Metamedia - Latest Comments

Re: URL manipulation, libel, and Kate Middleton jelly beans

Huw Sayer — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 05:40:29 -0000

Another fascinating (and funny) post from @NewsMary on dodgy URLs and libel - worth reading.

Re: Digitally divided

Mary Hamilton — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:18:56 -0000

Thanks - it was a great event and I felt very proud to be a small part of it.

I think working and living in areas where connectivity is difficult can be genuinely eye-opening. It can be really hard to persuade folks who've been in cities their whole lives that digital inclusion is an issue at all - and a lot of people forget that "free" tools require an infrastructure that's actually fairly expensive by some standards. I'll watch out for your NESTA work with great interest - it'll be interesting to see your ideas for challenging the issue.

Re: Digitally divided

blogpreston — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:06:48 -0000

Great post Mary, really cool to hear some of the stuff coming out of the Powerful Voices event. Local newspapers need to continue to reach these people, but also continue to be relevant to their lives.

It's so challenging, and something I really try to remind myself having lived in places where broadband is taken for granted all of my life. The work that I'll be starting on the NESTA project with Blog Preston is going to be really tough in that sense. I'll be training people in basic storytelling and trying to get them excited about the abundance of free tools that are out there. But how many of them even have a Google email address, or have to go to a library for their internet access? Despite the fact that I'm definitely an evangelist for the web it's so important to remember that for many people they aren't even connected. As you point out, it's especially important when an element of social change is involved.

Re: Facing the future

Mary Hamilton — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:52:31 -0000

I think it's actually a wider issue than that - it also has to do with the sheer amount of copy, film, audio etc. that journalists are now expected to squeeze from events. The lengths of time spent writing, editing, and presenting have increased because of the fragmentation of platforms and the merging of newsrooms - that means less time spent actually investigating. So as well as an issue of executives not capitalising on mobile technology, there are also workload and workflow problems.

Re: Facing the future

Aaron Davies — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 04:45:51 -0000

Great post and you raise some very pertinent points - not least the whole issue of being chained to a desk. I wonder if that is a legacy of owners/MDs/CEOs etc just not really grasping the possibility of mobile tech.

In an ideal world I think most paper/mag/media offices would be small with meeting rooms and instead of equipping journos with a desk, a telephone, and desktop PC/Mac (with all the overheads that entails) they should give them a smartphone, light laptop with wifi and 3G dongle, camera (with video) and set them free to report. But we're just not there in terms of understanding or structure yet. Desks have become a security blanket (for managers and maybe even some journos) and trust is at a premium.

Re: Words mean things: no, all journalism is not aggregation

Huw Sayer — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:58:22 -0000

More good crunchy thinking from @newsmary

Re: Driving innovation: pie in the sky

Aaron Davies — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 06:13:25 -0000

I wonder if it is a trust thing. You have to give your employees the time to experiment (and fail as well as succeed) and trust that they use it wisely. And then you have to back up that trust with resources. A big ask maybe, but the rewards could be huge.

Re: Driving innovation: pie in the sky

Mary Hamilton — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:50:31 -0000

That sounds like a fantastic idea. I'd want to set them up so that both people already working at large and traditional media organisations could work alongside students and freelancers to share ideas and make stuff happen - I'd love to get that sort of partnership working going.

I am intensely envious of Google's approach to training its employees. It seems like that's a big area that journalism is, well, not very good at.

Re: Driving innovation: pie in the sky

Aaron Davies — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:43:20 -0000

I like the sound of all of what you've written above. If I had the power and the money, I'd love to draw some of those things together and fund some labs (for want of a better word) where people from different organisations would be provided with the space and resources to pursue projects and ideas around journalism.

Maybe it would be a bit like Google's engineer time (where engineers get a day a week or so to pursue their own projects) but across different companies and disciplines. This would combine elements of your partnerships, intersections and resources ideas. And I would make it long term - a day a week for a year, or maybe a week a month.

Re: Tips on tweeting live

Mary Hamilton — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:50:26 -0000

Thanks Huw - glad you reckon they're useful.

