É assim que se faz jornalismo na Libéria. Lindo!
É assim que se faz jornalismo na Libéria. Lindo!
Apanhado interessante do Digidaily:
New Media Math: There was a time when smart, ambitious young people dreamed of starting magazines and building an audience. Nowadays, a slightly different group is building media through technology. The efficiencies can be breathtaking. Take Instagram, a photo-sharing app for iPhone. The entire venture consists of four people. It has 5 million users, an astounding 1.25 million per employee. It did this in eight months. Whether this kind of media has the same staying power of old-time media remains to be seen. But it’s clear that the nature of aggregating audiences is quite different in the digital era of ubiquitous distribution on platforms like Apple, Facebook and Google. Figuring out how media in a more traditional model — ie, paying people to create content — can compete is a daunting task.
Media Agonistes: Speaking of the troubles facing traditional media, New York Times writer David Carr and director Aaron Sorkin have an interesting chat in Interview that touches on the challenge traditional media organizations like the NYT face when it comes to the rough-and-tumble digital world. Both are decidedly old-school in approach, although in distinct ways. Sorkin actively distrusts all “new media.” He calls citizen journalists “two of the scariest words to me right now,” paints bloggers as untrustworthy and Twitter users as malcontents. Carr, who is a main subject in the new film about the future of the NYT, Page One, takes a more nuanced view. “Well, the Web is like a self-cleaning oven in that it will correct itself over time. The theory is that if you have lots of inputs of information, then the truth will gradually emerge from these thousands of points of light, and people will assemble from them an idea of the way things are. But my worry is that people will not do that, and instead gather what they need in order to reinforce their existing notions of the way things are, and there won’t be a civic common anymore where fact rules. I mean, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the facts are not up for grabs.”
Porous Paywalls: One thing lost in the paywall debate is how embarrassingly easy most are to evade. Hit a subscription prompt of a Wall Street Journal story, plug the headline into Google News. There are several ways around The New York Times subscription plan, too. These publications are trying to strike the balance of building a needed extra revenue stream while not cutting themselves off from the wider Web. The NYT hasn’t shut down “NYClean,” a toolbar addon that eradicates the paywall overlay that appears over articles hidden behind the paywall. It only takes one click. The latest simple evasion tool is a Google Chrome extension for the WSJ. As BetaBeat explains, all a user has to do is download the extension. When clicking on a paywall article, the extension redirects the browser to perform a Google News search, a brief hiccup before the full article appears for free. There’s no telling how many people use these tools, but their ease will undoubtedly cut into any subscription revenue publishers hope to collect.
Nem tô com inveja.
Se eu fosse jornalista eu teria MUITO medo.
Newspapers get 3x too many ad dollars, says study
Even though newspapers have lost nearly half of their ad revenues in the last five years, some analysts believe they still are getting three times more advertising than their readership deserves.
This good news/bad news for publishers comes from eMarketer, a research firm specializing in digital marketing trends. I’ll tell you in a moment why this is both good and bad news. First, the story:
In a report released last week, eMarketer compared the amount of time consumers spend accessing various types of media with the percentage of advertising dollars spent on each format.
Television, for example, represents about 43% of the time Americans spend consuming media and broadcasters collect about 43% of the advertising dollars, according to the study. So, that sounds about right.
Newspapers, on the other hand, are pocketing three times more ad dollars than their mindshare would seem to justify. Even though consumers spend barely 5% of their time reading newspapers, eMarketer found that publishers are getting 17% of the ad spend. As you can see from the table below, the situation is the same for magazines.
Because the allocation of ad-market share is a zero-sum game, print has to be benefitting at someone’s expense. And two notable victims, in this case, are Internet and mobile advertising.
In the most egregious mismatch discovered by the study, only 0.5% of advertising goes to mobile phones even though people spend more than 8% of their media time using them. With 25% of media mindshare devoted to the Internet and barely 19% of ad dollars going to the web, it is being shortchanged, too.
