Your reflections and responses on the shells project have been incredibly valuable, gang. Thank you for the insights and honesty.
One small piece of background I want to correct, just for the record as it were, is the apple and oranges nature of the money vis a vis Joe and Bright Tree.
First: We had not settled on a final fee, so, although the math might work from an earlier proposal, it doesn't account for final negotiations.
More important: We could not have used that money to fund the Missourian deficit or other day to day operations costs. The Reynolds Journalism Institute grant was specifically for experiments, not operations.
Minor points, I know, but just wanted to mention it.
Tom
Monday, May 12, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Invisible Fruition (i.e. we did our part, but to what ends)
After class on Wednesday I went home and slept for three hours. I wasn’t sure if it was the exhaustion I had from staying up until 2 a.m., because of the city council meeting on Monday or if it was from staying up a little later on Tuesday to finish a final paper, but I feel like the news about the shells project was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I was pretty shocked when I heared the news and I still have mixed feelings about the whole project. In many ways it helped me to reinforce some management skills I learned in London and I was really excited when I felt like things were actually going to be finished at the end of the semester. But to be quite honest after Wednesday I felt like I could have written three or four more articles, had another beer with a friend as this is my last semester, and could have taken more time to simply get a workout in or a few more hours of sleep. In my state of shock and exhaustion I simply had to sleep.
I also would like to say that I don't feel angry, I simply feel disappointed and shocked. I usually don't like getting angry because it isn't very productive, just dissapointed.
Finally, what about the whole idea of the shells project?
In terms of the whole idea about the shells project I think it is an awesome idea and in the future. I think it would be an awesome opportunity to possibly get a couple Missourian print reporting and design students, one or two Broadcast students, some convergence students, and a couple photo-j majors to colaborate on a shells project.
Was it worthwhile?
The shells project was worth it, despite my current dissapointment and frustration. I would like to have something to show an employeer or graduate school to show that I did project manage something that reached frution.
I would say that it was worthwhile as a learning experience and a practice in humility, as I often forget that I can’t control everything.
What, if anything, did you learn?
I learned that if this is the direction that news is going it is going to be a tough jugling act to move journalist in this direction.
I learned that not all projects that I work on in my lifetime will reach fruition, and sometimes for reasons out of my control.
I learned that not everyone on a team is motivated to get the work done, but I also should work on my delegating skills and trusting others.
Would you do it again?
I would do it again, but with stipulations. That is all I will say on that matter.
What would you change?
I would have divided people up into teams based on their knowledge and motivation before the project started. I think this would have been beneficial, because we could ensure that there would be smaller groups, and the individuals in those groups would be deciding on a topic/focus that was truly of their own interest.
What would you keep?
Exactly what I am taking away…enthusiasm, team work, and humility.
I also would like to say that I don't feel angry, I simply feel disappointed and shocked. I usually don't like getting angry because it isn't very productive, just dissapointed.
Finally, what about the whole idea of the shells project?
In terms of the whole idea about the shells project I think it is an awesome idea and in the future. I think it would be an awesome opportunity to possibly get a couple Missourian print reporting and design students, one or two Broadcast students, some convergence students, and a couple photo-j majors to colaborate on a shells project.
Was it worthwhile?
The shells project was worth it, despite my current dissapointment and frustration. I would like to have something to show an employeer or graduate school to show that I did project manage something that reached frution.
I would say that it was worthwhile as a learning experience and a practice in humility, as I often forget that I can’t control everything.
What, if anything, did you learn?
I learned that if this is the direction that news is going it is going to be a tough jugling act to move journalist in this direction.
I learned that not all projects that I work on in my lifetime will reach fruition, and sometimes for reasons out of my control.
I learned that not everyone on a team is motivated to get the work done, but I also should work on my delegating skills and trusting others.
Would you do it again?
I would do it again, but with stipulations. That is all I will say on that matter.
What would you change?
I would have divided people up into teams based on their knowledge and motivation before the project started. I think this would have been beneficial, because we could ensure that there would be smaller groups, and the individuals in those groups would be deciding on a topic/focus that was truly of their own interest.
What would you keep?
Exactly what I am taking away…enthusiasm, team work, and humility.
Almost over
This semester has gone by way too fast. I can't believe that I'm going into my last week of reporting. Like Matt, I am facing a very long week at the capitol, but I'm really exciting to see what comes out of the legislature. I've learned so much about reporting and state government and now I see everything through a new lens. I have definitely had to leave my comfort zone by being on the state government beat. Politics are very tricky. You really have to learn how to read between the lines, and dig through all the crap to get to the story.
I really appreciate having the opportunity to be in a class with reporters of such caliber. The conversations that were had in the classroom were always intriguing and really made me think outside of the box. Everyone brought something to the table and I learned from all of you. I can't wait to see where we all will end up.
The shells project was a great opportunity for me. I got to work with reporters from different backgrounds and experiences. Paul has been amazing at organizing and he has helped me out a lot through the process (Thanks). I am glad that I had the opportunity to take part in such an innovative project. I definitely had to learn a lot about Columbia, shells, and online layout. There are so many things that you have to consider when creating a shell, and I'm glad we got to explore some of the options.
For next time, I would have like to be more specific. We started off with such a huge idea, and so little time. We bit off more than we could chew, but in the end we were able to get it together. Also meet more than once a week. With everything else going on in the newsroom, it's hard to stay on task when we don't get to meet often.
I don't know if it was all worth it. I enjoyed the experience, but I would like to see what it is like once it is published. To me, it is only worth it if it is useful to the people. If it's not, then maybe we should try something else.
Thanks everyone! It's been amazing
I really appreciate having the opportunity to be in a class with reporters of such caliber. The conversations that were had in the classroom were always intriguing and really made me think outside of the box. Everyone brought something to the table and I learned from all of you. I can't wait to see where we all will end up.
The shells project was a great opportunity for me. I got to work with reporters from different backgrounds and experiences. Paul has been amazing at organizing and he has helped me out a lot through the process (Thanks). I am glad that I had the opportunity to take part in such an innovative project. I definitely had to learn a lot about Columbia, shells, and online layout. There are so many things that you have to consider when creating a shell, and I'm glad we got to explore some of the options.
For next time, I would have like to be more specific. We started off with such a huge idea, and so little time. We bit off more than we could chew, but in the end we were able to get it together. Also meet more than once a week. With everything else going on in the newsroom, it's hard to stay on task when we don't get to meet often.
I don't know if it was all worth it. I enjoyed the experience, but I would like to see what it is like once it is published. To me, it is only worth it if it is useful to the people. If it's not, then maybe we should try something else.
Thanks everyone! It's been amazing
One Final Thought
Obviously, I feel disappointed by the end of this semester. The thought of devoting this much time to something that fell through is truly disheartening but it wasn't the first time this type of thing happened to us, and I doubt it will be the last time it will happen.
I questioned several times during the semester who would take up the shells mantle when we left. It is still my question. The way I understood it, these shells will still happen, and that's good. But, with the databases that we have put together, there will need to be people behind us to keep them up, even over the summer until these go up.
In the end, I learned several skills I didn't know I had. I feel that I have learned that I work well with others, and my work with some of the younger reporters during the semester, I feel I can get the most out of people, which is nice. I have had the opportunity to work on my own and with others this semester, and I learned a great deal of patience.
With hindsight, it is easy to say that the shells took away from our work with the editors. I think that is true. But at the same time, the work we did on shells and the things we learned from it are important.
I am not upset that I was able to do this. And I might do it again, but I feel that the one on one work we do with our editors is important and what most of us sign up for this class. Another class should be set up to work on shells and keep up with them.
Just my opinion.
I questioned several times during the semester who would take up the shells mantle when we left. It is still my question. The way I understood it, these shells will still happen, and that's good. But, with the databases that we have put together, there will need to be people behind us to keep them up, even over the summer until these go up.
