Musings on Internet Dominance

I read an article on Mashable this evening about Facebook gobbling up yet another small startup company; a location based mobile service called Glancee. As I was reading the short article I began thinking about how Google and Facebook seem to be developing a sort of monopoly on the Internet. The idea that Facebook and/or Google could somehow be linked to every aspect of our Internet usage in the future is somewhat frightening and a little discerning to be honest. It also brings into question the future of Internet news. There has already been rumor of Facebook developing its own version of news on the web. I’m not sure I feel comfortable with Facebook providing the public with their version of “news.” Let’s hope newspapers can maintain some aspect of relevancy on the web for the sake of the general public. 

CISPA: Maybe not such a bad idea...

I read an interesting article on Mashable this evening and apparently the CISPA bill passed the house with amendments. I understand that many people are worried about their personal information being shared with private companies and the federal government to prevent cyber-attacks. But I feel like this is one of those situations where relenting some of our privacy can be used to prevent problems in the future.

Cyber-attacks on large websites can often be problematic and cause major problems for the company that owns the site. Several years ago one of the larger banks in the U.S. suffered a cyber-attack and customer’s personal information such as credit card numbers was compromised. The bank was forced to send out new credit cards to all of its members.

This type of bill could also provide more security to online journalism sites in the future as they continue to grow and evolve. Pay walls are becoming common place for online news sites like the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. A cyber-attack on a news website, similar to the one experienced by the aforementioned bank, could destroy online news altogether. It would be difficult if not impossible for news organizations to recover from a cyber-attack. 

Mashable: Utilization of Innovation

The idea of journalism making its way to the web was a concept of little importance when the Internet became a tool available to the public. It was merely a figment of a dream in the minds of young entrepreneurs.

But over the course of the last decade that dream became a certainty. The reality is the future of news is going to be online and the print format will cease to exist. The length of time it will take for this phenomenon to occur is yet to be seen, but the fate of print news is certainly set in stone.

Many entrepreneurs and young journalists saw the inevitable fate and began expanding and took their skills to the Internet. Sites like Mashable have helped create a market for this type of web journalism.  

Mashable was founded in 2005 by Scottish native Pete Cashmore in Aberdeen, Scotland. The site has since located its headquarters to New York City and Palo Alto, CA. The websites primary focus was social media when the site was founded but has since expanded to cover news, developments in mobile, entertainment, business and a slew of other web interests. Contrast to hard news sites like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, etc., Mashable does not have a print version.

Website design is a crucial element to the success of online news publications, an aspect that is not lost on the design team at Mashable. Let’s discuss some of the features that make Mashable not only an innovator but one of the better news sites on the web.

The most noticeable element on the site is the top trending story. Similar to most news sites the top story has a large photo coupled with a headline that dwarfs the others. The top story also changes periodically throughout the day. Below the top story are smaller trending stories. The stories appear to be placed based on popularity, not based on when the stories were published. Each story has a bold headline in blue with the text of the story in black not including the blue links. Each trending story has its category listed next to the story. This is a great feature because it allows the reader to sift through content with ease. The stories seem to be well placed and there isn’t too much content on the front page. By contrast, the New York Times website seems to cram as much content as possible on the front page rendering the page unappealing and difficult to read.  

The site employs a toolbar located at the top of the page for navigation. The toolbar is well located and easy to use. There are six categories on the toolbar that allow the reader easy access to different areas of interest; social media, tech, business, entertainment, U.S. & world, and videos. Each category has a dropdown menu that provides easy access to the top trending story for each category. The greatest strengths of the toolbar are location and clarity. Toolbars like the one utilized by the New York Times are located on the side and are cluttered with many different topics making it difficult for the reader to find areas of interest. Mashable does well to avoid others’ flaws.

Above the main toolbar is another smaller toolbar placed near the top of the page. The smaller toolbar gives the reader access to the top stories, trending stories, people, jobs and events. Most of the categories are self-explanatory but the people tab allows the reader to meet the staff of Mashable and follow them on Twitter if they choose. The jobs tab allows the reader to find jobs on Mashable or on other related sites. The events tab advertises events and conferences on Mashable and other related areas.

Mashable chose to provide a photo with every story that appears on the website. Even the small headlines located in the trending topics column have a photo. Providing photos with stories is a great way to attract the reader to a story of interest. Providing photos for every story on the page may seem like overkill and a bit monotonous but I argue that it does well to create page continuity. On the other hand not every story needs a photo. There was a story on the site a few days ago about apple with simply a picture of the Apple logo. The photo wasn’t necessary and did not provide further interest or understanding of the story.

