many ways it's the same as email or anonymous phone messages. I don't believe that people would say the things they do without the cloak of anonminity (sic). Ear-to-ear or face-to-face conversation starts out with civility as the rule. That's not the case with online commenting.”

5/18/07

Maurice,
The interview looks quite rich. I'll sit and read it more closely tomorrow. From what I have read, you did a good job of teasing out the machinations of the Comments experiment in Arizona.

One note: Debbie Kornmiller's official title is Readers' Advocate( sometimes called public editor, readers' rep, or ombudsman)-- being in charge of the comments is just one of the things she does. I am a little surprised to read that she characterized the job as "customer service". That is certainly one of the critiques of what ombudsmen jobs are becoming, but I am surprised she would use that characterization, but, of course, that is what it is on certain levels.

I noticed that she made reference to ONO's conference in Cambridge.
I'm running up there for a day to network for a study a colleague and I are doing on the international growth of ombudsmen. I did see that the blogosphere is on the program, as is Jeff Jarvis.

The current head of ONO(his term expires at the conference) is Ian Mayes, former ombudsman at the Guardian. I would be shocked if he used "customer service" to describe the job--at least in the first or second instance. My colleague and I chatted with him when iI was in London recently. He spoke of the ombud's role as an extension of democracy, albeit something the times demand now that the public can interact through technology.

I believe at least one of the Assignment Zero editors is a former newspaper ombud.Michelle, maybe?

An interesting report, Maurice. I look forward to sitting down with it at more length.

5/11/07

Debbie Kornmiller Arizona Star – Tucson Arizona
http://www.azstarnet.com

Wednesday May 9, 2007 10am - 45 minute Phoner

By Maurice Cardinal - OlyBLOG.com

_____________

Debbie Kornmiller has been in the news business professionally since 1981 – 26 years.

She is currently responsible for the “comments” section, which as she describes, is regarded by her employer, the Arizona Star, as “customer service.”

The customer service position has been in existence on and off at the Star newspaper since the 70’s, and during times of fiscal restraint, AKA “budget cuts,” it is the first department to be retired and then brought back when the economy looks rosier. Ms. Kornmiller feels that their readers need to be heard in the newsroom in a consistent fashion and that nothing makes them madder than when they are ping ponged through the system and no one listens. She is the one stop shop. As she explained, her role is to “listen and help, and either fix it, have it fixed, or explain why it will never be fixed.”

She held this “customer service” position way before online commenting on articles came into existence. She is not personally responsible for setting policy, but she has spent considerable time deciding what to do with online comments, how to monitor people who comment, and how to give them freedom of the web while maintaining decorum and remaining civil, which of late has been a challenge for her newspaper. For clarity, others within the organization set policy and monitor the comments sections while Ms. Kornmiller manages operational responsibilities.

The Arizona Star newspaper launched online commenting 8 or 9 years ago (date pending), but dropped it in 2000 due to civility challenges. They resurrected it in 2005? (date pending), when, as Ms. Kornmiller describes, “it became fashionable.”

The challenges in the early years with civility occurred when “very loud voices in the room crowded out” people who were trying to manage a civil conversation.

They brought it back as “unmonitored conversation,” which again quickly grew out of control.

In the beginning profanity was a big issue, and to a lesser extent it still is today, but like all similar online conversational platforms profanity now takes a back seat to threats, intimidation, and spiteful responses that are hateful and racist. The Star had conversations about the “F” word, and agreed that if it wasn’t appropriate in print, it was also not appropriate online, but then what about the variations like frick’n, frigg’n, or that old standby, F’n. They considered and debated what was appropriate or not. They also discovered (if you’re familiar with forums it’s not surprising) that most of the comment threads eventually spun into issues unrelated to the article. In the Star’s case the recurring theme was/is immigration issues. Ms. Kornmiller said they even had recipe and food articles flame out at the Mexican border sixty miles away. Ola!

(*see racial demographic & newspaper diversity report for Tucson below)

Ms. Kornmiller feels that they had a better handle on “commenting” when they brought the feature back a second time because they were more prepared. Regarding rules and guidelines the second time around, she said, “We tell readers that this is our house and when you come to someone’s house there are standards, whether being polite or kind. We set the standards because it is our house. And if you don’t like the rules of our house go to someone else’s house, or create your own house, but this is what you need in order to live in our house.”

It reminded me of my dad, and the reason I ran away from home for a week when I was sixteen.