In the end, I learned several skills I didn't know I had. I feel that I have learned that I work well with others, and my work with some of the younger reporters during the semester, I feel I can get the most out of people, which is nice. I have had the opportunity to work on my own and with others this semester, and I learned a great deal of patience.
With hindsight, it is easy to say that the shells took away from our work with the editors. I think that is true. But at the same time, the work we did on shells and the things we learned from it are important.
I am not upset that I was able to do this. And I might do it again, but I feel that the one on one work we do with our editors is important and what most of us sign up for this class. Another class should be set up to work on shells and keep up with them.
Just my opinion.
Final Blog Post
While a lot of people are winding down, I will probably have the most difficult week of reporting in the semester in the upcoming week. Like college students, state legislators wait until the last possible moment to get anything done, and our finals week happens to coincide with their last week of the General Assembly. So I will be spending a lot of time in Jefferson City this upcoming week as everything winds to a close, often staying in the Capitol until late at night. This semester has probably been the most difficult for me since I've been at school, between juggling about 15-20 hours a week reporting, 15 hours a week at a job that pays me, and a full workload of five classes. I enjoyed our Wednesday course a lot, though I started to get dicey toward the end of the semester. Reporting in Jeff City was pretty enjoyable, aside from a 2 week stretch in which I didn't get nearly as much accomplished as I should have.
As for the Shells project, I'm working on an end-of-General-Assembly environmental piece that should go along with a lot of the other end-of-General-Assembly things I'll be doing the next week. Hopefully, when the project does go up, that will be able to replace my billtracker.
Was the shells project worthwhile- Like many others have said, I think making the shells project into its own course might be the best course of action from this point forward. Recruiting a group of web developers, reporters and editors and having them work together would be an interesting experiment and one that might be preferable to paying a company like Bright Tree and leaving the project in their hands. I think anyone in the Advanced Reporting Class is going to have enough on their table to begin with, and adding a huge undertaking like this, in addition to our regular beat, has high burn-out potential. After all, we're getting 3 credit hours.
What did I learn- I learned a pretty good deal about the energy process in the General Assembly in doing my profiles and bill tracker. One of the most interesting things I learned was that while most people have a positive reaction to Green issues, there are a lot of things that go into alternative energy, and it's not as savory as a lot of people think.
Would I do it again- I can't honestly say. I will probably not look into reporting as a career path and tend to have a lot more passion for the political process than journalism. I can say that reporting on things other than politics is pretty excruciating for me and I've never had a lot of passion for it. I've gained a lot of good experience in Jeff City in the two semesters I was down there, so I can't say for certain I wouldn't do it again this semester. But it was a lot to put on our table for a career that I'm now pretty certain I'm not going to go into.
What would I change- I would have liked to work on a topic that I was more knowledgable about, and I'd have liked for there to be a clear message on how much time we should spend on the shells in comparison with our regular beats. If I had a choice between doing something for my beat and doing something for the shells, I'd likely pick my beat just about every time. It's nothing against the shells project, I just have more passion for and a lot more invested in my original beat.
What would I keep- The class discussions were very good and I feel as if we had a great group of reporters. Tom is a great teacher and someone I have a lot of respect for, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to get in the Columbia newsroom a bit more this year. The shells projects was a great idea, but one that's difficult to accomplish with a small amount of reporters with virtually no free time.
As for the Shells project, I'm working on an end-of-General-Assembly environmental piece that should go along with a lot of the other end-of-General-Assembly things I'll be doing the next week. Hopefully, when the project does go up, that will be able to replace my billtracker.
Was the shells project worthwhile- Like many others have said, I think making the shells project into its own course might be the best course of action from this point forward. Recruiting a group of web developers, reporters and editors and having them work together would be an interesting experiment and one that might be preferable to paying a company like Bright Tree and leaving the project in their hands. I think anyone in the Advanced Reporting Class is going to have enough on their table to begin with, and adding a huge undertaking like this, in addition to our regular beat, has high burn-out potential. After all, we're getting 3 credit hours.
What did I learn- I learned a pretty good deal about the energy process in the General Assembly in doing my profiles and bill tracker. One of the most interesting things I learned was that while most people have a positive reaction to Green issues, there are a lot of things that go into alternative energy, and it's not as savory as a lot of people think.
Would I do it again- I can't honestly say. I will probably not look into reporting as a career path and tend to have a lot more passion for the political process than journalism. I can say that reporting on things other than politics is pretty excruciating for me and I've never had a lot of passion for it. I've gained a lot of good experience in Jeff City in the two semesters I was down there, so I can't say for certain I wouldn't do it again this semester. But it was a lot to put on our table for a career that I'm now pretty certain I'm not going to go into.
What would I change- I would have liked to work on a topic that I was more knowledgable about, and I'd have liked for there to be a clear message on how much time we should spend on the shells in comparison with our regular beats. If I had a choice between doing something for my beat and doing something for the shells, I'd likely pick my beat just about every time. It's nothing against the shells project, I just have more passion for and a lot more invested in my original beat.
What would I keep- The class discussions were very good and I feel as if we had a great group of reporters. Tom is a great teacher and someone I have a lot of respect for, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to get in the Columbia newsroom a bit more this year. The shells projects was a great idea, but one that's difficult to accomplish with a small amount of reporters with virtually no free time.
Lets use the $18,000 for a bar tab
Was it worthwhile?
Despite the obvious disappointment that the shells project will not be published in the near future, I am not as upset as some other people may be. It is nice to have an end result to ones work, not only so you have something to work towards, but also so you can prove to others how smart and productive you are. Unfortunately, the shells project is not the amazing, interactive, world-of-journalism-changing marvel we may have wanted to create, but that does not mean it was not worthwhile or that our effort went nowhere. This may be more for the Green Group, but stories were written for the print edition of the paper that may have never been researched otherwise.
What would you change?
The balance between our roles of reporter and shells reporter was never clarified, and it felt like the shells was added work instead of a part of the reporting job. I think our editors need to be brought in our the project from the get go, and the first 2-3 weeks of the semester should be used to lay out plans. Hitting the ground running at the beginning of the semester would set the right tone and also give time at the end of the semester if we run into problems.
Despite the obvious disappointment that the shells project will not be published in the near future, I am not as upset as some other people may be. It is nice to have an end result to ones work, not only so you have something to work towards, but also so you can prove to others how smart and productive you are. Unfortunately, the shells project is not the amazing, interactive, world-of-journalism-changing marvel we may have wanted to create, but that does not mean it was not worthwhile or that our effort went nowhere. This may be more for the Green Group, but stories were written for the print edition of the paper that may have never been researched otherwise.
What did you learn?
I learned that an outline helps. My biggest regret is how much time we wasted at the beginning of the semester while trying to figure out exactly what we were doing. While Bright Tree disappointed us, we did not get focused early enough to give us time for unforeseen issues. There will almost always be issues in our profession that will be out of our control that will keep us from doing our job, but planning and even expecting those will minimize the effect of those problems. It is hard to count on others to get your work done, and we have to, but by getting our work done much earlier and having a clear focus, we would have had time to adjust our plans, which we unfortunately do now not have time to do.
I learned that an outline helps. My biggest regret is how much time we wasted at the beginning of the semester while trying to figure out exactly what we were doing. While Bright Tree disappointed us, we did not get focused early enough to give us time for unforeseen issues. There will almost always be issues in our profession that will be out of our control that will keep us from doing our job, but planning and even expecting those will minimize the effect of those problems. It is hard to count on others to get your work done, and we have to, but by getting our work done much earlier and having a clear focus, we would have had time to adjust our plans, which we unfortunately do now not have time to do.
Would you do it again?
Yes. Like I said about planning, the project itself was not the problem. Despite not knowing anything about Web design and having a large portion of the project completed by someone outside the paper, this project was something I really liked. Doing something new and on a large scale is not an easy task, but something I think we should be able to accomplish by now
Yes. Like I said about planning, the project itself was not the problem. Despite not knowing anything about Web design and having a large portion of the project completed by someone outside the paper, this project was something I really liked. Doing something new and on a large scale is not an easy task, but something I think we should be able to accomplish by now
What would you keep?