Videos on Mashable seem to work rather well and there is a plethora of video news stories. When I first arrived at the video page via the video tab on the front page toolbar, the top trending video began playing immediately. I found this feature mildly irritating. But despite my annoyance the videos load quickly; a feature that does well to appeal to Mashable’s main demographic.

Advertisements on websites are quickly becoming larger and more aggravating as we venture further into this age of Internet journalism. But Mashable does well to relieve the frustration of irritating ads. Upon arrival at the site, there is a large banner ad just below the main toolbar and another larger ad in the right hand column of the page. Also, neither of the ads are misleading. Both ads are for the same company but change day-to-day. However, there is a small section near the bottom of the page that is slightly deceitful. Near the bottom of the front page there is a section that is labeled partners. This section is essentially an advertisement for “partner companies” to Mashable that sell services such as video cloud, and an array of tech gadgets such as cell phones and iPods.

Commenting on news websites has grown tremendously overly the last several years and Mashable is not foreign to the status quo. Mashable has chosen to force readers who wish to comment to sign in via Facebook or Twitter. I found this feature mildly aggravating but I would maintain that it’s simpler than setting up an account through the site; a feature utilized by most news websites today.

As expected Mashable is a huge proponent of social media. Next to each story readers have the opportunity to like the story on Facebook, share it via Twitter, or “plus one” it (I was told by fellow classmates that this is the proper terminology) on Google +. They also provided easy access to subscribe to Mashable using LinkedIn, Stumble, YouTube, and RSS feed. The most noticeable feature is the opportunity to not only share stories on social media but the size of the widgets next to each story. The widgets are larger than they are on other news sites.

Mashable not only has a mobile website but they also provide apps for Android, iPhone and iPad. The apps for all three providers are free and deliver the same content available through the regular website. One noticeable difference is the layout from the iPhone to the Android app. The Android app provides a layout that is cluttered and rather unappealing but the iPhone app provides nothing more than the headline of each story creating a clean-cut page layout that is easy on the eyes. The mobile web design is similar to the layout of the iPhone app, with easy navigation and simplistic order.

The aspect of Mashable that is most appealing is its simplistic layout and ease of use. I alluded to this earlier but Mashable doesn’t have to follow the layout of a traditional news website like the Times and the Chicago Tribune because they are not an extension of the print version. They have an opportunity to be innovative in the design of the page. The site also does well to appeal to its main demographic in terms of content and layout. This is not a site that our parents are likely to visit so they don’t have to follow the same criteria as a hard news website. The site is geared towards younger, tech-savvy individuals and Mashable appeals well to its audience.  

Despite my apparent adore for Mashable there are a couple of areas that could use improvement. It is not necessary to have a photo with every story on the page. Some of the photos are placed with the story merely for the sake of providing a photo. They serve no purpose. A photo is intended to lead the reader to stories of importance. Stories of little importance would be better served without a photo. Eliminating photos may also provide more room for content on the front page. I would also consider modifying the Mashable logo. The entire design is dramatically similar to the Facebook emblem. Mashable may be better served using a different color or text to help distinguish the site in a market that relies on recognition. 

The Benefit of "Fun" Articles

I read an interesting article on lifehacker.com this evening describing how inserting a straw into a ketchup bottle can increase the speed of ketchup flow. The reason I find this interesting is because I believe short articles like this have a place in the future of online journalism.

People enjoy reading short articles that provide tips to everyday problems. Articles like the one I mentioned have a chance to increase readership and more importantly, sharing via social media. Social media sharing increases traffic and if news organizations begin creating a small section for fun articles it may become a sufficient tool in the future. 

Tablets and iPads: Savior or Bunk?

When newspapers first debuted on the internet, the platform was a regurgitated version of the daily print edition. Online news was designed for viewing on a laptop or PC with the theory that people would get their daily dose of news while avoiding the pile of work that awaited their procrastination. But mobile technology is beginning to the change the landscape of journalism; a trend that is becoming a constant in the world of news.

Tablets and iPads are growing with tremendous popularity and according to author Amy- Mae Elliott in her article “Is the iPad the Savior of the Newspaper Industry?” many technology experts and pundits in the publishing industry believe tablets and iPads have the opportunity to save the newspaper industry. And I believe the experts may be correct.

Mobile devices may be exactly what the newspaper industry needed to regain that loyal readership that graced them for so many years. With that said, I believe it is important for newspapers to continue to adapt and create content for their online version of news. According to Elliot, iPad owners are 75 percent more likely to read the news. The iPad and tablet may take the place of the tangible newspaper for one that is less expensive and easily accessible. But I also believe it is important for these industries to create news online for PC’s, tablets, and iPads, and avoid creating content for android and iPhone. Android users will likely support this notion that apps for the platform tend to be faulty and slow. It’s also difficult to read a news story or any story for that matter via smartphone making tablets and iPads the perfect platform for a digital newspaper.

