Monthly Archives: September 2011

Go with your gut

Posted on by

Last week marked an interesting development in the UM System presidential search, or did it?

I’m not sure I know, and even though Janese Silvey of the Columbia Daily Tribune did know, it seems to me now that nobody actually knows what happened, err — can speak to what happened.

This whole thing reminds me of that great scene in the beginning of State Of Play, when Russell Crowe's character tells the cop, "Let's play a little game of 'Confirm or Deny.'"

Wednesday afternoon we got word that Janese, the education beat reporter for the Trib, had published the name of one of the potential candidates for the UM System president position. [The UM System Board of Curators has been in search of a new president since former president Gary Forsee stepped down in January. There’s been a lot of coverage, so it’s easy to catch up!]

Naturally we scrambled to follow up on the story ourselves, and advanced reporter Abby Eisenberg and I frantically called everyone we could to confirm the story. Though we expected a lot of “no comment” responses, we did expect to be able to corroborate Janese’s report — if only to run her story on our site.

In fact, we had a good debate with our editor Liz Brixey about whether or not linking to Janese’s story was a good idea; and if it served our audience to at least get the information out, event if it meant posting a competitors article (and thereby catapulting visitors to our website in the exact opposite direction we want them to go: to the Trib’s).

In the end, Abby and I agreed we didn’t feel comfortable running her story without confirming the basic facts on our own. Despite the frustration of missing out on what we thought was a great development in the search, we went home byline-less and chose to wait things out.

Turns out a whole night was the exact amount of time we needed to let the story incubate, because Thursday afternoon a Kansas City Star report opposed Janese’s story:

But in a telephone interview this morning, Van Matre denied saying that Hoenig, 65, is a presidential candidate.

“I said just the opposite,” Van Matre told The Star. “I don’t want to be in the middle of this. I can’t say either way.”

Stunned, Abby and I beamed at our Wednesday afternoon gamble to forgo linking to the Trib’s story on columbiamissourian.com. I’m not a gambler, nor a confident decision-maker (ex-girlfriends can/will whole-heartedly confirm), so guessing right was a fantastic relief to the otherwise frustrating storyline of chasing down news broken by other local outlets.

For me, the incident highlights two fundamental things of my time at the Missourian, and my (cross-our-fingers) entire career as a journalist:

1) Being a rookie sucks. Janese’s career isn’t broken up into 15 week increments, so she has time to develop relationships with regular sources and earn their trust to get tips like Hoenig’s (potential) candidacy. At the Missourian, we’re perpetually at a disadvantage in that arena because we’re always cycling new reporters in and out of the newsroom, and consequently, in and out of relationships with sources.

2) If it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. I have a healthy skepticism about a lot of (OK, most) things, but sometimes there’s nothing wrong with trusting your gut—and I need to do it more often.

Public exposure

Posted on by

Wednesday Jeff Jarvis released an excerpt from his upcoming book Public Parts, which examines how technology has influenced what he calls “publicness,” and how our changing perspective of privacy can positively effect our lives as individuals and professionals.

I posted about Jarvis last week, who’s recently become one of my favorite media critics. He regularly posts to his blog, buzzmachine.com, with really interesting perspectives on the mainstream media and its future.

I’ve been really excited about this book since I first heard about it a few months ago because publicness is something I’ve really had to consider as a young professional—what do I share? And how does what I share affect my reputation as a writer and individual?

“Private and public are choices we make: to reveal or not, to share or not, to join or not. Each has benefits, each hazards. We constantly seek a balance between the two—only today, technology brings new choices, risks, and opportunities.” — Jarvis

The idea that all of my social media profiles can “brand” me is all at once daunting and exciting. The opportunity to use online social tools (like this blog, or my Twitter, LinkedIn or Google+) to create a very visible, searchable online footprint of my work is really thrilling.

I see my profiles as an opportunity to portray myself in ways that can’t be conveyed in a quipy cover letter or single page resume. My Twitter, for example, isn’t just about who I follow or what I tweet—it’s also about how engaged and responsive I am to my online community. My LinkedIn has become a malleable, organic resume that I can use to connect to my peers, groups and other professionals. And this blog has become a 24 Hour Fitness for my voice as a writer, a kind of safe space to work out my brain’s writing muscles.