I asked if it is news media’s responsibility to educate and inform the public, and she replied, “I personally have not shouldered any of that. We simply say, here are the rules you will abide by. We keep those rules on every page as a reminder of how readers should behave - like a set of guidelines.”

Ironically, because they are on every page in the right column, as a new reader, when I looked for the guidelines I didn’t see them until I searched quite extensively - forest for the trees syndrome.

When I asked if guidelines were always in place on the site she said “no” and that they eventually came to realize they needed something online to give readers direction, and pointed out that unlike professional writers, readers do not have a journalistic code of ethics as a reference. She also explained that professional journalists in general have a sense of good or bad behavior, what’s over the top, or just under the line, what’s good for a tabloid, and what a newspaper writer can do. Ms. Kornmiller did suggest however that it might be a good idea to “get readers together and create one.”

When I asked why some readers are so aggressive and if the Star had tried to win them over she replied, “I haven’t personally, but when readers are taken out of the conversation [banned] they have called our executive editor or managing editor wanting to know why. Or, when someone posts something that might be questionable, there is someone who will then shoot an email to the three people who monitor [content segments] and say, “Have you seen what so in so is saying?”

I was curious to know how the Star prevents people from manipulating the conversation to lure readers away to other blogs or competitors, and Ms. Kornmiller said they are not actively concerned about it, but she did say, ”Sometimes a conversation takes an unexpected turn, and you may have readers try and get it back on track.”

Interestingly, StarNet’s guidelines comprise only four short paragraphs, the first two being; “1.) We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.

2.) Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.”

Basically, the first two paragraphs are not guidelines as much as they are “legal terms of use and effective tools to prevent people from luring readers away to other blogs or even competitive news media sites.” In fact, the last two paragraphs also describe “terms of use” and there are almost no constructive guidelines except for the line above stating “Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services . . .” which is what I was referring to when I asked whether the Star prevents people from manipulating the conversation and luring readers away to other blogs or competitors. I asked because I was curious to know how they protect their audience from being raided by the competition. Many traditional news companies still operate stringently under the old business model where you aggressively protect your intellectual property. It’s all they know, and all they have. The same situation occurred in the late 90’s when the music industry chose to fight their customers instead of learning to develop a new marketing strategy. We all know the outcome – today at least 80% of music is traded illegally online. The music industry lost, and consumers won.

I also noticed later in the StarNet guidelines they state; “. . . we're removing the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.”

It seems odd to take this drastic measure on a news site that allows people to comment on news stories. What happened to “fair use” respective of news reporting? If you use a brief example of another’s work as a reference tool to make your point it is legal, ethical, and standard operating procedure in the industry.

Intellectual property issues aside, what the Star literally means is that they are removing the option of placing “href” tags (link code) into a comment, because in the next paragraph they describe a “scratch pad” where you can practice applying HTML code before you have to post a comment in perpetuity online. Good for new users, but a bit confusing especially when a person wanting to comment is looking for more positive direction. The “legal terms of use” read more like a “what NOT to do” as opposed to a “what to do” helpful guide. The tone and wording start people off on the wrong note, and are not very inviting or friendly, which is completely opposite of how Ms. Kornmiller regards the value of the comment sections and blogs. She sounds genuine and passionate in her quest to create an amiable atmosphere, but her personality is not reflected in the so-called guidelines.

I asked, “Is there a core of readers that follow the rules?” and she replied, “Yes. There are also groups of readers who try to welcome new readers and also try to tune out those who are the loudest.

The Star comments section uses “Thumb Up & Thumb Down hand icons to reader-rank acceptance of comments so I asked if the thumb strategy adds to the quality of comments. Ms. Kornmiller replied, “. . . it’s a sign for people new to the conversation. If they don’t want to read certain types of comments they could skip over them.”

Here’s the official description of how it works, excerpted directly from the StarNet site; “You can rate other users' comments with a thumbs up/thumbs down rating, using the corresponding buttons that appear beneath each comment. Your votes affect that comment's net rating. For example, two votes of thumbs up and one vote of thumbs down result in a net score of one thumb up. Users are limited to one vote per comment and are not allowed to rate their own comments. Any registered user may rate comments.”