Having smaller groups would help clarify everyones roles, and not put too much pressure on one member to combine and manage everything (I think Paul will agree.)
Having smaller groups would help clarify everyones roles, and not put too much pressure on one member to combine and manage everything (I think Paul will agree.)
The balance between our roles of reporter and shells reporter was never clarified, and it felt like the shells was added work instead of a part of the reporting job. I think our editors need to be brought in our the project from the get go, and the first 2-3 weeks of the semester should be used to lay out plans. Hitting the ground running at the beginning of the semester would set the right tone and also give time at the end of the semester if we run into problems.
Selling sea-shells by the sea shore?
Overall, I learned a lot from the shells: how to work in a group, manage a back-out schedule, how to carry a concept through to (near) completion.
But I really think we were trying to sell our shells by the seashore. Towards the end of the semester, as we were trying to explain this concept to our sources and other interested parties, we began calling it a special section or an in-depth web report. We resorted to standard newsroom language instead of differentiating our concept. In essence, we boiled this down to something newspapers have been doing for a long time, not something new. There are usually shells on a sea shore. There are usually special sections in newspapers.
As we moved forward with the shells projects, we forgot the brainstorming session in the beginning of the semester. We decided shells had depth and focus, community involvement and episodic updates, multimedia and narrative. It was a combination of form and function, all working harmoniously together to add layer upon layer to typical newspaper reporting. It was an ultimate service to the readers who cared about the topics. The old adage SHOW DON'T TELL was supposed to take on a whole new meaning.
But did it? I think both groups kept focus in mind. From my understanding of the growth shell, they were make development visual. The multimedia was interesting, graphics were strong. But I always envisioned shells as participatory, like the moral compass. I thought it was forum for community voices, fostering community conversation, if you will. Discussion boards were a large part of our concept when we first brainstormed the green shell. Getting profiles and people online was a goal. Who would moderate the conversation? Would anyone be assigned to do it? What would happen to this shell after we were gone? No one knows. Because we envisioned the shells as an ongoing enterprise, this question was a killer and lead us back to the safe ground of calling it a special section. A shell is an ongoing project that needs weekly updating, someone to monitor the discussion and ask new questions, a blog or two, someone to develop new and specific content that fit within the diagram concept. The shell needs an employee.
Most of realized the shell wouldn't be exactly what we wanted because of the limits of working within standard newsroom procedures. We have to monitor the message boards in case something is libelous or in bad taste. We can't update it with only news that goes into our standard product because then there's nothing to make it any different than an archive of all stories related to green issues. We need to keep on top of the news, update it, make people want to keep coming back. It's a project that should be affiliated with the newspaper, but not dependent on the newspaper.
You're not likely to make much money selling sea shells on the sea shore because people can go find their own. Similarly, you're not going to attract many dedicated readers if they know they can look at the primary product and get all of the same information. If we were going to make this a successful project, we needed to sell our shells in the desert, in the tundra, in the mountains. It needs to be different enough that it doesn't look like it's just a special section. It needs devotion, nurture and a caretaker.
So would I do it again? Yes, if I was employed to work for the shell and the shell only. If I could monitor and update, blog and report. I'd want my team too. I'd keep our concept and build all of the areas we just could not do this semester. I'd add more maps and numerical information. I'd make it more interactive. I think it's a worthwhile concept for newspaper because I think our passionate readers would love the additional depth and context. You give them a place for their passion and a way to connect with others.
Why would anyone by a shell? Because they associate it with a memory. Why would anyone visit a web shell? Because they are passionate about the topic.
But I really think we were trying to sell our shells by the seashore. Towards the end of the semester, as we were trying to explain this concept to our sources and other interested parties, we began calling it a special section or an in-depth web report. We resorted to standard newsroom language instead of differentiating our concept. In essence, we boiled this down to something newspapers have been doing for a long time, not something new. There are usually shells on a sea shore. There are usually special sections in newspapers.
As we moved forward with the shells projects, we forgot the brainstorming session in the beginning of the semester. We decided shells had depth and focus, community involvement and episodic updates, multimedia and narrative. It was a combination of form and function, all working harmoniously together to add layer upon layer to typical newspaper reporting. It was an ultimate service to the readers who cared about the topics. The old adage SHOW DON'T TELL was supposed to take on a whole new meaning.
But did it? I think both groups kept focus in mind. From my understanding of the growth shell, they were make development visual. The multimedia was interesting, graphics were strong. But I always envisioned shells as participatory, like the moral compass. I thought it was forum for community voices, fostering community conversation, if you will. Discussion boards were a large part of our concept when we first brainstormed the green shell. Getting profiles and people online was a goal. Who would moderate the conversation? Would anyone be assigned to do it? What would happen to this shell after we were gone? No one knows. Because we envisioned the shells as an ongoing enterprise, this question was a killer and lead us back to the safe ground of calling it a special section. A shell is an ongoing project that needs weekly updating, someone to monitor the discussion and ask new questions, a blog or two, someone to develop new and specific content that fit within the diagram concept. The shell needs an employee.
Most of realized the shell wouldn't be exactly what we wanted because of the limits of working within standard newsroom procedures. We have to monitor the message boards in case something is libelous or in bad taste. We can't update it with only news that goes into our standard product because then there's nothing to make it any different than an archive of all stories related to green issues. We need to keep on top of the news, update it, make people want to keep coming back. It's a project that should be affiliated with the newspaper, but not dependent on the newspaper.
You're not likely to make much money selling sea shells on the sea shore because people can go find their own. Similarly, you're not going to attract many dedicated readers if they know they can look at the primary product and get all of the same information. If we were going to make this a successful project, we needed to sell our shells in the desert, in the tundra, in the mountains. It needs to be different enough that it doesn't look like it's just a special section. It needs devotion, nurture and a caretaker.
So would I do it again? Yes, if I was employed to work for the shell and the shell only. If I could monitor and update, blog and report. I'd want my team too. I'd keep our concept and build all of the areas we just could not do this semester. I'd add more maps and numerical information. I'd make it more interactive. I think it's a worthwhile concept for newspaper because I think our passionate readers would love the additional depth and context. You give them a place for their passion and a way to connect with others.
Why would anyone by a shell? Because they associate it with a memory. Why would anyone visit a web shell? Because they are passionate about the topic.
No Surprise Here
At the end of the packets Joe brought to a Growth Group meeting in April, he had listed the number of hours of work and the amount the Missourian was paying him.
100 hours. $9,000. For just our group.
For a moment, I put aside the $90/hour rate he was getting, and just focused on the hours. I multiplied 100 by two (we have two groups), and then divided by about 30 days (the time he had until his mid-May deadline).
I came up with maybe 6 or 7 hours of work. Each day, every day, including weekends.
To put it kindly, I didn't understand where those hours were coming from — I never saw his job as that labor-intensive. I spoke about it with two or three of my classmates. I ranted about it the following morning with a former K-12 beat reporter over breakfast. It came up in a conversation with my father, my editor, my climbing partner, on a date...
It didn't help that this page detailing his pay followed an entire page devoted to web jargon about the "implementation" of a link box. I wasn't impressed. If we wanted a link box, we could use Wordpress. For free. Google API is also available to us. For free.
Why do I care? This money was extra, it wasn't coming out of my course fee, it was earmarked.
I put so much work into the Missourian, that it physically hurts to see resources being wasted.
Despite all of this, never ever did I raise my concerns about Joe and BrightTree in class, or with Tom.
I did suggest that on the peer evaluations we evaluate BrightTree. I hoped that we could voice our concerns there. Turns out, it was too late.
I hope this experience leads to the following change: Though we are students, we WORK at the Missourian, and it is our tuition, not subscription and advertising revenues that keeps this daily going. There needs to be a way for us to voice concerns about the people we work with, without fear of offending someone.
THE QUESTIONS:
Was it worthwhile? No. I learned and did little compared to what I could have accomplished had I been allowed to focus on beat reporting.
