Mark’s view of blogging as it relates to journalism is a myopic one.
His proposed alternative to NYT blogs – regarding so-called RealTime Yankees, City Hall, etc. – fails to address one of the most intrinsic and valuable elements of blogging. Yes, the ability to break and update events in near real-time is part of why people are increasingly turning to blogs for their news. When evaluating the merit of journalistic blogs, of equal or greater importance to real-time news updates is the ability of readers to respond to that news.
Blogs not only allow readers to respond to news items with their own updates and opinions, but readers can submit their own news items as well. Rather than being passive consumers of content, blogs enable a conversation that allows readers to focus on issues and events with which THEY are concerned.
Mark’s point of “brand equity” being diminished as a result of the user-generated content relies on the misconception that blog content will be indistinguishable from the rest of the site. This is obviously not the case. With a clear delineation between what is and is not UGC and guidelines and permissions, this basis for opposition disappears.
This two-way flow of information provides the blog’s host with valuable insights into its audience and – more importantly – engages the audience to an extent that wouldn’t be possible without the interactivity, accessibility and empowerment of blogs.
Far from diminishing the NYT “brand equity,” the NYT’s willingness to truly engage in conversation demonstrates its awareness of the importance of conversation and the wisdom of the crowds.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Doping in Sport Article in the New York Times (Part 3)
My response to Susan Wessling:
Dear Susan,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
I am aware that Professor Wailoo's essay referred to a cloud being cast over Sir Bannister's achievement. Indeed, given that the four-minute barrier for the mile was believed by many to be beyond the ability of mortal man to break, it is not surprising that some people believed that Sir Bannister could not have accomplished the task without the aid of enhancements. As you point out that Professor Wailoo's essay states, the cloud dissipated quickly. I do not disagree with that fact - or with the fact that such a cloud existed. My contention is - and was in my original letter - that while such doubts may have been raised regarding the accomplishments of both Sir Bannister and Marion Jones, those were recently proven in the case of the latter. Sir Bannister was quickly exonerated a half-century ago while Marion Jones is currently being forced to relinquish her ill-got Olympic medals. It is the case of Marion Jones to which I was referring when I made reference to "obliterating the sun" in my original letter.
As I am certain you are aware, one of the dangers of attempting to make comparisons between two potentially similar instances is that characteristics and elements of one story will doubtlessly be applied to the other, even if they are factually outside the realm of similarity. While both athletes' careers may have been clouded, Marion Jones was proven to have used performance-enhancing drugs, disgracing herself, her sport, and her country. Sir Roger Bannister, on the other hand, went onto a "distinguished medical career" and continues to be a champion of the importance of athletics and a role model to athletes around the world. Their pictures should not have appeared together beneath that caption.
While it is refreshing that you "credit readers with enough sense to understand that if they look at only a few parts of a package -- if they don't translate the shorthand by reading the article itself -- they're getting only part of the story," I believe that you are forcing them to shoulder what is ultimately the responsibility of the New York Times - to construe the facts of a story clearly, impartially and without insinuation. By emphasizing the specious similarity between Marion Jones and Sir Roger Bannister in spite of enormous incongruity between their stories, I do not think that you fulfilled your journalistic responsibility. Forcing your subscribers to carefully read the article in order to dispel the false parallels suggested by the accompanying pictures and captions - carefully selected by the New York Times - is an open invitation to misinterpretation and the spread of misinformation.
Best,
Sanchez
------------------------------------------------------
I'll continue to update as the correspondence progresses.
I've also forwarded these letters to Professor Keith Wailoo, the author of the essay and a professor of history and public health at Rutgers.
Dear Susan,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
I am aware that Professor Wailoo's essay referred to a cloud being cast over Sir Bannister's achievement. Indeed, given that the four-minute barrier for the mile was believed by many to be beyond the ability of mortal man to break, it is not surprising that some people believed that Sir Bannister could not have accomplished the task without the aid of enhancements. As you point out that Professor Wailoo's essay states, the cloud dissipated quickly. I do not disagree with that fact - or with the fact that such a cloud existed. My contention is - and was in my original letter - that while such doubts may have been raised regarding the accomplishments of both Sir Bannister and Marion Jones, those were recently proven in the case of the latter. Sir Bannister was quickly exonerated a half-century ago while Marion Jones is currently being forced to relinquish her ill-got Olympic medals. It is the case of Marion Jones to which I was referring when I made reference to "obliterating the sun" in my original letter.