I asked Ms. Kornmiller what the criteria was for having a comment removed, but she didn’t know and asked me to follow up later and she would find the answer. (pending)

She did however immediately offer that, “We had a program where everything was commentible (sic). You could comment on all stories but it was too cumbersome [for the newspaper] to monitor.” She went on to say, “To monitor every single story was too laborious. We don’t have someone who’s title is “full time monitor.” We have a core group of people [three] who go in and monitor. Instead we restrict stories [meaning that readers cannot comment on every article they see online].

I asked, “Is that why the Child Porn article does not have a comment section?” [It was an article on the homepage on the morning of May 9, 2007 – the day of the 10am interview]

Kormiller replied, “I don’t know why the Child Porn [article] wasn’t [commented],” and she went on to say that they strive to have a smaller more meaningful conversation as opposed to including everything in the lineup.

________________

StarNetCode of Ethics
http://www.azstarnet.com/staff/CodeOfEthics.pdf

Rule #1:
"The Arizona Daily Star and StarNet expect staff members to seek and convey the truth in all aspects of their work."

Lee Enterprises - Parent to Arizona Star- Top Priorities 2007
http://www.lee.net/

Rule #1:
Grow revenue creatively and rapidly

_________________

I asked if Ms. Kornmiller thought they would have better success this time around or was she concerned the Star might not be able to manage it the way the owners and publishers, Lee Enterprises, expect?

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “Our owners have a guideline for the chain of what they expect on online comments.” I then asked if she was fearful that the Star might not be able to keep the comments section alive due to uncivil responses, and she quickly replied, “No, no, no, that’s not a problem at all. Our owners Lee Enterprises said there needs to be some monitoring of the conversation . . . and they’ve given guidance to monitor. Now they didn’t say how, and they didn’t say when. I’m sure there is some bigger discussion on this. They’ve given us some guidelines to live by.”

I then drew a parallel between the music and news industries, and what happened when MP3 came on the scene and challenged the music industry business model, successfully driving a permanent wedge between recording companies and their customers.

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “I think the bottom line is money. News is a business, and you’ve got to able to make money doing what you do.” She continued, “With new media I think there’s going to be a hierarchical change. Where do you get audio? Where you do you get video? Radio and television. I think there’s going to be a change in that hierarchy. And if you don’t experiment and you don’t fail, and you don’t make a few mistakes you’re probably going to be way behind the ball.”

She predicted that whatever the solution, it had to work for readers as well as advertisers.

I mentioned that some newspapers are already incorporating video on their websites and she quickly and proudly responded, “We are! On Friday we had a class on how to edit video on our desktop.” I asked, is it exciting for your people, and she exuberantly replied, “Yeah!”

A day later as I was writing this article I recalled the mid 90’s when newspapers snubbed the internet as a fad, and insisted it would never last. In the early part of this decade when online video started to take hold, television companies claimed that newspapers would never impact their market because video was too complicated. In retrospect, the reality is that it is only the distribution that is challenging. It turns out the actual production of the program is relatively easy, especially now that younger demographics are not as picky and will watch and listen to audio and video production that falls far below traditional levels of acceptance regarding fidelity, picture quality and size. The eighteen to thirty-four demographic will watch and listen to sub-par audio and watch hand held scratchy video on a reality show. It’s no longer about perfect quality. Ideals have shifted and placed content at the top of the heap. It’s not how you say it, but what and when you say it. We want it now, and we want it delivered on our laptops, phones and PDAs. How audiophile can you go on a 2.5 inch screen with a $22 pair of ear buds?

Newspapers now see big light at the end of the tiny LCD tunnel. Ms. Kornmiller went on to say, “So far this year we’ve outfitted our reporters with digital cameras if they want them. We’re looking at more video. What’s nice about the Star is that there’s training to go with it. We don’t just throw something at you and expect you to figure it out. I mean there is a bit of that, but we hold video editing classes on a Friday afternoon between 3 and 6pm.”

Friday afternoon I blurted? You can get staff to stay onboard until 6pm on a Friday? I later thought; it’s more than just a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s a rope tossed down the well to a drowning industry.

In the last two U.S. presidential elections politicians used early adopter versions of citizen journalism and crowdsourcing to sway voters. And in the upcoming primaries and next presidential election on November 4, 2008, crowdsource companies are already assembling huge citizen journalism networks in an effort to have even more of an impact. Some see it as a boon to democracy, while others feel it could subvert political strategies that have historically been managed through traditional news media companies.

I asked Ms. Kornmiller, ”Considering that citizen journalism and crowdsourcing help politicians win elections, how do you think it will trickle down to the news industry?”