What, if anything, did you learn? To trust my perceptions more. I'm not sure yet if I've learned to report those perceptions to the group in hopes of change, or to use them to selfishly protect myself.
Would you do it again? No. Creating a searchable resource for the community is important. But I'd like to choose to do that by taking a course in it. Having it posed to me again and again as what I have to do instead of reporting was painful.
What would you change? Let me report. Make me innovate and lead within my beat in Advanced Reporting. Let me take a Shells class if I choose.
What would you keep? The class discussions and the blog. Especially a longer discussion about whether our J-school creates foot soldiers or leaders. And how we can take reporting beyond the traditional. We should have read more on the theory of journalism than spinning our wheels on shells.
100 hours. $9,000. For just our group.
For a moment, I put aside the $90/hour rate he was getting, and just focused on the hours. I multiplied 100 by two (we have two groups), and then divided by about 30 days (the time he had until his mid-May deadline).
I came up with maybe 6 or 7 hours of work. Each day, every day, including weekends.
To put it kindly, I didn't understand where those hours were coming from — I never saw his job as that labor-intensive. I spoke about it with two or three of my classmates. I ranted about it the following morning with a former K-12 beat reporter over breakfast. It came up in a conversation with my father, my editor, my climbing partner, on a date...
It didn't help that this page detailing his pay followed an entire page devoted to web jargon about the "implementation" of a link box. I wasn't impressed. If we wanted a link box, we could use Wordpress. For free. Google API is also available to us. For free.
Why do I care? This money was extra, it wasn't coming out of my course fee, it was earmarked.
I put so much work into the Missourian, that it physically hurts to see resources being wasted.
Despite all of this, never ever did I raise my concerns about Joe and BrightTree in class, or with Tom.
I did suggest that on the peer evaluations we evaluate BrightTree. I hoped that we could voice our concerns there. Turns out, it was too late.
I hope this experience leads to the following change: Though we are students, we WORK at the Missourian, and it is our tuition, not subscription and advertising revenues that keeps this daily going. There needs to be a way for us to voice concerns about the people we work with, without fear of offending someone.
THE QUESTIONS:
Was it worthwhile? No. I learned and did little compared to what I could have accomplished had I been allowed to focus on beat reporting.
What, if anything, did you learn? To trust my perceptions more. I'm not sure yet if I've learned to report those perceptions to the group in hopes of change, or to use them to selfishly protect myself.
Would you do it again? No. Creating a searchable resource for the community is important. But I'd like to choose to do that by taking a course in it. Having it posed to me again and again as what I have to do instead of reporting was painful.
What would you change? Let me report. Make me innovate and lead within my beat in Advanced Reporting. Let me take a Shells class if I choose.
What would you keep? The class discussions and the blog. Especially a longer discussion about whether our J-school creates foot soldiers or leaders. And how we can take reporting beyond the traditional. We should have read more on the theory of journalism than spinning our wheels on shells.
Frustratingly Left in Limbo
I have to say, the last week has left me pretty tuckered out. There's nothing like some angered faculty to get you parked at the paper for a few 12-14 hour days. Throw in all the projects, etc. that come with the end of class, and you get the idea, having experience it all yourselves, too. Needless to say, I thought the meeting was a very positive experience, both as a reporter who has had to sit through some very sparsely attended faculty meetings, and as a student who had always wondered at times about the faculty's overall interest (or lack thereof) in the big picture on campus. It was good to see that all academic units aren't always so self-contained. I thought both articles turned out very well, especially the meeting coverage last night. I've gotten good feedback on them too, from both sides of the battle line. As for next week, we may have a follow on a comment from the meeting about the AAUP, and I'm also wrapping up the Five Ideas duty for the semester, which has gone extremely well in its first semester headed up by Advanced Reporters instead of grad students.
Anyway, on to the evaluations of the shells project.
What did you learn? I learned just how much work it takes both to brainstorm, pare down, gather focus, and report in a new way all the elements we had to put together for the shell. It's not that I hadn't done these things for other stories I'd written, but not in this particular sense. Again, working with the group made this a fresh new experience.
I learned that the macro HAS to come first in these discussions. I really felt we dawdled the first few weeks of the semester by not meeting enough with Amanda, our designer. As people have mentioned on several occasions, we needed to have had our discussions as a group with Joe (again, going in theory that Bright Tree would have been able to accomplish all this) earlier to hammer out the big-picture issues. I think we'd have been able to form our much-needed backout schedule earlier, and we'd have had more time to work on the Web development part of this.
For me, personally, as a writer, I finally learned to jump on board with the idea of being more conversational with my writing. I had tried to do it before, but I didn't fully understand the level to which we could be as such without losing an authoritative tone. It was a tough balance for me to find at first, as Tom knows, and it still won't be the easiest thing in the world for me. But I am confident I will learn sooner rather than later, especially being exposed to it with the work I did in this project.
Would you do it again? I'd be silly to say no, because I'll likely have to do it again in the real world, if not here again before I graduate. But I'd honestly pick up a project again in the first place, because I thought we as a group were able to tell a very thorough, important story that would interest readers and spur them into different kinds of action, whether they were green supporters or retractors.
I don't know if I was entirely comfortable picking a topic that seemed to border on advocacy journalism at times. It was tough sledding trying to find some skeptic-type information or interviews for a couple of my stories. The green movement, if you will, is still in such a stage that the news is mostly positive, and the hardy skeptics haven't really seemed to push back much yet. The topic is one that I know will get many readers and is definitely a good subject to report on, don't get me wrong. I guess I just hope we don't get accused of being too much of an advocate with our finished project. But that's a small worry, for one, and I know I tried my darndest to keep a good balance in my stories, especially on wind.
What would you keep? I would keep the group size that we used for green, around 6 or 7. I agree with Rebecca that a larger group than that size creates a bit of a disconnect and creates some headaches on the communication level for those in charge. Which leads me to...
What would you change? I personally felt like the project was a bit discombobulated from the get-go. I felt like we were gliding on the seat of our pants. I understand that that was part of the project's nature — none of us had ever done this before, and we were supposed to be feeling out of our comfort zones, and so on. But I really felt frustrated as times, as others have mentioned, about the coordination of this project with the remainder of the class. I felt torn the entire semester, not really knowing when I should be working on shells, or how much, or what portion should go with the beat. We never really ironed that out. And then having the majority of the editors all but give us the shaft for the meeting the sixth week or so of the semester (Scott and Katherine showed up, John later, but no one else) was discomforting. Having the macro issues the first weeks of the semester led to a drop in productivity on both sides for me, also. I felt like being left in limbo with the shells project was a part (not necessarily a big one, but definitely one worth mentioning) of me not getting a couple of heftier stories written this semester.
I know we were a trial experiment, and I'm still pleased with the results, and maybe am not as upset as others because I'll be coming back in the fall and have time to wait to get this posted for a portfolio. Nevertheless, if this project is to be expanded/repeated/continued, I hope the organization can be there on all fronts — us for the projects' content, backout skeds for our organization and for Web developers, and all the editor for setting a proper proportion of work to be completed — at the start of the semester. A clearer plan from the outset would have at least made completion of the projects by spring break a more attainable goal.
Overall, the experience was great, and I learned a lot, and hopefully will see the rewards online sooner rather than later. I loved our group and thought we worked extremely well together. The green project couldn't have been done in our numbers unless people were dedicated. The big lesson to be learned is in organization, macro-based thinking, and a set of assignments and goals (both in reporting and production) before we begin, to have a true, concrete, crystal clear finish line ready before the start of the race.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Shells!!
For my last memo, I will gather my thoughts on the shells project. I thought it was a great idea, but I wasn't sure how practical it was. From the very beginning, I remember telling Tom that I didn't know how much I could contribute, but that I definitely planned to use it as a learning experience. I think I definitely learned a lot about the process, and if I were to do it again I would feel confident enough to contribute and take a larger stake in the project.
