I’ve got some links with the lovely people at UTS, and I’ve been asked to judge the online journalism category in their student awards. In discussing what constitutes excellence in online journalism, I don’t want to get into the journalism v. blogging discussion here, but I would be interested in what LP folks think makes an excellent piece of online writing in journalistic form. I won’t be talking about the entries, but I think the category raises an interesting set of questions, because it calls for a set of criteria distinctive to feature writing or reportage produced specifically for the online medium rather than print. Any ideas?
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Good online journalism would share many of the qualities of good journalism generally – concise, engaging writing that throws the light of understanding on complex, current issues of public interest and asks questions others might not have considered.
But the most successful online journalism also draws on the strengths of the medium in which it operates. So that means it incorporates links, interactivity and multi-medium elements, where appropriate, to tell timely stories in insightful ways.
Sticks to the point, and is well argued. Doesn’t let opinion get in the way of facts.
I think it would be necessary to distinguish here between feature/op-ed type journalism and ‘news’ journalism, a distinction that doesn’t get made nearly often enough in these kinds of discussions. One of the reasons nobody makes it enough any more is that the media outlets have stopped doing it (at least in Australia) as well, on TV in particular but also more and more in the press, so what we see getting constructed as ‘news’ is often actually feature, op ed, advertorial or propaganda. Radio is the last medium standing that still makes a clear distinction between hard news and feature and/or in-depth analytical response.
Taking Mr Denmore’s point about the hyperlink and interactivity capacity of online journalism, I’d say that good online journalism is writing that attracts comments that enhance, amplify and auto-correct what’s already there: that it’s a process as well as a product, and that it’s produced not only by the person who wrote the original piece but also collectively by the people writing the responses. This is particularly exciting and helpful when something important is happening in real time.
Do UTS have judging criteria?
My list (Not meant to be exhaustive or in any rank):
• originality
• concision
• clear purpose
• appropriate structure
• disinterested voice
• objectivity
• detailed, sourced, linked
• catchy title/headline
• fresh language/avoidance of clichés
• relevant to audience
• use of audio/visuals
The best may well ignore most of these. A great scoop is worth all the form in the world.
I’ve found Michael Totten generally fits the bill of working on the forefront ofon-line journalism. Many aspects of his model enable this.
Obviously his free-lance jobs give him some space. He seems to have a decent cadre of trusted colleagues who can maintain his blog presence while he spends extended time on travel and writing. He also balances his content well between that which is available on-line, and that which must occasionally be paid for.
More than anything, I have always admired his motives – he’s unhappy with MSM reportage, so he’ll go and find out his own truths.
Is it? Why? To whom? Not the reader, I’d venture to say.
I mistrust the ‘scoop’ mentality more and more — it seems to me about being FRIST (TM) and very little else. Dedicated investigative journalism that genuinely uncovers truths in the public interest is something different and truly valuable, especially in this culture (I saw The International last night so am feeling more paranoid than usual), but the blind compulsions of ‘scoop for scoop’s sake’ just seem to me to make journalists behave very badly for the sake of being first over the line.
I yield on scoops. Dogged investigation will have to be the substitute. Sometimes having the right deep throat can make as story.
The criteria for best online journalist may be different. One great post doesn’t make one.
Online journalism should:
Address issues of importance, avoid the trivial
Use an original approach rather than the stereotypical
Be willing to tackle complex issues, acknowledge the complexity, avoid simplistic solutions
Be prepared to challenge ‘sacred cows’
Be prepared to confront and disassemble dishonest disingenuous biased journalism
Be rich with verifiable facts
Include all the relevant facts, not a biased selection
Include accessible references to support facts and assertions
Be rich with hyperlinks – one of the advantages of online writing
Clearly separate opinion from facts
Clearly denote quotations and acknowledge and reference sources
Structure the piece understandably
Use logical, well reasoned arguments
Use fluent, clear, simple prose
Avoid verbosity – embrace brevity
Avoid exaggerated language, clichés and mantras
Be modest in making assertions, avoid arrogance
Use a catchy title, one that reflects the substance of the piece
Draw readers in and hold them to the end
Ensure the conclusions match the presented facts and the arguments
Finish with a flourish
Use visuals where they add to clarity
Be as objective as possible
Acknowledge biases, conflicts of interest
Include background information on the writer
Use humour where appropriate
Avoid heavy sarcasm and personal jibes
Encourage comments
Moderate comments to exclude personal abuse or stereotypical mantras
Respond quickly to comments that warrant a response
Respond moderately with sound unassailable reason, avoid defensiveness
Be enjoyable to the writer and intellectually rewarding.
Online journalism should be:
* Well written and coherent. Feel free to use media to illustrate and elucidate.
* Interesting.
* Defensible.
* Online, which you might think is flippant but really, it’s the only part of this list that isn’t a subset of the criteria for journalism.
NPOV is for wikipedia and wire service. Comments are after-market add ons.
There’s one critical difference: online journalism should make plentiful and appropriate use of the hyperlink. Without those links for the reader to explore, it’s just print journalism that happens to be published electronically.
IMO links are now overused and mostly redundant if you right-click on key-words.
The real breakthrough is with the comments that are supplementing, enriching and occasionally correcting the main post. Some good examples are at Firedoglake.
If you liked ‘ letters to the editor’ in the dead-tree’s then you should like online open-source gonzo journalism. This is a major breakthrough in breaking huge stories in real time. It’s revolutionary.
Clean, tight copy. Sound understanding of the topic at hand. Even-handed approach to facts even while not resiliing from offering an opinion. Avoids jargon, cliches and the current vogue phrases like “Not so much.” No un-named sources and no ad hominem attacks. Sometimes even offers a genuinely new idea.
When Tim Geithner gave his clunker of a speech about the GFC a short time back, some blogger or other said that he “looked and sounded like an elf giving a book report.”
I think online journalism should aspire to snipes of that quality. If it can’t be accurate or edifying, it can at least be funny.
Dunno about you guys, but I’m a sucker for a good set of links.
Online journalism is very much the same as dead-tree journalism except that it has additional attributes: it can be updated and instantly commented upon by readers.
Second point. While copy filed for print is often cut (improving it no end) online, it is posted as it comes steaming out of the hack’s fevered mind.
Off the leash writers running rampant in cyberspace is wondrous to behold. Anyone read our Gerry’s recent effort online? It’s an advice column for lonely Liberals. It seems he has now come out as a player or rather, as a card-carrying consiglieri. When he was strictly print he made a pretense of being a pedantically academic disinterested observer. But being online has emboldened him. It’s sort of like having a radio show in slow motion. Gerry – come on down!!