She replied, “I think there is great skepticism [regarding whether cj is feasible]. We have tried citizen journalism with our blogs. I’m meeting with all of our bloggers in the next month to go over our code of ethics because we’ve had what we would consider at least in-house breaches of that code, and to explain what plagiarism is, and how to source things. I think there is a big learning curve.”

Ms. Kornmiller continued, “In the fall we had a page designer who wanted to do a knitting blog, and they sort of scoffed at it in the newsrooms. So we started to monitor the traffic, and she [the knitting blogger], was close to overtaking our football blog. We would have never known that. What mainstream newspaper is going to have a knitting column? It’s so old school, but it’s really new school. We’re trying a lot of different little things to see what sticks. Our movie critic is now doing a video blog.”

She went on to say, and the following is critically important, “Regarding citizen journalism, you have to find the citizens who can do it. They have to have some stake in why they’re doing it. Politics is a natural fit because it’s [covered by] people who have passion about something. But I don’t know if you have that same passion about fire district meetings. So when the stakes are higher, when you know there is more passion about the subject, it seems to me then you have to be more cautious about the sourcing.”

I prefaced the next question by saying, “Citizen journalism and crowdsourcing break down walls and create transparency. In the traditional analog world, sometimes the truth is kept secret or modified in an effort to generate profit. Quite often the public doesn’t understand how business works, and they feel that everything should be put on the table.”

I then asked, “Will we have to redefine the definition of truth?”

Ms. Kornmiller thought for a second and said, “Well, I don’t know about that, but what I find here at the Star is that the people I hear from think the government is corrupt - local, national. They’re suspect of the people elected or the people who we pay. And where the criticism is, is that we don’t do enough to uncover that corruption. I just got an email yesterday saying that the mainstream media won’t write about the Justice Department.”

I stated, “Many people feel newspapers are in collusion with someone.”

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “From our standpoint there’s a lot we have written about the Justice Department, but they want more. They want action. They want heads to roll.”

I stated, “They feel you have the power. What happened over the years that caused them to feel like that?” And Ms. Kornmiller replied, “They feel we’re tough on the Republicans, but not tough on the Democrats. I think we all have a short memory. People’s opinion is being guided by Talk Radio.”

I stated, “There a fine line between censoring and . . .” and Ms. Kornmiller jumped in to say, “As long as it’s tasteful. As long as your not saying bad words and using racial slurs, you can have as much truth as you want. You just have to have it in a polite conversation.”

When I asked, “What happens when they step over the line and criticize advertisers?” Ms. Kornmiller replied, “We haven’t encountered that yet, but I think we would be tolerant of that. What I think the public hasn’t done is . . you have a very small segment of the population that understands the power of online comments or blogging. And once it becomes more mainstream it because more powerful and you have to monitor it in a much different fashion.”

I then asked, “So, are we still in an early adopter phase?” She replied, “I think so, I think so. Again, people are still trying to decide how much time they have for news and information. If you want to do more blogging you’re going to have to turn off the tv, or reject something else in order to spend more time blogging. I don’t think traditional bloggers are doing it [blogging] at work. I think traditional workplace information seekers are looking for news and they are reading and not necessarily participating during the workday because that’s the rules of the workplace. You can go and look at a site, read reports, read newspapers, and your employer will never know the difference, but once you start commenting your address is shown in the history.

I don’t think the information stands by itself. You have newspaper and coffee. It’s a habit. It’s two things, but when you’re online, kids are IM’ing and listening to their iPOD. You have to figure out how to sell newspapers in coffee shops. Put the newspaper where you can find it. Figure out a way to get into multitasking that people do with their computers. A traditional website model . . . I don’t know, it’s just not the right way to do that. That’s why you have YouTube and MySpace as different models.”

I asked, “Is it hard for you to take ideas upstairs and talk to your owners and publishers, people who are making financial decisions?” and she quickly replied, “No” with a laugh. “We’re a pretty open place. Anybody can have an idea about anything. How do you think we got knitting? We had a brainstorming session about what blogs we have, and came up with some new ones. Blogs are [managed] in-staff except for two community websites that have community bloggers. You don’t find your expertise in the blog you take your expertise to the blog.”

I asked, “Do newspaper writers welcome blogging?”

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “I think they look at it likes it’s fun and something new.”

I replied, “Some writers feel threatened by blogs, and I asked, “Does it make sense for a blogger to call a writer before the blogger reports on a newspaper writer’s reporting?”