The project was definitely worthwhile. As far a a grade is concerned, I don't know how I feel about being the experimental group. I feel it will be a lot easier for groups who are maintaining the site. As for it being a class, I often felt like I was enrolled in two different classes at once. The shells by it self should have been a class, instead of shells and reporting.
I learned alot about how the web works. I have a little experience with eb sites, but nothing dealing with creating an entire site from scratch. Again, I definitely think I learned alot and that is what I set out to do; so mission accomplished.
I can't say I would do it again, but if it comes up during my career, I wouldn't hold out. During my time in Montgomery, the paper accumulated a large youth population because of a website it had. So, I said that to say that I definitely think having this knowledge is useful - especially in this transition time for the press. I just wouldn't do it again necessarily at the Missourian, while I'm in school, or having to deal with some of the things we did this semester. (see next pg)
I would change some of the time wasted. I felt there was a lot of talking in circles, a lot of backtracking and a lot of ego. This is something I typically see with journalism students, but I think it could have been eliminated if there was a clearer objective at the beginning. I understand this occurs when people brainstorm, but we could have accomplished more by the end and not have been constantly pushing work back.
I would keep the last couple of weeks when we got down to business. At first I was discouraged that we wouldn't get anything done. However, the last couple of weeks we got down to business and got a lot accomplished. I think this was mportatn to me to see that a big difference could be made from a few simple ideas.
The project was definitely worthwhile. As far a a grade is concerned, I don't know how I feel about being the experimental group. I feel it will be a lot easier for groups who are maintaining the site. As for it being a class, I often felt like I was enrolled in two different classes at once. The shells by it self should have been a class, instead of shells and reporting.
I learned alot about how the web works. I have a little experience with eb sites, but nothing dealing with creating an entire site from scratch. Again, I definitely think I learned alot and that is what I set out to do; so mission accomplished.
I can't say I would do it again, but if it comes up during my career, I wouldn't hold out. During my time in Montgomery, the paper accumulated a large youth population because of a website it had. So, I said that to say that I definitely think having this knowledge is useful - especially in this transition time for the press. I just wouldn't do it again necessarily at the Missourian, while I'm in school, or having to deal with some of the things we did this semester. (see next pg)
I would change some of the time wasted. I felt there was a lot of talking in circles, a lot of backtracking and a lot of ego. This is something I typically see with journalism students, but I think it could have been eliminated if there was a clearer objective at the beginning. I understand this occurs when people brainstorm, but we could have accomplished more by the end and not have been constantly pushing work back.
I would keep the last couple of weeks when we got down to business. At first I was discouraged that we wouldn't get anything done. However, the last couple of weeks we got down to business and got a lot accomplished. I think this was mportatn to me to see that a big difference could be made from a few simple ideas.
A pretty big blow
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me Tom's announcement at the end of class was a pretty big blow. We've worked so hard on all of our stuff, and I've had a lot of questions going through my head in the past 24 hours. For example, I'm wondering if anything should have alerted us to the fact that Bright Tree wasn't really being honest with us about when they could get things done or the help that we had. We never saw anything besides outlines in our meetings, for example. I also was really bothered by the fact that they said they could get the development process done so quickly... it never seemed feasible but I didn't want to say anything because they are professionals. I also thought that we fielded some pretty weird questions in meetings - I guess from a web production standpoint, some of the things they were asking us weren't things I thought they would have to ask.
I'm not saying that I know better, or anything, just that looking back, a few things seem fishy.
I can't help but feel really bad for our designer, too. I was shocked by the size of the project they were given, and the project seemed like it required her to learn how to do a lot of html and related things before she could even start.
And of course, I feel terrible for everyone who has worked on this. It seems that we all got screwed by a company that may very well have been making big promises in an attempt to please and do a good job, but still failed us in the end. Half of us are graduating, and we're watching our semester project go down the drain.
With all of that off my chest, I move on to the questions:
Was it worthwhile?
Yeah, it was fun to make a site that was more issue-oriented. I liked being able to expand one subject so much and use different media to show it. It was almost more like a magazine, except that hard, immediate news will also be able to fit in on our site.
What, if anything, did you learn?
- Ask more questions when you use an outside company, and ask to see results
- We have to take a different look at content for the web, especially when it comes to how all of the stories fit together
- We also have to find a balance between hard news that we expect to regenerate, and featury things that have more shelf-life. When do we replace them, for example?
Would you do it again?
It depends. Not if it was on the side of doing advanced reporting.
What would you change?
See above. This needs to be a class on its own. It's hard for people with a print-only background to go in and make an awesome web site. I don't think most of us had any idea how long these things take when we started, or of a lot of the behind-the-scenes aspects of running a web site. Basically, I think that if this is in a class, the class time needs to be spent learning about web interfaces, usability, conceptualizing, and maybe even basic html so people have an idea of how things are done and how long it takes (and what can and can't be done) on a website. We need to know a lot more about the "how" before we make plans.
What would you keep?
I liked our team size, and I loved the class in general - it's a bunch of frickin' prodigies. Way to go, guys.
I would keep the way we eventually started getting things done (backout schedule, etc) and I'd keep the in-class brainstorming we had that's included both teams brainstorming for everything - voices from outside the group was a great benefit.
I'm not saying that I know better, or anything, just that looking back, a few things seem fishy.
I can't help but feel really bad for our designer, too. I was shocked by the size of the project they were given, and the project seemed like it required her to learn how to do a lot of html and related things before she could even start.
And of course, I feel terrible for everyone who has worked on this. It seems that we all got screwed by a company that may very well have been making big promises in an attempt to please and do a good job, but still failed us in the end. Half of us are graduating, and we're watching our semester project go down the drain.
With all of that off my chest, I move on to the questions:
Was it worthwhile?
Yeah, it was fun to make a site that was more issue-oriented. I liked being able to expand one subject so much and use different media to show it. It was almost more like a magazine, except that hard, immediate news will also be able to fit in on our site.
What, if anything, did you learn?
- Ask more questions when you use an outside company, and ask to see results
- We have to take a different look at content for the web, especially when it comes to how all of the stories fit together
- We also have to find a balance between hard news that we expect to regenerate, and featury things that have more shelf-life. When do we replace them, for example?
Would you do it again?
It depends. Not if it was on the side of doing advanced reporting.
What would you change?
See above. This needs to be a class on its own. It's hard for people with a print-only background to go in and make an awesome web site. I don't think most of us had any idea how long these things take when we started, or of a lot of the behind-the-scenes aspects of running a web site. Basically, I think that if this is in a class, the class time needs to be spent learning about web interfaces, usability, conceptualizing, and maybe even basic html so people have an idea of how things are done and how long it takes (and what can and can't be done) on a website. We need to know a lot more about the "how" before we make plans.
What would you keep?
I liked our team size, and I loved the class in general - it's a bunch of frickin' prodigies. Way to go, guys.
I would keep the way we eventually started getting things done (backout schedule, etc) and I'd keep the in-class brainstorming we had that's included both teams brainstorming for everything - voices from outside the group was a great benefit.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Last but not least...
Provided that I can sufficiently bribe my Foreign Policy teacher, I will be graduating next Friday. This is absolutely amazing. It's frightening, but it's amazing. I'd just like to take this space and thank everyone I've met here, from Tom and Greg to all of my classmates: you've been great. So thanks - really.
This week: As far as I know, the final college baseball game that I was ever slated to cover was a washout. Though I was excited for it, lord knows I needed the extra time to get things done. I did cover Tuesday's game, as well as the first two of last weekend's series, so I've been busy, but not as busy as some other times. The stories from these games, I believe, came out pretty well. The two features that I should have done by the end of the semester, however, should be much better.
SHELLS:
Was it worthwhile? I have no idea...I suppose the final product will tell us a lot more, but at this moment, the jury is out for me. That said, I never really got into
the whole thing. Writing and reporting, for me, is only enjoyable when I find something that I'm either passionate about or interested in. Unfortunately, growth met neither criteria.