My main beef with online content is the lack of editing that takes place. When this was first discussed in one of my classes, many were quick to point out that most of the poor editing I had experienced were from blogs which in most cases are not viewed by an editor before going live. However, I have started noticing the same errors in news stories as well. If newspapers want to convince the public to pay for “quality” content it needs to be created free of errors with a high level of accuracy both in editing and material. I understand the aspect of immediacy putting a heavy burden on journalists to produce articles quickly and accurately, but that should not excuse poor editing. And journalists who post their own blog should take enough pride in their own writing to make sure it’s edited properly. I think it will be difficult to charge for content no matter the platform if accuracy goes by the wayside.

Ultimately, online-beef-rant aside, the newspaper industry needs to continue to adapt in a world where technology is the center of the universe. Technology dictates the direction of innovation for a number of different professions. Journalism and more importantly newspapers must adapt. It is clear that users are ready and willing to pay for quality content; the industry needs to stay on the cutting edge and provide. Mobile (specifically iPad and tablet) has the potential to put traditional media back in the driver’s seat; but they need to be willing to make the changes necessary to adapt to a mobile driven public. I don’t know if iPad will “save” the newspaper industry, but providing content specific for the iPad is not a bad idea.

Ethics in Journalism for the Web

            I read an interesting article on Poynter about a writer for the Washington Post that failed to properly credit a post from Discovery News as the main source for the Post writer’s story. The article suggested this was not the first time this particular writer had made this type of “mental lapse.”

            I think this article is interesting because it brings into question the topic of ethics in journalism for the web. Over the past several years, an eye for detail in online journalism, specifically blogging, has gone by the wayside. I can only hope that credible sources of journalism will maintain a high standard of ethical reporting; an aspect of reporting that news organizations can’t afford to lose.   

Social Media Rules for Journalists

            Social media is drastically changing the landscape of journalism. For the past decade many journalists have only acknowledged the negatives of social media such as speed versus reliability, and citizen journalists versus polished professionals. But negatives aside, over the past several years many journalists have accepted the notion that social media can be an effective tool. However, another problem has risen for journalists who are new to the social media community. Many journalists know how to use it but are unsure when to use and exactly for what purpose.

            The International Journalists’ Network came up with a list of 4 Social Media Rules Journalists Should Break. Some of these make sense and I would arguably agree with the writers on a few. They suggest avoid returning “friending” or “following” requests from every person who is a follower on Twitter or Facebook. It’s important to be mindful of whom to follow and friend. There are a high number of users on Twitter and Facebook who are considered “chronic posters” and have nothing intelligent to offer. It can create clutter in the Twitter feed and can be irritating to try and sift through the garbage. The authors also suggest creating groups and creating lists within Twitter to keep everything organized.

But I feel that a few of the authors suggestions are a little off base. The author suggests scheduling media posts which will allow journalists time to create actual journalism. The authors argue that social media is immediate and requires journalists to “be there as it happens,” impeding the time necessary to create quality content. But I disagree with this perspective for a couple of reasons. First, creating a social media post on Facebook and/or Twitter takes only a matter of seconds and is easily accessible with the advent of the smartphone. I would be willing to bet that nearly every journalist working in the industry is carrying a smartphone and if not they should. Also, not all people want to read tweets that appear to be generated for mass consumption; they want to know the tweets they observe were created by a human. Part of the splendor and intrigue of Twitter, Facebook, and all the other social media sites is they’re immediacy. There are people who turn to Twitter for breaking news because they follow news organizations like the New York Times, AP, Washington Post, etc. People following these organizations want immediate news. Tweeting when it happens may be the best way to maintain a strong following.

However, I can see why scheduling posts can benefit journalists who have a following across different time zones and in that case I would argue scheduling posts can be truly beneficial for both the journalist and their followers. I also believe it is important to find the times when most people are online using their social media sites and to be sure to post during those times. Posting during peak times will increase strong website traffic and could build loyal readership.

But what it truly boils down to is circumstances. I don’t think there are one set of rules, as the authors alluded to, that are acceptable for every journalist to follow. One journalist may have a following that doesn’t mind a preponderance of tweets whereas another might have a following that doesn’t enjoy being bombarded constantly by the same tweeter even if that person is a journalist. It depends on the situation and what the journalist feels comfortable doing. But that doesn’t mean if a journalist doesn’t feel comfortable using social media he or she should avoid it all together. All journalists will need to find a comfort level with social media if they want to survive in a rapidly changing industry.