Ms. Kornmiller replied, “Journalists in general have thin skins when they are being criticized. It’s really easy to dish it out, but it’s hard to take. I write a column on Sundays where we go over some of the things we’ve done during the previous week. Last week we had a terrible time getting information on John Edwards’ visit to Tucson. I didn’t name people by name, but you could surely tell where we dropped the ball.

I asked Ms. Kornmiller if there was anyone she could think of that we should talk to about this story and she told me the ONO (Organization of News Ombudsman) conference was happening in Boston later this month May 20-23, 2007 – and part of their agenda was about blogging. She suggested we talk to the president of ONO.

The title of the Conference? “Ombudsmen in a Time of Transition”
http://www.newsombudsmen.org/

* Racial Diversity Report Tucson Arizona
http://www.powerreporting.com/knight/az_arizona_daily_star__tucson.html

5/11/07

You have really jumped into this, Maurice. You have a lot of knowledge, and I am confident your conversation will go off quite well. Just a few thoughts. First, I understand your reticience on some questions. The transparency here is a bit for me to get used to as well. I'm not convinced it pays to have all the questions out on the website. For one thing, a real conversational interview will produce questions you never thought of, so one hopes for a certain amount of spontaneity brought about through the interviewer's active listening.

I think you might be a bit of intimidating interviewer given your experience! Always remember that you're moving into a quagmire if the question you're asking is preceded by a statement that is longer than the question ( and sometimes the answer). The example I'd give is the section you have on MP3/music industry, then news media industry. I think you want to focus on specific questions related to the Arizona website, then move out, but don't get too convoluted. Feel her out--you'll know where her knowledge lies. Journalists tend to get their backs up over questions that paint the industry too broadly, but you can certainly ask her big-picture questions. As the paper's readers' advocate, Debbie will have a lot of insight on how other readers' advocates/ombuds are dealing with this issue.

I think a few of the questions might be difficult to get one's head around (it is for me). You ask about voters and the federal regional elections...The question seems shaped a bit based on your Canadian experience of regional elections...I am not sure how it translates.
It seems to get a little obscure, but I have been wrong before.
Any kind of crystal ball gazing question (as opposed to what people are dealing with right now) is always a hit or miss proposition.

But the best interviewers got with their intuition and the moment and are not tied to a script, though having a set of questions to open with and to fulfill one's specific information needs is necessary. You'll sense what is working and what isn't and do just fine. I like that this is a phone interview, and I am really impressed with the analysis you have done of the blogs/comments. You'll certainly have a lot to talk about. Good luck.

5/7/07

Add this to the LA Times wiki debacle and Arizona Star comments
WashingtonPost.com deals with the problem of raw, rude, and racist reader comments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR200705...

Excerpt:
"Now, click on "view all comments" at the end of a story, column or blog on washingtonpost.com and enter a new world that challenges long-held practices and that can unnerve some journalists and readers. The online comments are immediate, use only e-mail addresses as identification and can be raw, racist, sexist and revolting. Jim Brady, washingtonpost.com's executive editor, said, "It's much more of a free-for-all"

5/7/07

I'm interviewing Debbie Kornmiller later this week (May 8-14 2007) and would like your feedback regarding what you think we should ask her.

Among other things, I'm interested in her opinion regarding how she deals with her publisher, and how they will monetize the comments feature.

Here are a few of my opening questions;

________________________

A very vocal segment of Commenters and the mainstream news industry are clashing on your website.

Is it the responsibility of the mainstream news industry to educate the public regarding two-way communication in an online forum, or is it the responsibility of citizen journalists and crowdsourcing to educate the public and mainstream news industry?

Has anyone asked the people who create havoc in your Comments sections why they are being so aggressive? Has anyone tried to win them over?

Considering that mainstream news media invests substantially to attract an audience, how do you prevent "smart" people from luring your readers away to independent blogs and your traditional competitors?

__________________

It took about five years for MP3 technology to divide the music entertainment industry to the point now where at least 80% of music is traded illegally online. The results have devastated music companies, and film seems to be headed in the same direction. The music industry chose to ignore MP3 technology hoping it would go away. The film industry vowed not to make the same mistakes, but it was mostly lip service and the public soon identified it as a strategy to stall.

Will mainstream news media allow crowdsourcing to drive the same wedge between them and the public? Are owners of mainstream media companies taking this seriously?

If owners and publishers get one message from this interview what should it be?

