Comments on: Practical workflow for journalism

By: Teaching Online Journalism » MVPs for June 2008

Teaching Online Journalism » MVPs for June 2008 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:16:11 +0000

[...] Practical workflow for journalism [...]

By: Paul Conley

Paul Conley — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:53:09 +0000

Hi Mindy,
The AP’s new “1-2-3″ system reminds me of the Bloomberg method as well. And there are many reasons why I think that’s a great thing.
But here’s what I think are the most important:
1. We know that the Bloomberg method works — for decades now the company has been making money and dominating the news in its space by providing headlines, first takes and updates in an electronic format.
2. I’ve spent much of the past few years trying to get journalists to understand the Bloomberg system and adopt some version of it for their Web sites. And the objection I’ve heard hundreds of times now is some variation of “that’s not how AP does it.” Now that AP has finally seen the light, perhaps the rest of journalism will as well.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:31:26 +0000

It’s sad that people like “espresso 2008″ jump to extremes when talking about journalism in the 21st century. Why can’t newspapers use their superior talent, expertise, resources and credibility to tell stories in the most appropriate ways possible? If we don’t stop acting like the options are 1) Write really long, dense stories or 2) Become a TV station, we’ll never be able to adapt.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:57:24 +0000

It’s true that text is generally the most complete format. In other words, if you want to tell every detail and cover every aspect, probably you need text. Or a two-hour documentary video.

Given the practice of journalism, we very rarely have the complete story. You know, it’s “the first draft of history.”

Writing a book usually takes a year or more.

The typical story about political corruption, for example, unfolds over time. Journalists share what they know, when they know it, whenever they can get verification.

Bit by bit.

By: espresso 2008

espresso 2008 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:34:05 +0000

Great! Now the print media can become just as vapid as TV networks such as Fox and CNN….i’d much rather read a well-written, insightful story than watch some video about it thats two-minutes long and says not much (sure, viral animal videos are fun — but those are the bulk of what we’re talking about here.)….there’s a reason people rely on newspapers and not television — eliminate all the crappy updates and dumb dailies that editors assign and start producing stuff that people would never learn about otherwise…..

By: Mike Maxwell

Mike Maxwell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:42 +0000

Yes, but there are downsides to the 1,2,3 workflow. Often steps 1 and 2 leave gaping holes, or worse, they introduce misinformation.

How about just going straight to step 3 with good, accurate information and multimedia or alternative story format elements to help the reader actually understand the subject? The obsession with providing the freshest information and getting out in front often just pollutes the information stream.

By: Gordon Brander

Gordon Brander — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:18:13 +0000

This method isn’t just for Journalists, either, it’s worth thinking about for anyone who publishes. @gruber on Twitter constantly posts little thoughts and tidbits. Some make it in a fuller, more fleshed-out form as an article on Daring Fireball, and others don’t. But the consistent stream of info gives you a kind of “back-story” and a fuller connection to his writing.