What, if anything, did you learn? I learned that the Missourian, though it takes some hits, still has an exceptional pipeline of thinkers that it brings in. I don't know how to pinpoint anything concrete, but I do know that I left class every day smarter than when I came in, just from the discussion.
Would you do it again? Well, I was required to do it this time, but I don't think that's what you're asking. My honest answer is no, and I say that only because it just didn't seem to be my thing. I think it has value...but lots of things have value, and I still don't wish to do them. Take my taxes, for instance. Also, the fact that we had to collapse groups was catastrophic, and I believe it made many of the safety folk feel at least a touch out of the loop. Or maybe that was just me.
What would you change? The Missourian absolutely MUST find a way to keep from killing off its students. Every college kid has a sob story, but most of them are bs. The Missourian students that have spent a couple of semesters absolutely working their asses off - to the point that it has made many of us ill at times - have legitimate beefs, and it's a serious problem. The people that I have met here are the most driven I have ever known, and they're already pushing themselves past the limit. This shells thing was just another thing on our plate, and it only strained us further. I'm not saying that shells are a bad idea at all...in fact, I believe the opposite is true...but the Missourian must find a way to keep its students workloads in check. They could start by changing the whole "only 3 credit hours" thing...which is as big a joke as anything on campus. If they wanted to give a credit hour for every 5 hours of work most of us did a week, they'd have to make it a 6 or 7 credit hour class. They might not be willing to do that, but that doesn't make it any more fair.
What would you keep? Overall, everything seemed fine, but there needs to be a better way to even out the workloads. Though I didn't mean to slack, and I feel as though I did everything that was asked of me, I'm sure I only did about 10% of the work that Paul Lampe did.
Thanks for a great run.
This week: As far as I know, the final college baseball game that I was ever slated to cover was a washout. Though I was excited for it, lord knows I needed the extra time to get things done. I did cover Tuesday's game, as well as the first two of last weekend's series, so I've been busy, but not as busy as some other times. The stories from these games, I believe, came out pretty well. The two features that I should have done by the end of the semester, however, should be much better.
SHELLS:
Was it worthwhile? I have no idea...I suppose the final product will tell us a lot more, but at this moment, the jury is out for me. That said, I never really got into
the whole thing. Writing and reporting, for me, is only enjoyable when I find something that I'm either passionate about or interested in. Unfortunately, growth met neither criteria.
What, if anything, did you learn? I learned that the Missourian, though it takes some hits, still has an exceptional pipeline of thinkers that it brings in. I don't know how to pinpoint anything concrete, but I do know that I left class every day smarter than when I came in, just from the discussion.
Would you do it again? Well, I was required to do it this time, but I don't think that's what you're asking. My honest answer is no, and I say that only because it just didn't seem to be my thing. I think it has value...but lots of things have value, and I still don't wish to do them. Take my taxes, for instance. Also, the fact that we had to collapse groups was catastrophic, and I believe it made many of the safety folk feel at least a touch out of the loop. Or maybe that was just me.
What would you change? The Missourian absolutely MUST find a way to keep from killing off its students. Every college kid has a sob story, but most of them are bs. The Missourian students that have spent a couple of semesters absolutely working their asses off - to the point that it has made many of us ill at times - have legitimate beefs, and it's a serious problem. The people that I have met here are the most driven I have ever known, and they're already pushing themselves past the limit. This shells thing was just another thing on our plate, and it only strained us further. I'm not saying that shells are a bad idea at all...in fact, I believe the opposite is true...but the Missourian must find a way to keep its students workloads in check. They could start by changing the whole "only 3 credit hours" thing...which is as big a joke as anything on campus. If they wanted to give a credit hour for every 5 hours of work most of us did a week, they'd have to make it a 6 or 7 credit hour class. They might not be willing to do that, but that doesn't make it any more fair.
What would you keep? Overall, everything seemed fine, but there needs to be a better way to even out the workloads. Though I didn't mean to slack, and I feel as though I did everything that was asked of me, I'm sure I only did about 10% of the work that Paul Lampe did.
Thanks for a great run.
The Devil's in the Details
One thought kept occurring to me throughout this semester: Wouldn’t it be great if shells weren’t part of Advanced Reporting, but a class unto themselves?
Fortunately, my capstone is, from my understanding, exactly what I just described. To me, the fundamental problem with shells was that they were an extremely worthwhile project capable of teaching us oodles...but not a lot of us wanted to give them the kind of attention they (should have) demanded.
Shells are an awesome project. Stimulating. A chance to build some reporter muscles we too often neglect — innovation, big ideas, etc.
Why, then, do I think the shells assignment didn’t go too well — or, at least, why didn’t I like them as much as I know I could have?
I see three major reasons: time, ownership, and communication.
Time:
With our hectic schedules and the already demanding nature of Advanced Reporting, I think we needed a more definitive understanding of how we were expected to split our time. Too many of the kids in our class have Super(wo)man personalities. They try to do it all. And when “all” is too much…well, frankly, it’s hard not to self-destruct.
For me, I enrolled in Advanced Reporting assuming the dynamic would be pretty similar to Reporting: working with an editor on a specific beat. Had I known before I wrote out my goals for the semester that shells would be such a big chunk of the class, I could have mentally prepared for them. If shells continue to be a part of the Advanced Reporting curriculum, I recommend giving reporters a specific list of expectations so they have a firm grip on where to direct their time and energy.
Ownership:
If the Advanced Reporting class does this again, I recommend letting them pick their groups and their topics from the very beginning. If I’m going to spend a semester with a group immersed in one topic, I want that group to feel like it owns the topic. Just like any story, a shell is going to inspire reporters if they feel like they’ve invested a part of themselves in it.
I didn’t feel like I “chose” Growth. (Ironically, I think I pitched the idea in the initial brainstorming session. Go figure.) I couldn’t make it to the session when we whittled away the potential topics because we held it on a Friday afternoon, I believe, and I had to work. My original group got thrown in with another group halfway through the semester. (I firmly maintain that my original group had, by far, made the most progress.) I still did my part, but by then, I didn’t feel very invested in the shell. I hadn’t bought into it; I had no ownership.
Communication:
Shell groups can’t be as big as Growth was. With that many people in one group, it’s too hard to keep track of everyone, and it exacerbates the ownership problem. Over-delegation leads to feeling disconnected from the goal. In this case (though I don’t want to speak for everyone), I don’t know if many of us felt like we ever completely understood what was going on with our own projects.
I propose setting a cap for team size at somewhere around 6 people, including a designer. If that means the topics groups tackle are a little more intimate than the ones we covered this semester, I’m okay with that. I’d rather see a team with less manpower and more communication than one with an assembly line feel. The fewer people there are, the easier it is to keep everyone on the same page.
I hope none of this sounded bitter. I’ll admit I’m still a little sulky over Public Safety’s disbandment, but I’m over it for practical purposes. And I really do love the idea of shells. I just think that as guinea pigs, our class definitely revealed a number of ways this project can be improved so that the Missourian can pursue shells in future semesters with fewer headaches and more victory dances.
Fortunately, my capstone is, from my understanding, exactly what I just described. To me, the fundamental problem with shells was that they were an extremely worthwhile project capable of teaching us oodles...but not a lot of us wanted to give them the kind of attention they (should have) demanded.
Shells are an awesome project. Stimulating. A chance to build some reporter muscles we too often neglect — innovation, big ideas, etc.
Why, then, do I think the shells assignment didn’t go too well — or, at least, why didn’t I like them as much as I know I could have?
I see three major reasons: time, ownership, and communication.
Time:
With our hectic schedules and the already demanding nature of Advanced Reporting, I think we needed a more definitive understanding of how we were expected to split our time. Too many of the kids in our class have Super(wo)man personalities. They try to do it all. And when “all” is too much…well, frankly, it’s hard not to self-destruct.