__________________

What type of influence do you think the next presidential election will have on social news media? . . .

. . . and, will citizen journalism and crowdsourcing move exponentially to a new complexity and presence as a result? . . .

Plus . . . Will the general public learn to apply federal political crowdsource strategy to everyday communication at a regional level?

_______________________

I have a number of other questions for Debbie, but unfortunately for reasons I cannot discuss until later, and which will become evident, I cannot post them here. One reason I can't post them is because you never know who is reading this post, and the responses I need from Debbie must be spontaneous if they are to have any substantial value. Interviewing is an art, and one of the downsides to this project is that it impacts spontaneity, at least this is what it seems like to me.

So . . . tell me what questions you have, and I'll include your responses as best as possible.

Here's one more question . . .
________________________

StarNetCode of Ethics

http://www.azstarnet.com/staff/CodeOfEthics.pdf

excerpt #1 from StarNetCode of Ethics:

"The Arizona Daily Star and StarNet expect staff members to seek and convey the truth in all aspects of their work."

end of excerpt

Question:
Citizen journalism and crowdsourcing break down walls and create transparency. In the traditional analog world, sometimes the truth is kept secret in an effort to generate profit. Quite often the public doesn't understand how business works, and they feel that everything should be put on the table.

Do you think we will "all" have to redefine the definition of "truth?"

________________________

Let me know ASAP. I'll talk to Debbie in a day or two.

Cheers,

Maurice

5/7/07

The Assignment http://zero.newassignment.net/node/1725#

________________________
_______________________

Topics for discussion:

The following is reflective of research I (Maurice) did regarding this assignment.

Overview of the Arizona Star

Copied from the Tucson Arizona Star website;

Arizona Star - Tucson
http://www.azstarnet.com/

Owned by Lee Enterprises
http://www.lee.net/

Lee Enterprises is a premier publisher of local news, information and advertising in primarily midsize markets, with 51 daily newspapers and a joint interest in five others, rapidly growing online sites and more than 300 weekly newspapers and specialty publications in 23 states.

Lee's newspapers have circulation of 1.7 million daily and 1.9 million Sunday, reaching more than four million readers daily. Lee's online sites reach more than two million users, and Lee's weekly publications have distribution of more than 4.5 million households.

With the acquisition of Pulitzer Inc. in June 2005, Lee became the fourth largest newspaper company in the country in terms of dailies owned, and grew from 12th to seventh largest in terms of total daily circulation.

Lee's newspaper markets include Madison, Wis.; Lincoln, Neb.; Davenport, Iowa; St. Louis, Mo.; Billings, Mont.; Bloomington, Ill.; Tucson, Ariz.; and Napa, Calif.

Lee is based in Davenport, Iowa, and our stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol LEE.

Our company is focused on six key operating priorities:

· Grow revenue creatively and rapidly
· Emphasize strong local news
· Accelerate our online innovation
· Increase circulation, readership and online audiences
· Nurture employee development and achievement
· Exercise careful cost control

Lee was founded in 1890 in Ottumwa, Iowa, by A.W. Lee. Most of our papers trace their beginnings to the mid-1800s. Among our alumni are Mark Twain, Willa Cather and Thornton Wilder. A reporter from one of our newspapers died with George Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Nearly 30 years ago, one of our newspapers was the first in the world to be produced totally by computer

NAV Links

INSIDE LEE
http://www.lee.net/aboutlee/
List of Top Priorities

#1 - Grow Revenues - only segment created with graphics so you can't copy info
#2 - Did you know?
#3 - Code of Ethics
#4 - Editorial Matters
#5 - Editing/Design
#6 Writing Matters
President's Awards
Link.Lee.Net
Lee Intranet

End of research info re Arizona Star

____________________

Observations re Arizona Star project

Blogs are a precursor to citizen journalism and crowdsourcing.

Star BLOGS are managed by the corporation and are not independent.

We still haven't mastered blogs, so how can we jump so easily to a process that is infinitely more complicated and fraught with conflict of interest?

The Star has demonstrated a lack of initiative regarding "educating" readers who comment. They are also applying old rules to new technology. This strategy always fails. They also indicate, even though the state to the contrary, that they want to "control" the outcome. Once again, this always fails in an open source atmosphere.