As I am certain you are aware, one of the dangers of attempting to make comparisons between two potentially similar instances is that characteristics and elements of one story will doubtlessly be applied to the other, even if they are factually outside the realm of similarity. While both athletes' careers may have been clouded, Marion Jones was proven to have used performance-enhancing drugs, disgracing herself, her sport, and her country. Sir Roger Bannister, on the other hand, went onto a "distinguished medical career" and continues to be a champion of the importance of athletics and a role model to athletes around the world. Their pictures should not have appeared together beneath that caption.
While it is refreshing that you "credit readers with enough sense to understand that if they look at only a few parts of a package -- if they don't translate the shorthand by reading the article itself -- they're getting only part of the story," I believe that you are forcing them to shoulder what is ultimately the responsibility of the New York Times - to construe the facts of a story clearly, impartially and without insinuation. By emphasizing the specious similarity between Marion Jones and Sir Roger Bannister in spite of enormous incongruity between their stories, I do not think that you fulfilled your journalistic responsibility. Forcing your subscribers to carefully read the article in order to dispel the false parallels suggested by the accompanying pictures and captions - carefully selected by the New York Times - is an open invitation to misinterpretation and the spread of misinformation.
Best,
Sanchez
------------------------------------------------------
I'll continue to update as the correspondence progresses.
I've also forwarded these letters to Professor Keith Wailoo, the author of the essay and a professor of history and public health at Rutgers.
Doping in Sport Article in the New York Times (Part 2)
The New York Times' Reply:
Dear Mr Sanchez,
Thank you for writing. How to accurately and fairly illustrate an article is something we consider every day. We are certainly aware that a newspaper page can be read as a form of shorthand -- a headline with few words, a small selection of photos, a caption that has little room for detail. Our goal is balance among all those elements, but we also credit readers with enough sense to understand that if they look at only a few parts of a package -- if they don't translate the shorthand by reading the article itself -- they're getting only part of the story.
In this case, we are comfortable with the balance of elements. In a story comparing past and present, combining similar historical and current photos is a natural choice. And as much as we can, we depict people who appear in the article, so that the caption and the story can work together to tell the full story.
And Mr. Wailoo does, in fact, refer specifically to accusations against Roger Bannister, not just later runners who broke the 4-minute mile: "The cloud over Bannister's achievement dissipated quickly; he brushed aside the charges as ridiculous and went to a distinguished medical career. In 1959, the A.M.A. study concluded that there was little evidence to the specific allegations." So a caption that mentions a cloud over Bannister's feat is both reasonable and accurate. And as you can see, Mr. Wailoo was quite careful to finish the tale -- to make it clear that, as you say, a cloud did not obliterate the sun.
Regards,
Susan Wessling
Assistant to the Editor, Science
The New York Times
Dear Mr Sanchez,
Thank you for writing. How to accurately and fairly illustrate an article is something we consider every day. We are certainly aware that a newspaper page can be read as a form of shorthand -- a headline with few words, a small selection of photos, a caption that has little room for detail. Our goal is balance among all those elements, but we also credit readers with enough sense to understand that if they look at only a few parts of a package -- if they don't translate the shorthand by reading the article itself -- they're getting only part of the story.
In this case, we are comfortable with the balance of elements. In a story comparing past and present, combining similar historical and current photos is a natural choice. And as much as we can, we depict people who appear in the article, so that the caption and the story can work together to tell the full story.
And Mr. Wailoo does, in fact, refer specifically to accusations against Roger Bannister, not just later runners who broke the 4-minute mile: "The cloud over Bannister's achievement dissipated quickly; he brushed aside the charges as ridiculous and went to a distinguished medical career. In 1959, the A.M.A. study concluded that there was little evidence to the specific allegations." So a caption that mentions a cloud over Bannister's feat is both reasonable and accurate. And as you can see, Mr. Wailoo was quite careful to finish the tale -- to make it clear that, as you say, a cloud did not obliterate the sun.
Regards,
Susan Wessling
Assistant to the Editor, Science
The New York Times
Doping in Sport Article in the New York Times
I was reading an article about a client in the New York Times. In case you were curious, the company's name is Daptiv and the article can be found here: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/business/media/12adnewsletter1.html)
After I read Stuart Elliott's article on Daptiv's rebranding, I noticed an article titled "Old Story, Updated: Better Living Through Pills." (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/health/13essa.html)
This normally wouldn't have grabbed my attention, but beneath this headline were pictures of Sir Roger Bannister (the first human to run a mile in less than four minutes) and Marion Jones (who recently tested positive and then confessed to years of doping and is being forced to return her ill-got Olympic medals. All five of them!).