Each profile or page gives a different perspective to my work as a writer/reporter, as well as my opinions and interests as a regular ol’ civilian.

Although only pieces may get posted to each specific page, the conglomeration of all of my profiles paints a very accurate, honest picture of my life as both a young professional and an individual. Altogether, my profiles simply reflect everything I’m up to and the line between professional and individual is virtually non-existent.

The difference between myself and many of my peers here at the J-School (and, more generally, folks my age that have had social profiles for years and are in-tune with the online cultural norms) is that I’m deliberately sharing honest notes about myself with the intention of putting myself in a position where my public self must be honest.

I’ve designed my web presence will full-transparency in mind, and I’ve built my social footprint on the reputation of honesty and publicness.

In Public Parts, Jarvis argues that this publicness is where we’re all headed. Companies, media outlets, individuals and governments—in some way, we’re all in a position where we have to decide our own publicness.

But does it work? Is the reputation I’ve built on my work as a reporter and active participant in my online community going to land me a job, or make me a respected member of the journalism community?

Well, I’ve got my fingers crossed.

Jarvis and journalism, damnit

Posted on by

I’ve recently started following Jeff Jarvis, both on Twitter and on his blog, buzzmachine.com. He’s a journalism professor and entrepreneurial journalist, and is quickly becoming one of my favorite critics of today’s institutional journalism.

In a post published on his blog Saturday, Jarvis discussed some examples that challenge the traditional definition of journalism created by the institutions that produce and define it (like our beloved Missouri School of Journalism). Jarvis argues that what we think we know about the media and it’s “rules” may not be true at all, and asks “So what is journalism, damnit?”

I’m not sure I can answer that, and Jarvis admits he doesn’t have a definition either—he says:

“But I think we need to question — not reject, but reconsider — every assumption: what journalism is, who does it, how they add value, how they build and maintain trust, their business models. I am coming to wonder whether we should even reconsider the word journalism, as it carries more baggage than a Dreamliner.”

So if a well-respected, extremely successful journalist (because he is by nearly all definitions but a journalist) is unable to define journalism after a lifetime of experience and having a hand in shaping the media as we know it today—what does that mean for those of us in J-School now? Is real journalism tanking the way many people say it is?

I would argue that this is the most exciting time to be involved in journalism, and that the future of the industry is really up for grabs. But, frankly, I look around at the faces in my classes here at Mizzou and I’m confident the future is in good hands.

At the Columbia Missourian, we’re trying things to advance community journalism in ways many people would never consider. At the Reynolds Journalism Institute, fellows are researching ways we can be better information stewards for the community. And as an Internet generation, my classmates and I are already better equipped to undertake the digital media revolution that’s so stumped traditional news media today.

When all is said and done, I hope I too can say I made valuable and permanent contributions to my craft and to the future of journalism.

Sports debut

Posted on by

Yesterday was an interesting day in terms of conference realignment in the Big 12. And as an avid fan (if my laundry isn’t done before 7 tonight, it won’t get done til Monday thanks to the season openers) I’m addicted to those kinds of stories, even if the latest “new” development isn’t new at all.

When the story that Texas A&M would apply to another conference came up in the newsroom yesterday, my ears perked up. The only problem (or blessing?) was that I happened to be in a meeting with Liz Brixey, begging for a story to get my byline online again. She must have seen the wheels turning in my head and immediately threw me Greg Bowers’ way to get on the breaking story.

Over the course of a couple hours I was able to put some of a story together, and that piece became the framework for sports writers Andrew Wagaman and Harry Plumer. My basis for the story was simply press releases and official statements, but Andrew and Harry were able to compile a lot to the story by getting ahold of curators and even Brady Deaton.

Though it wasn’t the most glamorous, but it was a sports debut nonetheless. Read it here: Missouri officials comment on Texas A&M’s move from Big 12.

One thing I thought was really interesting about the story, was a piece Joy Mayer and the Community Outreach Team put together using Storify. It basically created a storyline of people’s Twitter reactions to A&M’s move, and the best way to understand it is to give it a look. Check it out here: A&M wants out.