For me, I enrolled in Advanced Reporting assuming the dynamic would be pretty similar to Reporting: working with an editor on a specific beat. Had I known before I wrote out my goals for the semester that shells would be such a big chunk of the class, I could have mentally prepared for them. If shells continue to be a part of the Advanced Reporting curriculum, I recommend giving reporters a specific list of expectations so they have a firm grip on where to direct their time and energy.
Ownership:
If the Advanced Reporting class does this again, I recommend letting them pick their groups and their topics from the very beginning. If I’m going to spend a semester with a group immersed in one topic, I want that group to feel like it owns the topic. Just like any story, a shell is going to inspire reporters if they feel like they’ve invested a part of themselves in it.
I didn’t feel like I “chose” Growth. (Ironically, I think I pitched the idea in the initial brainstorming session. Go figure.) I couldn’t make it to the session when we whittled away the potential topics because we held it on a Friday afternoon, I believe, and I had to work. My original group got thrown in with another group halfway through the semester. (I firmly maintain that my original group had, by far, made the most progress.) I still did my part, but by then, I didn’t feel very invested in the shell. I hadn’t bought into it; I had no ownership.
Communication:
Shell groups can’t be as big as Growth was. With that many people in one group, it’s too hard to keep track of everyone, and it exacerbates the ownership problem. Over-delegation leads to feeling disconnected from the goal. In this case (though I don’t want to speak for everyone), I don’t know if many of us felt like we ever completely understood what was going on with our own projects.
I propose setting a cap for team size at somewhere around 6 people, including a designer. If that means the topics groups tackle are a little more intimate than the ones we covered this semester, I’m okay with that. I’d rather see a team with less manpower and more communication than one with an assembly line feel. The fewer people there are, the easier it is to keep everyone on the same page.
I hope none of this sounded bitter. I’ll admit I’m still a little sulky over Public Safety’s disbandment, but I’m over it for practical purposes. And I really do love the idea of shells. I just think that as guinea pigs, our class definitely revealed a number of ways this project can be improved so that the Missourian can pursue shells in future semesters with fewer headaches and more victory dances.
Don't talk to me unless it's on the record
So I had been working on a story about women in the capitol for a while now, and had gotten some great interviews. Everything was going really well, until one female legislator tells us this really interesting story about gender discrimination that she thought was going on. After she told the reporter she said that she didn't want it printed. WHAT!!!
If you just wanted to talk, then you should have called up a friend. Who does that. So we have been trying to talk to her and get her to let us use her story, but she won't. As a legislator, you would think that she would want to expose prejudices so that others won't have to experience the same thing. Being quiet not the way to make positive social change.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Peer Review Form
The peer review form for your shells teams is in the Blackboard site. Keep in mind:
* You are assessing the performance of other members of your team.
* They are assessing you.
* I will not share your comments with class members.
* It's due Monday at Noon.
* What about your view of your performance on the shells? Add those comments to your final grade pitch. Send it to your editor, copy to me.
Finally, what about the whole idea of the shells project?
Was it worthwhile?
What, if anything, did you learn?
Would you do it again?
What would you change?
What would you keep?
I would like you to address any or all of these questions, or ones of your own, in the final blog post due Friday.
* You are assessing the performance of other members of your team.
* They are assessing you.
* I will not share your comments with class members.
* It's due Monday at Noon.
* What about your view of your performance on the shells? Add those comments to your final grade pitch. Send it to your editor, copy to me.
Finally, what about the whole idea of the shells project?
Was it worthwhile?
What, if anything, did you learn?
Would you do it again?
What would you change?
What would you keep?
I would like you to address any or all of these questions, or ones of your own, in the final blog post due Friday.
Out of the Loop
One thing I wish we could do a better job of at the Missourian is to communicate the mood and the emotions of certain topics on articles that were potentially contentious when they were first written. I think when many of the reporters go to meetings, they can be hesitant to write when someone is talking furiously or angrily. I was a bit reticent (perhaps a bit to my detriment) the first one or two times I went to cover meetings or take quotes from authoritative vantage points on higher ed last year.
I say this because with the unique position we're put in in this newsroom, you don't always have the best handle on things when unexpected events crop up, no matter how hard you try.
Take, for example, the Compete Missouri story I wrote for Friday's paper. I've gone to numerous faculty and MU faculty council meetings pecking for story ideas this semester. Never once did I hear this plan come up, or even any consternation. And one of the meetings was devoted to the FY 2009 budget and operations.
So when this petition came about calling for a special meeting regarding the university's fiscal future, I was taken aback.I frantically searched through the archives looking for stories and found a couple of articles written last summer. None of them, however, gave the indication that there was smoldering ire to be found, ready to explode if prodded.
When I finally got a hold of faculty members to discuss the petition late Thursday afternoon — no one called me before, say, 4:40 — I felt like I was being prepared for a battle to the death armed with just a toy water pistol. Their anger exploded over the phone, not at me, but at the situation, and what they believed were serious missteps by MU higher-ups in the formation of the Compete Missouri plan. Nothing I had read before or seen at other faculty meetings could have prepared me for their anger.
No doubt, it made for good quotes and a colorful article, but it also left me unprepared to give the MU administration a chance to respond. All I could go on before talking to these professors was what had been previously said, and that was all docile. Only when the faculty members began to spell out their concerns in our interviews did I get an idea of what I could be asking Chancellor Deaton, Provost Foster, or the like. Granted, everything worked out — I was able to get some university statements by making a couple calls late at night and piecing together some previous statements from Deaton.
But it's just one of those situations where you lament that you somehow could have known what this would turn into. I'm sure an extended, unbroken period of time on a beat would have solved this particular problem. As it stands, I think the article needed to be written as it was, with a little more flavor to capture the anger, which is what has driven this special meeting slated for Thursday. The whole situation just caught be a little off-guard, and it made me kind of frustrated.
Shells are done for me — I'm currently sifting through all the green stories this semester to see what archived content we can add to bulk up the site at launch, whenever that will be. I'm still hoping to get a longer story together on Columbia College's growth outside of Columbia, but other work on the beat (like the story above) and the remaining pieces of shells work here and there and the work in the other four classes I'm doing. Yikes. It won't be the end of the world if it gets shelved for independent work in the fall, but I'd have liked to have written a story on it. Where does the time go when other pressing needs must be met?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
But of Course
In the K-12 beat, two reporters were assigned to a story that the community is demanding, and have been dragging their feet for a week. It's been agonizing to watch, because the story needs to be told, and I think it's fascinating.
So I went in, talked to Liz about working with them — not as a reporter, but as a GrowthGroupPaul, and then met with them Friday.
They were: overwhelmed, uncertain where to begin, not sure if this was a worthwhile story...
So I went in, talked to Liz about working with them — not as a reporter, but as a GrowthGroupPaul, and then met with them Friday.
They were: overwhelmed, uncertain where to begin, not sure if this was a worthwhile story...
So we made a back-out schedule. Things are much better now. They're feeling better about how to get this done and I'm feeling more confident that it will get done.
Yes, I do see the parallels.
PROGRESS REPORT:
I had a fantastic interview with a school board member this week — he was upfront, forthcoming and honest. It was refreshing.
We then had a long conversation about blogs and how journalists view blog comments. It just reinforced for me the fact that journalists are more than reporters. We are community members and eventual experts by practice. We should stay impartial, but participate.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Productive Week! (I'm smiling)
This week has been a very successful week. I got an article published on the arbor day celebration. I had another article published on Wednesday about the statewide presevation planning meetings. Also, I was able to tackle some of the final items of the shells project. Today I went to the geology department and got ariel shots of Columbia. There will be some images relating to file size and cropping, but I definitely feel like we are in the home strech with this project.
Also, my yoga nidra article will be printed May 12, so I am very excited to see this article reach fruition. Rose Raymond and I have worked very deligently on this article, but we may have been too invested in the article. We wrote an article that was around 60 inches long. After about four edits it is down to 30 inches. The article should only be 30 inches, but having the other information cut was a good reminder that we need to write for people, not just for our own interest.
