-
Website
http://codybrown.name/ -
Original page
http://codybrown.name/2009/06/09/batch-vs-real-time-processing-print-vs-online-journalism-why-the-best-online-news-brands-will-never-look-like-the-new-york-times/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm not sure, given the Gray Lady's current financial instability, that the NYT will be bold enough to re-make itself, for to do so would require a serious overhaul of top level management, and a rethinking of its entire journalistic philosophy. I don't want to see the Gray Lady fall - I still read their website daily - but at times I feel sadly resigned to the possibility.
What's hurting the NYT and other papers is the disintermedation of their business model from their journalism. The NYT and other papers need a new working business model. The challenge is that it may generate a lot less money. Real-time vs batch isn't necessarily all. Papers are good in some respects.
(And - pedantry corner - "it's" is not possessive; it's short for "it is". Possessive is "its".)
Even batch processing often does a poor job of handling this ethical situation. And I'm not saying real-time processing can't evolve feedback loops and ethics that do a better job.
I am saying, however, that it's a really lousy feeling to suspect that all your systems have failed to protect the reputation of an innocent person who deserved better.
Discuss.
Cody touches on a useful point early on: this may simply be a branding problem. If the NYT could differentiate its batch-processed "true" brand from its RT-processed "interesting" brand, that'd help, right? Alternatively, two separate companies could simply maintain separate brands and separate services.
Cody makes the common assumption that to function in the 21st century, RT reporting is the ONLY way to compete. But as Charles says, reliability is still very valuable ... especially to the less-informed, less-savvy general audience, who (unlike Cody) simply don't have time to track each twist and turn of a story, assigning the proper grain of salt to each.
I suspect that whatever general and almost-general audiences survive in the future will continue to be drawn to the batch-y side of the spectrum rather than the RT side. If that means the news is collated and delivered more slowly, so be it.
By the way, it definitely mitigates Dan's concern if a news outlet that happens to regularly spread interesting libel is branded as such. We know this is possible -- we've been seeing it at check-out stands for the last 50 years.
Yes - I was at the same panel with Jill Abramson - I know she was in a tough position but my god was that a trainwrek. Remember when she spent 3 minutes projecting screenshots of the NYT's on the wall set to Coldplay? Her ending quote, if I'm not mistaken was, "Some may call us dinosaurs, but remember, dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years." Yeah... that pretty much sums it up.
It is either/or insofar as you will need to make a decision on when to publish rumors or information that is coming in Real Time. If you're saying that a news brand can do that - then add a batch like summery of this info later - then I agree. If you're saying that the NYTs brand can publish all this info RT - I'd say they'd have a lot of trouble.
The business model is, of course, a problem for print newspapers going online and there is no way the NYT would be able to have so much traffic-getting-content on its website if it wasn't for all the ad revenue it's still makes from its print product.
What's a big plus about a news brand going RT is that if you can figure out a way to use your beat to contribute/curate/monitor it becomes significantly cheaper. Unless you really think a micropayment model is at all feasible or online advertising will suddenly surge in value, then the only thing you can really do for the 'business model' is reduce costs. Tech Crunch finds ways to do this and, in my opinion, it's really only hitting the surface level of what users can contribute (crunch base is a good start). Because of the brand's inherent caution, it would be much more difficult for the NYTs to pull this off. It's vulnerable to a competitor that applies an RT method of dealing with the news to everything the site does. The NYT's would probably have it's best luck in more agile RT spinoffs rooted in specific beats.
I am not saying that mainstream news brands only report verified facts, of course they do. They engage rumor, speculation, gossip, and conjecture (especially broadcast news). The difference between Batch and RT processing is about when you publish information (instantly), who you allow to publish (everyone), and where you make sense of it (on the site). RT tactics are at times used by brands like CNN when there is a hurricane or a school shooting, but there are still understandable verification steps that go on behind their 'magic journalism box'. When you open your newsroom to your entire beat labeling and effectively organizing this information on the fly is the challenge of RT. I've yet to see a news brand do this well.
The presentation, though, flows really well, just like a sophomore's A+ assignment.
Don't pretend to be a journalist if your stories are published without going through the full editorial "batch" process. RT is gossip, not reporting.
But I don't have time to give you complete details to justify my critique just yet. Suffice to say that I have a ton of evidence, and you would be thoroughly convinced if you could see it now. However, this critique is being developed in real-time. Stay tuned.
It would look like an organized version of this: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection
I think you meant to say your critique is being processed in "batch"-time, that is, slowly, and on your own, without the input of anyone else.
I'm certainly glad you have a ton of evidence to justify your critique, as I was prepared to consider the possibility of an alternative viewpoint, weighing the evidence for myself. I'm so glad to know there are still authoritative voices who can do my thinking for me!
