DigiDave | Communication is Key

Collaboration is Queen....

Some traditions of journalism should remain steadfast. SPJ's ethics seem like good principles to hold onto. Some cultural traditions of journalism, however, should be questioned and rethought.

Online: Content is king. I don't disagree. But collaboration is queen.
In chess the king is the most important, but the queen is the most powerful.

I recognize that what comes below will be to one extreme. I am idealistic but not ignorant that what will come below goes against the gospel of journalism for the last 50 years. But I also strongly believe it is something that needs to be addressed in our industry, right now, because it is killing the business - and more importantly the reputation of journalism.

What this brings me to is "the scoop" and the mentality of competition that it breeds. The scoop mentality is the collaboration killer. And remember kids: "Collaboration is Queen."

I'm not naive: Sometimes scoops are essential. Some investigations require stealth so as not to tip off sources you are digging into them. But most of the time a scoop is used to clown another journalist. "We scooped em' good" or "they are always chasing out leads." Etc.

News flash...

Scoops have the half-life of a link.

• Do what you do best and link to the rest - Unless you are the AP, you aren't specializing in breaking news. Twitter has you beat. Learn to incorporate that - so instead of rushing out to get breaking news, you can add context and value to it.

• No website is an island. If it acts as such - then I hope the authors have a large extended family, because they are the only ones who will care.

• The best things happen when you freely reveal your ideas. Just ask Leonard Witt who got 1.5 million for sharing his ideas. At first he was hesitant to share his idea. I wonder if he regrets it now? I got a grant from Knight because I openly shared my ideas.
• How do you expect to grow a community if you don't include them in the planning of how they will be reported? This isn't rocket science - it's basic human psychology. The more you let me in and include me - the more I will be your friend and help.
• Scoops lead to the misconception that journalism is a product (my biggest gripe). That stories are open and shut cases. Once written they don't need to be revisited: "crap, we got scooped. I guess we should give up and stop our coverage of X."

Potential problem if you freely reveal your ideas.

• You tip off an investigation that needs stealth: A real problem, I admit.
• Someone will scoop you: No longer a problem - stop worrying about it.

Potential answers...

• They won't even try to scoop you. You've already establish authority and readers on the subject.
• You had the idea up first. If they have any ounce of self-respect - they'll link to you. If they don't and a reader notices who looks like the fool?
• They'll partner with you and the two of you will do a better job than either one would alone.
• Just link to their coverage and blamo... they've done your pre-reporting. Stuff a $1 in their pocket, add a pat or two, thank them - and now add more to the evolving process that is journalism.

Downsides to not freely revealing your idea.

• More likely to make big mistakes and get fired ala Dan Rather.
• Even with the best of intentions, hoarding secrets for a "scoop" also makes it look as though you think: I'm an oh so smart journalist and I know how to cover the issue. Potential readers that I might discuss the topic with have nothing to add.

The realities

The situation on the ground is very different from what I envision in an idealistic world of journalism. And that is why I know I am to one extreme here. News organizations have a culture of constant competition. Newspapers battle like rival baseball teams. Imagine how much more could be done if instead of keeping score - newspapers collaborated like district police officers: Normally they stay in their own turf but if crimes jump from county to county or state to state, they know how to collaborate.

All this talk of micro-payments (which is another post) could never happen because newspapers can't figure out how to collaborate. Hell - they can barely link!

Knowing that I know nothing - I decided to ask my Tweeple:

MrJoshuaWilson: Complex issue. I prefer collaboration. But only w appropriate partners. Competitors exist too. Rule: Don't play all cards at once!

about 13 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 20:29:21 +0000 2009

tigerbeat: Though there are some investigative pieces that can't be collaborative to protect sources, etc. But info in story imp, not scoop

about 13 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 20:02:16 +0000 2009

brochtrup: chess is hard.

about 13 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 20:01:57 +0000 2009

tigerbeat: I do think media is too focused on scoops. Citizens don't care who reported a story a few minutes before everyone else.

about 13 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 19:59:41 +0000 2009

ruthannharnisch: One of the Harnisch Foundation's highest values: Collaboration, not competition. "Exclusive" only lasts a moment anyway today.

about 13 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 19:59:22 +0000 2009

eyeseast: Scoops = Rooks. Powerful, seductive, but harder to use on a crowded board, esp. early in the game.

about 14 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 19:55:54 +0000 2009

bergus: Scoops, a.k.a. exclusive content, still build audiences, online and else where. Doesn't mean not collaborating on some projects.

about 14 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 19:54:57 +0000 2009

Digidave: Content is King, but collaboration is Queen. In Chess king = most important, but Queen = all powerful. Scoops = anti collaboration Thoughts?

about 14 hours ago

Wed Mar 18 19:52:27 +0000 2009

How to Build Your Own Community Funded Reporting Site

If you are an entrepreneur - I am handing this one to you on a silver plate.

Just about every week I get an inquiry from someone to start their own version of Spot.Us. From up North (Canada) to down South (Brazil) and all the way over to Australia. I've gotten requests on how Spot.Us can expand to new regions. So here it is....

The code for spot.us is 100% open source.
(Technically I haven't slapped an OS license on it. But I will.. promise. And in the meantime, this is a poor man's version of it: "you can use the code.")

I wanted to wait until I had some more features to do this post. And now - those features are ready. Since we are also in the Chronicle today - I figure it is a good time to give away any secret sauce we might have.

What this means:

• We have absorbed 90-95% of the cost to start your own community funded reporting site.
• It can be nonprofit or for-profit. You could end up making LOTS of money if it works for you! .... just don't forget to hire me ;)
  
• I'll help. If somebody is very serious about this - I will get on the phone or even meet in person to talk about how you can do this.
  