Needless to say, I was shocked.
Rather than recapitulate my feelings here, I'll simply post the email I sent to the New York Times.
My Letter:
New York Times Editor,
As an avid runner and former collegiate track and field athlete who ran the 1500-meter race (the metric mile) I was shocked and upset to see a picture of Sir Roger Bannister prominently displayed beneath a headline regarding athletic drug use. Thinking that there may be substance to the story, I immediately opened and read the article to find that it did not claim that Sir Bannister doped. Nor did the article suggest that Sir Bannister was suspected of doping. Rather, Professor Wailoo's article cites the slew of runners who broke the four-minute mile barrier in the three years AFTER Bannister's monumental achievement as evidence of potential doping.
I do not believe that Professor Wailoo's article was meant to suggest that Sir Roger Bannister made use of performance enhancing drugs. I believe that the New York Times' presentation of the article misrepresented both doctors.
First, by placing that picture of Sir Bannister - one of the most famous in track and field history - next to the story's headline and above the picture of a proven doper, the New York Times effectively imbued the article with the message that Sir Roger Bannister used performance enhancing drugs - something for which there is no proof. A subscriber who neglects to fully read the article will simply assume that Sir Bannister doped.
The second and far more vociferous method by which the New York Times skewed the subject was by the photo's caption, "Drug questions clouded the feats of Roger Bannister in 1954 and Marion Jones in 2000." Beyond the fact that Wailoo's article makes no such claim, there is no evidence that Sir Bannister doped. Even allowing for the flexible nature of the verb "clouded" there is an enormous difference between casting a cloud and obliterating the sun. Evidence has proven that Marion Jones is a dirty athlete. No such evidence tarnishes Sir Bannister's athletic accomplishments and the New York Times should not use misleadingly placed photographs and overstating captions in an attempt to do so.
Yours,
Sanchez
3:56.44 Personal Best time for 1500 meters. Drug free.
After I read Stuart Elliott's article on Daptiv's rebranding, I noticed an article titled "Old Story, Updated: Better Living Through Pills." (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/health/13essa.html)
This normally wouldn't have grabbed my attention, but beneath this headline were pictures of Sir Roger Bannister (the first human to run a mile in less than four minutes) and Marion Jones (who recently tested positive and then confessed to years of doping and is being forced to return her ill-got Olympic medals. All five of them!).
Needless to say, I was shocked.
Rather than recapitulate my feelings here, I'll simply post the email I sent to the New York Times.
My Letter:
New York Times Editor,
As an avid runner and former collegiate track and field athlete who ran the 1500-meter race (the metric mile) I was shocked and upset to see a picture of Sir Roger Bannister prominently displayed beneath a headline regarding athletic drug use. Thinking that there may be substance to the story, I immediately opened and read the article to find that it did not claim that Sir Bannister doped. Nor did the article suggest that Sir Bannister was suspected of doping. Rather, Professor Wailoo's article cites the slew of runners who broke the four-minute mile barrier in the three years AFTER Bannister's monumental achievement as evidence of potential doping.
I do not believe that Professor Wailoo's article was meant to suggest that Sir Roger Bannister made use of performance enhancing drugs. I believe that the New York Times' presentation of the article misrepresented both doctors.
First, by placing that picture of Sir Bannister - one of the most famous in track and field history - next to the story's headline and above the picture of a proven doper, the New York Times effectively imbued the article with the message that Sir Roger Bannister used performance enhancing drugs - something for which there is no proof. A subscriber who neglects to fully read the article will simply assume that Sir Bannister doped.
The second and far more vociferous method by which the New York Times skewed the subject was by the photo's caption, "Drug questions clouded the feats of Roger Bannister in 1954 and Marion Jones in 2000." Beyond the fact that Wailoo's article makes no such claim, there is no evidence that Sir Bannister doped. Even allowing for the flexible nature of the verb "clouded" there is an enormous difference between casting a cloud and obliterating the sun. Evidence has proven that Marion Jones is a dirty athlete. No such evidence tarnishes Sir Bannister's athletic accomplishments and the New York Times should not use misleadingly placed photographs and overstating captions in an attempt to do so.
Yours,
Sanchez
3:56.44 Personal Best time for 1500 meters. Drug free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)