This is good news for newspaper publishers because it proves that they have done an excellent job to date of convincing marketers of the value of their medium. As such, they have been able to corner a disproportionate share of advertising in comparison to other media.
It also is bad news for publishers, because it represents a formidable threat: What would happen if advertisers began to wonder why they are spending so much on newspapers when they can use cheaper and more targetable advertising to reach the growing audiences on the web, mobile and social media?
In reality, of course, the answer is known. Newspaper sales fell from $49.4 billion in 2005 to $25.8 billion in 2010. Despite a modest economic recovery that has increased ad sales for most other media, publishers anecdotally report that sales in the first quarter of this year were softer than they were a year ago.
If publishers can’t catch up to their digital competitors, the staggering erosion in newspaper advertising in the last five years could be the prelude to something worse.
Condition ONE seeks to redesign video journalism in two key ways. First, the camera’s field of view is widened to approximate the entire human visual field, including peripheral vision. Traditionally, a 50mm lens is considered “normal” for approximating human vision in 35mm photography; Dennis’s version bends a near-180-degree wide angle view into one (albeit distorted) frame. The effect may sound like stylistic affectation, but trust me, watching explosions and soldiers (and even interviews) from this perspective already creates a viscerally immersive effect compared to “normal” videography. The distorted edges actually mimic peripheral vision in a weirdly authentic way — motion and shapes in the periphery can’t be discerned in detail without “looking right at them,” just like in real life, but you still know they’re there.
The second part of Dennis’s project is more intriguing: making the images interactive in an authentic way. On the far-out side, Condition ONE is presented as a literal media “cockpit” with a huge domed screen (kind of like a mini Omnimax) that the mega-wide-angle view is projected onto, which Dennis claims removes the distortion in the image. But for those of us with access only to iPads, the system adds interesting panning and tilting ability within the image. With the flick of a finger, you can swivel around in the video image to “look” at different things happening in real time, the same way you’d snap your head to the left if you suddenly heard gunfire coming from that direction.
Via Fast Company
Quer ver o que está sendo falado ao redor do mundo sobre a panela de pressão egípcia? É só clicar em uma das bolinhas e ler o que está sendo twittado. Palmas para o The Guardian.
É muito foda saber o que os vizinhos ainda sob o jugo de ditadores estão falando.
Trechos fodas tirados de um post do excelente Nic Hodges:
The editor is now a combination of my social network and complex algorithms. And there doesn’t seem to be much of a role for advertisers.
The winners of the digital era will not simply be those that outthink, but those that outfail.
And this is not a change that can be resisted. This is behaviour, and it can only be embraced.
É velho mas é de uma genialidade constrangedora, embaraçosa. Parabéns a Wired.
Tirei esse trecho de um post, como de hábito excelente, do Tiago Dória, e só com ele (não o Tiago, o trecho) se pode entender toda a grandeza deste jogo.
Cutthroat Capitalism é sobre a ação de piratas na Somália, durante o ano de 2009. No jogo, você é um pirata (ladrão/sequestrador de navios) que tem como missão conseguir uma certa quantidade de dinheiro e recrutar novos integrantes para a sua “equipe de piratas”.
O jogo foi publicado junto com uma matéria correspondente na edição da Wired. Enquanto a versão impressa mostrava a ação dos piratas na Somália, do ponto de vista das empresas de transporte marítimo; Cutthroat Capitalism registrava-a, do lado dos piratas.
E seguia além – forçava os leitores a entender a pirataria a partir da experiência simulada pelo newsgame. No fim das contas, mostrava como o sistema de pirataria funcionava como um todo. E é neste ponto que está um dos diferenciais dos newsgames, ainda pouco explorado. Poder ir além do hardnews, do factual.
Embasbacante, os caras botaram pra fuder!
O mais foda é que no final do vídeo o cara pede algum termo “obscuro” para colocar em seu sistema de busca e provar que os resultados apresentados não eram pré-criados. Aí alguém respondeu: “Brasil!”.
Já gostava da NPR, agora é que eu gosto ainda mais.
Via The Atlantic