The steps and the general costs

1. Download the spot.us code: Which has lots of new features!!!. Cost = $0
2. Buy a URL: cost = $10
3. Get hosting: cost = a few hundo's a month. Use Amazon EC2 to save some money.
4. Get a merchant account (also need a payment gateway): A few hundo's on installation + about 3% off every credit card transaction. You can use PayPal to save on installation and if you are a nonprofit Google Checkout will save you the 3% credit card charge.
5. Get up and running: You'll have to hire a Ruby on Rails person to install the code from step one and sync it up with the merchant account in step four. A good RoR developer can cost up to $140 an hour. But they won't have to do any heavy lifting - so somebody who is adequate (maybe $70-$80 an hour will do). Total cost: anywhere from $0 if you call in a favor to $1,000 - still relatively cheap in context.
6. Change the text: You will probably want to change some of the text on the site. Replacing "spot.us" with whatever you call your organization. Change the text on the about page, etc. I would recommend looking over the terms of service, privacy policy etc. Make sure you are cool with all of it. I recommend hiring the developer from step five to set up your own computer to run an instance of the spot.us code - so you can tweak this text to your hearts content without having to pay somebody an hourly rate to administer your text changes.

Next steps

• Find some reporters.
• Or: Just put up pitches yourself - as we've started doing on Spot.Us. If you raise enough money - then I gauruntee, you'll find reporters.
• Go forth and report.

Ideas

• Put up a pitch that is really a beat: "I will cover city hall in town X for Y months. If we can raise Z dollars by time this is done - I'll continue coverage for another Y months.

Feel free to contact me: david at spot dot us.

Why would I give this away?

• I am young and naive.
• It will make me look good if others try it.
• I believe in it.
• I’m required to by the terms of my grant from Knight Foundation ;)
  

So if you are serious - get in contact with me. I'll give you a tutorial on the admin interface of the site and we can talk strategy.

It is NOT personal branding - it's Just living your life online.

I was on a panel this weekend at UC Berkeley's J-school. I am often the youngest person on panels and as such I feel compelled to play the role of "young outspoken new media entrepreneur" because I think it is a voice that needs to be heard, is often left out and it isn't a far stretch from where I am anyways.

One question that came up (and often does) was the issue of "personal branding."

The logical flow goes like this....

• "Journalism will survive the death of its institutions."

• This leads to the conclusion that we will have lots of independent journalists.

• Which means independent journalists will have to create "personal brands" since they can't rely on institutions to warrant a readers trust.

This is true - but I think the word "brand" is loaded and as such "personal brands" are being mischaracterized.

The response I hear from reporters is.

    ▪    I don't want to be a brand.
    ▪    I am shy.
    ▪    Isn't branding just selling out? "Damn the man, save The Empire"

(10 Journo-points to whoever can name that quote).

So here is what "personal branding" means to me.

Being a "brand" doesn't mean anything. What we really mean is: Live parts of your life online.

    •    Be findable online.
    •    Show your personality - whatever that is (you can be shy....online)
    •    Just be yourself.

Journalists don't need to do "personal branding" but they do need to live their life online. In fact, that is what LOTS of people are doing anyways.

Young people live their lives online naturally (Facebook). Journalists will have to do so with a bit more fervor and transparency, because readers will want to trust them. To do that you must show who you are through various means. And that means using tools (blog, twitter, flickr, etc) to make your life accessible online.

Personal branding doesn't mean slapping a logo on yourself. It just means being exactly who you are right now (yes, you... the one reading this) but doing that online.

How to start from scratch and make it feel natural.

    ▪    Start a blog (wordpress?)
    ▪    Do daily videos. Just you - talking to the camera (YouTube).
    ▪    Talk about one news story a day, what you think and how you might have covered the story differently.

Try that for two weeks.
You are now living your life online. Congrats - you have a "personal brand." (I really hate that phrase - but it is the accepted terminology).

My personal narrative in this.

I am "Digidave." I was 23 when I started building this online persona and it literally is just me ..... except online. These are my corny jokes, thoughts, dreams and occasional real life stories.

I do wish I had come up with a more mature name, but alas - I chose Digidave and now I feel somewhat tied to it. I've seen worse names.

Yes. I live parts of my life online. I keep some of it separate. My nomdeplum has served me well. People remember and recognize me. I've built a strong presence online that shows consistency in my strengths and dispositions. While this seems somewhat ego-centric, it is MY blog about MY life. I am not an institution and my personal brand is nothing more than me just living my life online.

The dark side of personal branding

    •    Having a good "personal brand" is misconstrued as making a flashy website.

Yes, I have a cute little photo of five versions of me (outdone by Alexis Madrigal's many handed photo) but if we hadn't produced quality content as reporters or worked our butts off on different projects - our "personal brands" would be empty shells and people would figure it out.

A "personal brand" doesn't mean slapping a logo on yourself and calling it a day.

You can't be "DigiX," photoshop a cute photo of yourself and think you've secured the fate of your career.

I see people who try this everyday on Twitter. They often call themselves "Social Media Experts, Guru's, Consultants etc." In the past I've written about how I HATE social media consultants that are just fake personas. I obviously don't want to trash everyone doing it, some are great, but there are a lot of snake oil salesmen on the internet.

These characters often rely on personal brands that are pure flash. Which is to say: They aren't living their lives online - they are creating a fake persona. There is self-promotion which is understandable in a world of freelancers and then there is shameless self-promotion which is unbecoming.

How can I know the difference (you ask).

It isn't rocket science - decide for yourself who you do and do not like as a person. If you like the persona a person gives off - follow them, support them, comment on their blog and join the conversations they are starting. Over time you'll be able to determine the real from the fake.

Now go forth and live your life....... and do some of that online.