List of blogs on Arizona Star

Note order of importance:

#1 Designer Knits (Knitting) Star reporter Irene McKisson (SAFE blog)

#2 Muggle Musings managed by Star reporter Danielle Sottosanti (Harry Potter) (SAFE blog)

___________________________

#3 Clocking In - joint blog of the Star’s Business news staff (Business News)

Sarcastic Comments;

Re Lee Marvin's house for sale

She does this every few years; the house has been covered before in the Star. This time Star failed neglected to mention he used to hang out a lot at Grant Road Lumber…that’s ok, you’re just kids.
— you rame Apr 23, 2:08pm #

Different post same article

OMG 12.2!!!!! OMG Think of all the In-N-Out Burgers they can build there (and all The Star reporter jobs that would be created!)

”...I spoke with Russell Long…”

SO inside, so breathless…

and too funny/sad
— you rame Apr 23, 2:26pm #

______________________

#4 News Gridlocked - Star transportation reporter Andrea Kelly

29 blogs in total with 6 devoted to sports

On April 27, 2007, more comments were made for a featured sport article on the front page of the Star than for the Iraq war article next to it, although the story adjacent regarding increased taxes attracted twice as many comments - 55 Taxes, 23 Sports, 14 Iraq, at 11:30am Pacific Time.

__________________

The following segment addresses areas of interest regarding Debbie Kornmiller and the Arizona Star

Very few comments in the Star's business blogs, but quite a bit more in arts and crafts, with sports the winner.

Even though they are underrepresented, "Business" blogs are important because they cross communicate with politics and general news that affects a very large segment of the community. Business news impacts the most lives at the deepest level, but until blogs and citizen journalism came along, the general public couldn't fully appreciate the importance.

Lack of comments doesn't necessarily indicate people are not watching. Most readers lurk. You have to be smart and brave, or stupid to comment, especially if you put your name on it. Most commenters are anonymous, but even then people are cautious because occasionally co-commenters will "out" each other and reveal names out of spite.

As in life, Comment threads are often dominated by the same people within each publishing realm. Generally, the "volume of commenting" indicates how successful the writer of the article is, which is information publishers usually keep to themselves unless they are wildly successful, then they inflate the numbers by two. Many writers produce work to inflame. It's good for business. It is also slowly usurping the dramatic headline.

Today, the world can see how well a publisher manages their market by studying the Comments section.

If a subject is personally sensitive for a reader, or if it has potential to negatively impact their business, most people will simply lurk. People in this position are concerned about revealing their identity and being fired because they divulged company secrets. Libel and slander are secondary concerns.

How and when people comment also indicates the level of intellect of the people responding. It reveals a lot about the publisher's target market, which means their competitors now have this information too. Information like this has traditionally been regarded as confidential.

When customers make comments and include criticisms of the publisher or their advertisers it makes it difficult for publishers to continue to allow customers to comment. Professional lobbyists are paid to seed Comments sections, phone in radio shows, and letters to the editor. http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/24/MediaScam/

It is a fine line between censoring for competitive reasons, and removing a comment due to slander, libel or profanity. News companies literally do not know how to deal with this conundrum. Many feel they are forced to include a Comments section because if they don't, their competitors, or worse, independents will, and do.

Big questions are;

Does news media have a responsibility to become more transparent and reveal to customers how the news industry works and how revenue is generated?

Is news media concerned that if they do not develop a strategy to manage their customers more effectively, that the same thing will happen to news media that happened to major recording labels?"
_________________________________

According to the manifesto of Lee Enterprises (parent to the Arizona Star), their #1 priority is "Generating Revenue," with "Code of Ethics" down the list at #3. They consciously and unabashedly place money over ethics. Lee is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock exchange, which means they have a legal obligation to increase share value - "even if it is detrimental to the community." It's the law.

Bias regarding news reporting cannot be separated from "how" news companies generate revenue.

The journalistic code of ethics has more influence over a writer than it does over an editor or publisher simply because the writer's name is in the byline, while the editor and publisher disappear behind a corporate facade. The public assumes writers, editors, and publishers are all affected equally, but the reality is that they have different agendas. For example, I chased a major news publishing company around for a year in an effort to convince them to report news more ethically. They ignored me. Instead of giving up I targeted the writer. The writer soon angrily called and attacked me on a personal level. I quickly learned that the writer is the weak link in the chain. A writer with a truly ethical streak cannot take the heat. They either quit or they are fired. In July of 2006 a reporter was allegedly fired by her editor because she reported critically and truthfully about the tourism business in our region. When it finally filtered back to the parent company, allegedly fearing a backlash, she was rehired. Not one mainstream news media company reported this landmark case, but citizen journalists were all over it. http://www.olyblog.com/06/CanWestBuriesStoryS07272006.shtml

Where does Debbie Kornmiller's loyalty lie? (I ask this question before I have had a chance to see her article and resulting comments regarding this subject. Hopefully it will answer this question, but even then my skeptical nature might still press me to test her during the interview. I searched online for the article to no avail, so I'll have to wait for Vivian to return from her trip so she can forward it to me.)