Re: Tips on tweeting live

Huw Sayer — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:37:33 -0000

These are excellent tips from @NewsMary- and not just for journalists but for anyone wanting to use twitter and other social media responsibly, particularly if they find themselves witnessing a news worthy event.

Re: March 26: the peaceful majority

Huw Sayer — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:56:31 -0000

Another excellent post from @NewsMary giving her perspective on the #26March #March26

Re: March 26: the peaceful majority

Mary Hamilton — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:28:54 -0000

Speaking as a member of the media - albeit a freelance one on this occasion - I hope the people I interviewed wouldn't feel betrayed by what I've written. They already feel betrayed by the government.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say with this post. Clearly the minority who took part in any sort of action beyond the main march are just that - a minority. Both the direct-action supporters and detractors are so keen to focus on the direct action that they are missing a much wider point: the sheer number and diversity of those who acted at all points to a massive surge of feeling. Dismissing the concerns those people have and the efforts they've made is counter-productive whichever side you want to win - unless you want to alienate the very people you need the most.

Re: March 26: the peaceful majority

Absinthe_drunk_faery — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:50:57 -0000

Interesting to read your view of things and great that so many had such a good time. I think, however, you might not entirely comprehend the position of peaceful non-violent direct action groups though. There were those of us there who see marches from A to B as a fantastic, stirring show of solidarity but ultimately constrained and made futile by the very people it opposes. Vince Cable has already stated today that the government wont change their plans one iota in the face of the march yesterday...which was exactly the experience of marchers in the anti-war protests.
Direct action doesn't mean rampaging or being the 'bad' protesters (an entirely bullshit notion propagated by the media and the police spokespeople) and people were kettled, arrested and provoked who were simply choosing alternative non-violent methods to express discontent...and trust me. There were PLENTY of unionists and members from the marching groups involved in direct action and occupations later on. Lets not buy in to the nonsense mainstream media notion of us and them.
Now if all the people who marched went on general strike...
To be honest, I think that you SHOULD feel betrayed by both the government and the media. They don't respect what anyone did yesterday one iota. Lip service from Labour, dismissal from the ConDems & flagrant misrepresentation from the media in a bit to divide and conquer the protest movement.

Re: What do you actually do?

Aaron Davies — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:56:54 -0000

It's such fun too. It really allows you explore the idea of journalism as much as the practice. And to experiment to see where it goes next, even dabble in new things yourself. It's wonderful if you love the web, the net and have a broad focus/short attention span ;)

Re: What do you actually do?

Mary Hamilton — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:59:54 -0000

Definitely agree that it's good to know I'm not the only one doing this sort of thing - I think if you're interested in this sort of work, at the moment it can be hard to find examples of people actually working in this way. (And even harder to find work doing it, but that's a separate issue.)

I do love telling people it's my job to read blogs. I wish more people could do the same.

Re: What do you actually do?

Aaron Davies — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:46:29 -0000

This is great. It's good to know that other people doing similar roles exist. I do something not unlike what you do, maybe a bit more focus on the web design, UX, IA (across multiple titles) side of things and a bit less on the data journalism and community management.

What I definitely need to do more of is Reading the Internet, distilling and curating. I have let the latter two lapse shamefully.

Re: What do you actually do?

Adam Tinworth — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:25:19 -0000

Excellent. Keep that up, and you'll join me on the social pariah list in no time. :)

Re: What do you actually do?

Mary Hamilton — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:22:56 -0000

I spend most of them tapping away on my iPhone anyway, so I barely notice. Plus if the food isn't wifi-enabled I complain loudly.

Re: What do you actually do?

Adam Tinworth — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:19:40 -0000

Wait: you get invited to dinner parties?

Dammit. So it's not all online journalists who get excluded then. Just me. :)

Re: Journalism, entrepreneurialism and failure

Huw Sayer — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:47:27 -0000

Good post Mary - in some ways, many of the points you raise are common to all industries.

Fear of failure (not just lack of money or opportunity) is what holds many people back from risking all as an entrepreneur.

Not everyone has what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur – or a good journalist, footballer, photographer.