Also, my yoga nidra article will be printed May 12, so I am very excited to see this article reach fruition. Rose Raymond and I have worked very deligently on this article, but we may have been too invested in the article. We wrote an article that was around 60 inches long. After about four edits it is down to 30 inches. The article should only be 30 inches, but having the other information cut was a good reminder that we need to write for people, not just for our own interest.
An accomplishment.
This week I've felt more than ever that I was in the groove at the Missourian, which doesn't make sense since I only wrote one story and I submitted the Five Ideas at about 3:30 Friday morning and wrote one whole story this week.
However, I wrote the best lead of my life, and possibly the best written-story ever. I'm really kind of absurdly proud of my little story about the kids that talked to Noam Chomsky on the phone. It got me a tip for another story next week and a huge compliment from Liz. I'm still kind of walking on air. It's a good piece of writing.
I also mostly finished my portfolio web site:
http://bengal.missouri.edu/~rahb5c/convfinal.swf
Progress report:
Today I crossed two things off my long-term to-do list. It feels good. Only like 15 more things to go.
However, I wrote the best lead of my life, and possibly the best written-story ever. I'm really kind of absurdly proud of my little story about the kids that talked to Noam Chomsky on the phone. It got me a tip for another story next week and a huge compliment from Liz. I'm still kind of walking on air. It's a good piece of writing.
I also mostly finished my portfolio web site:
http://bengal.missouri.edu/~rahb5c/convfinal.swf
Progress report:
Today I crossed two things off my long-term to-do list. It feels good. Only like 15 more things to go.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Not so keen on riding the wave of change...
[Preface: In this blog, when I say “we,” I should really use the first person. This is a hyper-critical self-analysis, and I don’t want to speak for anyone else. Also, this post is partly inspired by class on Wednesday and partly inspired by Audrey's last blog.]
If I weren’t a journalist, I’d probably hate journalists.
To coin a term my high school mentor once used to describe our breed, we journalists “fancy ourselves mavericks.” We’re tend to think of ourselves as a superior species; we think we’re somehow apart from the masses who read this stuff we package together and sell as the authoritative version of the news.
We worship Woodward and Bernstein. It’s our journalistic wet dream to grab hold of some loose, conspiratorial thread and pull it until we’ve reached an unthinkable climax. Then, of course, we’ll win the Pulitzer.
It’s disgusting, really, when I think about it. A lot of journalism is, no matter how saccharinely you sugar-coat it, egomaniacal. We thrive on competition, and individual competition is fundamentally selfish. We scrap for bylines. We fight. We win. We want to be on top.
While I’m sure the Missourian’s newsroom is probably full of aspiring journalists with well-developed altruism — kids who genuinely pursue news in all its forms because they love it and they want to instill the same kind of love in our readers — you’ll never convince me that the people who tend to be most successful here don’t fall into that “maverick” self-analysis.
That’s why I think the shells project has been so challenging.
If you’re in Advanced Reporting, you’ve likely done well in your Reporting class. You’ve fought. You’ve persevered. You’ve proven that you’re capable of succeeding in a competitive career field undergoing constant evolution. So the “group work” thing might be just a little unnatural.
But journalism is changing. Each day, our coverage grows more and more user-centric. We use graphics, multimedia, sound bytes. We post documents online so that our readers can check them out for themselves instead of twiddling thumbs until we authoritatively break it down for them. The new era of journalism is all about relinquishing power. A real reporter is going to have to learn how to stifle the ego and deliver information quickly, effectively, and selflessly. From an reader perspective, this evolution is fantastic. It’s helping news outlets deliver spin-free, objective coverage. One day, our job will probably be to make it quick and easy for readers to process information instead of processing everything for them.
Here’s my problem: I know, in my gut, that it’s the maverick in me that fuels my passion for journalism. Shells DO stimulate my creativity. I think, if I had the time and energy to devote to one (hello, capstone!) I’d really enjoy and savor the shell production process. However, in the long run, I don’t know if I can survive in the coming age of journalism. I don’t know if I can ever swallow my pride enough to meet the Web-era’s definition of a good reporter.
I got into reporting because I saw it as an effective way to make a passion useful. I love to write, but getting a B.A. in English wasn’t going to pay the bills. A steady job at a paper, I thought, would. Plus, I loved reporting. I loved calling people, stumbling upon leads, synthesizing stuff and coming up with one helluva story.
The way I see journalism heading, I think it’s going to take either every ounce of effort in my body or one massive stroke of luck to make a long-term career out of old-school reporting.
…and I’m starting to wonder if, given the way journalism’s evolving, this is the right career for me.
Maybe it’s time to think about graduate school.
Progress Report:
I’ve talked to folks from four different theaters in different regions of the country that have undergone renovations and restorations in the past five to ten years. Originally, I thought my story was just going to offer a little context for the Missouri Theatre’s restoration, but one source gave me a potentially awesome lead. Without revealing too much, we’ll see where it takes me.
Oh, yeah. I’m done with shells!
If I weren’t a journalist, I’d probably hate journalists.
To coin a term my high school mentor once used to describe our breed, we journalists “fancy ourselves mavericks.” We’re tend to think of ourselves as a superior species; we think we’re somehow apart from the masses who read this stuff we package together and sell as the authoritative version of the news.
We worship Woodward and Bernstein. It’s our journalistic wet dream to grab hold of some loose, conspiratorial thread and pull it until we’ve reached an unthinkable climax. Then, of course, we’ll win the Pulitzer.
It’s disgusting, really, when I think about it. A lot of journalism is, no matter how saccharinely you sugar-coat it, egomaniacal. We thrive on competition, and individual competition is fundamentally selfish. We scrap for bylines. We fight. We win. We want to be on top.
While I’m sure the Missourian’s newsroom is probably full of aspiring journalists with well-developed altruism — kids who genuinely pursue news in all its forms because they love it and they want to instill the same kind of love in our readers — you’ll never convince me that the people who tend to be most successful here don’t fall into that “maverick” self-analysis.
That’s why I think the shells project has been so challenging.
If you’re in Advanced Reporting, you’ve likely done well in your Reporting class. You’ve fought. You’ve persevered. You’ve proven that you’re capable of succeeding in a competitive career field undergoing constant evolution. So the “group work” thing might be just a little unnatural.
But journalism is changing. Each day, our coverage grows more and more user-centric. We use graphics, multimedia, sound bytes. We post documents online so that our readers can check them out for themselves instead of twiddling thumbs until we authoritatively break it down for them. The new era of journalism is all about relinquishing power. A real reporter is going to have to learn how to stifle the ego and deliver information quickly, effectively, and selflessly. From an reader perspective, this evolution is fantastic. It’s helping news outlets deliver spin-free, objective coverage. One day, our job will probably be to make it quick and easy for readers to process information instead of processing everything for them.
Here’s my problem: I know, in my gut, that it’s the maverick in me that fuels my passion for journalism. Shells DO stimulate my creativity. I think, if I had the time and energy to devote to one (hello, capstone!) I’d really enjoy and savor the shell production process. However, in the long run, I don’t know if I can survive in the coming age of journalism. I don’t know if I can ever swallow my pride enough to meet the Web-era’s definition of a good reporter.
I got into reporting because I saw it as an effective way to make a passion useful. I love to write, but getting a B.A. in English wasn’t going to pay the bills. A steady job at a paper, I thought, would. Plus, I loved reporting. I loved calling people, stumbling upon leads, synthesizing stuff and coming up with one helluva story.
The way I see journalism heading, I think it’s going to take either every ounce of effort in my body or one massive stroke of luck to make a long-term career out of old-school reporting.
…and I’m starting to wonder if, given the way journalism’s evolving, this is the right career for me.
Maybe it’s time to think about graduate school.
Progress Report:
I’ve talked to folks from four different theaters in different regions of the country that have undergone renovations and restorations in the past five to ten years. Originally, I thought my story was just going to offer a little context for the Missouri Theatre’s restoration, but one source gave me a potentially awesome lead. Without revealing too much, we’ll see where it takes me.
Oh, yeah. I’m done with shells!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)