If we are to understand where we are going it would be helpful to review a bit of recent history;

In the 70's, union workers were fearful that automated robots would replace people. They were right. Many lost their jobs.

In the 80's, photographers were fearful that digitization would replace film. They were right. My film stock catalog is all but worthless.

In the late 90's, music industry executives insisted that the internet would not negatively impact their business. We now know what happens when an industry ignores and insults their customers. MP3.com literally and almost single-handed brought the entire music industry to it's knees. Napster finished it off, and KaZaa and Grokster, plus a slew of others picked up the pieces. Today, peer to peer has incredible influence over music listeners.

Around 2002, the film industry claimed they would not make the same mistake the music industry made, and that they would respect their customers. So far they are also losing the battle. YouTube is making very strong headway.

In the early 90's, during the advent of the world wide web, newspaper publishers around the world maintained and promoted aggressively that the internet would not last. Exactly like the music industry, they also promoted that the internet would not negatively impact their revenue or how they did business even though mounting evidence supported an exact opposite outcome. Newspapers are bleeding out. http://mediafade.blogspot.com/2006_12_31_archive.html - http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2007/01/media-another-funeral-in-philadel...

In 2006, a well respected senior investigative journalist at a powerful news company, the same angry reporter I mentioned above, told me during a very heated conversation that nothing I could ever write in my blog would ever affect how he reports stories. I consequently put even more pressure on him to write ethically, and within three months his style changed radically. He is still biased, but now hides it better. It's a start.

Many newspapers over the years tried to include "Comments" sections, but almost all backed away when they discovered it undermines their revenue stream. Advertisers complain, proprietary secrets get pushed to the surface, and both have a negative impact on a news company's share value, but all the public hears is that people who comment are Neanderthals and incapable of being civil. It's not true. I follow a number of online publications where most people respect each other. When someone steps too far out of bounds moderators reprimand or exclude them. The system, to a degree, is self-levelling. If small publishers can do it, big players can do it too. Unfortunately, big players want to hold on to old territories and business models. Goliaths resist change because it is expensive and very risky.

Newspapers are concerned about people abusing their system and spreading libelous and profane messages, but they are even more concerned with ethical smart people who now have access to their customer base. One smart person in a "Comments" section can sway the conversation. Plus, they can channel readers to independent blogs where the blogger/citizen journalist can challenge mainstream news media unfettered. I know this because I do this, and I am not the only one in my metropolitan region doing so. The reality is that newspapers have the technical ability to automatically moderate profanity, and it is fast and easy to delete over-the-top rants, but what they cannot deal with is provocative debate that impacts their revenue.

I know of half a dozen other people just like me who regularly challenge mainstream news media in my part of the world. We literally beat them at their own game. Few of us want to be in this position, but we do not have a choice. Our "real" businesses depend on our customers knowing the truth, and if mainstream news media won't dispense it, we will. It is the only way to receive balanced news. My readers reimburse me by contracting my company to service their needs in areas unrelated to my citizen journal. I do not care if I ever receive a penny of revenue directly from citizen journalism. It is a loss leader. The irony is that mainstream news companies do all the legwork and heavy lifting, while we simply tell the side of the story they ignore. The slogan for my blog is, "We don't break the news. We fix it." (www.OlyBLOG.com)

The next step for many independent citizen journalists is to take it to the crowdsource level.

When this happens it will drive another nail into the coffin of mainstream news media.

________________________
_____________________

Hopefully this will get everyone thinking and adding to the conversation.

4/30/07

Reuters You Witness Citizen Journalism

Do their customers consider this "conflict of interest?"

http://www.reuters.com/youwitness?src=int_cms225_youwitness_04252007

___________________________

TheTyee.ca is a successful citizen journalism styled site that does a great job of managing reader's comments, as opposed to the Arizona Star that seems to be
imploding.

http://thetyee.ca/

Do you know of others that seem to have a handle on it?

Maurice

4/30/07