You forgot to leave a link though Mike. I'm just wondering where I should tune-in later to get updates? Will there be ads displayed between now and then?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13853652/NTT-WPS-2-Va...
Tom
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/
The blog, although not yet far reaching, lately focuses on the Iran election controversy, something that requires real time coverage from scores of sources. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. Just as NYU Local adapted itself to the demand for information with the Kimmel occupation, so the New York Times has made the first steps to adapting to its readers.
This blog has given me new confidence in the Times and all it has to offer the 21st century. On top of using their journalistic prowess to analyze and process the goings on in real time, they’re also digging through the pile of information that is the internet for clues, citing unverified articles, correcting themselves where needed. In other words, doing basically what you said they wouldn’t do. By establishing this blog inside the Times website, they seem to have sidestepped, at least for the moment, your mandate that they shed their commitment to 'packaged' news.
This leads me to the overarching idea that the debates involving the future of news media, especially involving the internet, seem to glaze over: there is an audience for both packaged news and live news, speculative columns tied neatly in a bow as well as live, up the minute coverage, complete with hundreds upon hundreds of user comments.
I oppose the idea that the only way journalism, particularly the Times, can survive on the internet is to provide news stories that are ‘in process.’ The television equivalent would be watching CNN all day, everyday (in fact, it seems CNN is relying more and more in the internet, citing and reading Twitter and Facebook messages on the air), getting rid of shows like 60 Minutes, and other nightly news programs. (This brings up another set of issues entirely, so try to just look it as an metaphor rather than a direct comparison)
This limitless amount of pages and therefore news stories that blog sites have at their fingertips, just like the 24 hours CNN has as its, can be their greatest asset, but can often turn into the most crippling feature. Many think that more information is better, and in many ways it is, but it must be understood that not all of the world is an internet buff or a journalism major, and do not have hours to spend on the internet or the television searching for the latest on whatever happens to be going on at the time. The packaging Times articles undergo are not simply because there are a limited number of square inches on the page, but also a limited time and attention span of the reader.
Again, I am not arguing for or against either side, I am simply acknowledging that the Times tradition of packaging its content, and its trustworthiness is not its weakness, but its strength, and these things should not be compromised in order to become more like everything else on the internet. Adaptation is necessary, but not to the extent that you seem to be demanding. Their blog can, and I hope will, prove this. They can be both trustworthy and groundbreaking at two different levels, without either tarnishing its counterpart.
As it is in most debates, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Between instantaneous news and their credibility, the Times must strive for both in order to succeed.
Your paper is striking. How on earth did you convince them to let you install keystroke logging software?
I think the NYT's Lede blog is a good step toward RT but I don't think it's even close to fulfilling its potential. Same is true for NYU Local's coverage during the Kimmel Occupation - we pushed what we could with our posting and our brand, we got serious traffic, but there was a lot we couldn't publish or even sort because there was just so much coming to us. My email alone was getting around 200 messages an hour.
RT Journalism is about when you publish information (instantly) but it's also about who gets to publish in the first place. Even in a set-up like the Lede, sure, they are publishing unverified information from a lot of different sources but they are not giving sources the access to publish themselves. Additionally, they don't explain who they aren't publishing. So there is still a magic journalism box here that curates without explanation, just as there was during the Kimmel Occupation for NYU Local. Both brands are showing a little more of their process but they still define themselves by their output.
Also, yes. Don't get me wrong, packaged, or 'batch' content has a place and will never go away. No one is a total nerd on EVERY subject, sometimes you just need to sit down and have someone explain Darfur or why Michael Phelps is good at swimming. I'd say though that getting the news first is what's strategically important. It's much more effective to amass news on a story and do batch sounding pieces on top then to try and go vice-versa.
Keep in mind, in the same breath, I'd also say that Twitter is a poor platform for RT Journalism. Everyone who uses it right now for RT-J is bootstrapping, the reason it's gotten so much attention is because it's the best and biggest we have at the moment. This can change.
I have some objections to the either/or case you seem to have made that I won't go into at length -- they're on my own blog, and Blake has outlined much the same case anyway.
Maybe other journalists won't agree, but I do think that a more-transparent newsgathering operation (within the bounds of responsibility regarding sources, off-the-record material, etc.) would make most readers think more highly of their paper, not less. Yeah, there's sausage getting made back there, but from my experience the process is far more honest and responsible than readers seem to think it is.
Granted, a more-transparent process makes it harder for the Times to be the voice of God, and would be a huge cultural change for them. But being the voice of the New York Times would still be pretty good....
then you can have the conversation.
not only is online reporting real time, its conversational.