Being freelance doesn’t make you an entrepreneur. I’m a freelancer – I know I am not an entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurs do more than ditch the regular pay cheque – in fact, though some don’t even do that, preferring to work from a more secure footing (hence your point about entrepreneurs tending to be older). Instead they invest time, intellect, energy and money in building a new business or a new way of doing business.

Being an entrepreneur takes certain skills (financial, managerial, and operational). It also requires a certain mindset – being able to face the fear of failure (and “the fear of not enough success” – a nice point of yours) is just one aspect of that.

Success in life mainly depends on the ability to delay gratification (“I want it all and I want it now” doesn’t usually work). That requires tenacity, self belief, and a willingness to make mistakes – to fail and start again and again. “I have not failed 1,000 times: I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways that will not work," Thomas Edison (apocryphal).

Vision also helps (though sometimes – often? – it can be turn out to be a delusion) – successful entrepreneurs see an opportunity to add value where most other people see risk or inconvenience. Specialising can also help – narrow markets where certain information, services or products are hard to find or use tend to attract premium paying customers.

Most of us at some point have probably looked at an apparently simple business idea and thought – “Oh I could have done that.” The point is: we didn’t. Some businesses are complicated – like Dyson’s 20-years spent developing his cyclone technology. Others appear easier (Twitter – just 140 characters and very few bells or whistles – yet apparently worth $7.7bn). All of them required someone to actually take the plunge.

You are right that success depends to a certain extent on how you define it – freelancing has risks, the financial rewards may not be as great or as secure compared with following a conventional careers but it has other rewards in terms of variety, freedom, flexibility. Your business might not be the next big thing – but a successful small thing can still bring a lot of personal satisfaction (and the chance to leave home).

Final point – there are people making lots of money in journalism – they just don’t tend to be journalists (think Bloomberg, Murdoch, Huffington, Bill Ziff, Kerry Packer, Tony O’Reilly, Leo Kirch, and John Malone etc). There will be others – media will continue to evolve – someone will find a way to monetize the obvious or the obscure – it might just be you (but don’t lose sleep over it if it’s not).

Best wishes
Huw

Re: Unpaid work experience vs market norms

Huw Sayer — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:56:34 -0000

Think you are spot on with the idea of the gift within the gift (it's like giving seeds or bulbs to a gardener).

Re: Unpaid work experience vs market norms

Mary Hamilton — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:30:38 -0000

Interesting point about practicality vs commerciality. I suspect another element - to use your example - might be that people value the experience of learning to brew and creating their own beer as almost an extra gift, so in a sense you're giving them both the finished product and the creative experience - as well as the sense of achievement they get by having created something. Hm.

Agree whole-heartedly with your rule 1, though. Any amount of money isn't right, because it takes a social contract and transforms it into a market exchange, and value just doesn't translate.

Re: Unpaid work experience vs market norms

Mary Hamilton — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:27:26 -0000

I'd love to read that. Sounds like it'd help inform and refine my current thinking about this issue (mostly, I don't understand why anyone's willing to work for free, or really how they can afford it, but I recognise that says more about my background and status than it is about accepted standards).

Re: Unpaid work experience vs market norms

Huw Sayer — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:19 -0000

Thank you Mary - that is very interesting - reminds me of the issue of what to give a volunteer as a leaving present when they have devoted say 20 years of their life to a social club.

Rule 1 - never, ever give cash - unless you raise thousands, the person will instinctively see it as poor recompense for their years of hard work.

Strangely enough people tend to ascribe more value to something as transitory as a bunch of cut flowers than they do to a voucher for the cash equivalent (particularly if someone takes a picture of them with the flowers and puts it in the social club's newsletter - or, better still, gets it printed in the local newspaper).

Equally people tend to prefer practical presents that relate to a hobby (such as a complete home brew kit) to commercial substitutes (such as a case of beer) - I always assumed that this was because it showed that the givers understood the receiver's personal passions - but reflecting on your article I think it is because the receiver immediately sees a cash value in the commercial equivalent (and so judges it on its market value).