There’s a group on where photos can be posted and shared. Please add yours!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/coveringpolitics/

Also, links of interest as well as URLs mentioned and referenced throughout the conference can be aggregated on del.icio.us under the tag “polispace”

http://del.icio.us/tag/polispace

Have at it!

All video interviews conducted during the conference can be watched/downloaded here.

----

People twittering the conference:

* Amy Gahran’s twitter | blog
* Alfred Hermida’s twitter | blog
* Andy Sternberg’s twitter | blog

This debate seems old, or at least common in news Web site circles. Not much new here, but still haven’t figured out an answer.

Maybe a newer angle is a question asked by Rachel Nixon from BBCNews.com: do you ask users what kind of stories they want or what they want to see covered?

Michael Sokoler of the Center for at American Public Media offered an interesting point of view: there’s a big difference between watching people respond to what we do and asking what they want us to cover? It’s hard to get people to say what they want without having them rely on traditional buzzwords to identify those topics - meaning things that are already covered.

He said there’s been a decline in relevance of the news, loss of connection between the public and the news media and it’s crucial to ask readers what they want to know about and to see and to create more of a partnership between the media and its public.

Users no longer pick up one, or even two or three, newspapers and call it a day. They aren’t even watching the evening news at 6 p.m. and catching the follow-up five hours later. On the internet a user will look at your site, and check that information against a handful of other sites, at least.

Especially on “breaking” news stories, the discussion suggested that readers are expected to understand that there is a difference between “breaking” news and regular news - they will recognize that the information is new, perhaps incomplete, and subject to change as more reports become available.

Users are also expected to know the difference between blogging and reporting, and not to attribute the same level of authority to a blog as they would to a news story.

So it turns out journalists are not the only ones expected to adapt for new technology - the users have to do it too. And to be honest, they are probably way ahead of all the journalists on that anyway.

Tonight’s talk by Politico.com editor Bill Nichols made me rethink my attitude. He said that the benefit of blogs is that the writers don’t report on stories they feel “obligated” to do. They don’t feel a need to record all the important events of the day. But rather, he said, “We feel a great freedom to pick the most interesting and provocative stories.”

I like interesting. I like provocative. Keep talking, Bill…

He spoke of the optimism and sense of adventure surrounding online media. He said Politico.com was “built on the mantra of embracing the future.”

As a journalism student, I constantly hear professors talk about the layoffs and cutbacks at newspapers. My fellow classmates and I joke about how we came to USC Annenberg with high expectations and dreams of the kind of job we wanted when we graduated. And now, we have come to terms with the fact that ANY job offer in journalism would be a blessing.

Listening to online gurus like Nichols, who see the Internet as an exciting escapade and not a last resort, is indeed uplifting. But despite the wild and crazy adventure that is the Internet, there is nothing like seeing your byline in print. Maybe I’ll start printing these postings and leave them outside my door in the morning.

Tell the reader what you know. And tell the reader what you don’t know.

This sentiment was echoed at Politico.com editor Bill Nichols’ 20 minute briefer on the site, its brief history, and its ambitious mission. Politico.com was merely two months out of the box on March 22, when Ben Smith blogged that John Edwards would announce his withdrawal from the ‘08 campaign 90 minutes before a scheduled press conference at which Edwards would address the reappearance of his wife Elizabeth’s breast cancer but would indeed continue his campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Smith relied on a single source—a friend of the Edwardses—on information relayed the day before, according to Nichols. Relying on a single source was not necessarily the crucial error, the former USA Today White House reporter explained, but had Smith told the audienced what he did NOT know, in addition to what he had heard, the blog posting would not have caused such a stir. In other words, as Ward said earlier, by exposing both what you know, and definitive information that you do NOT know for sure, your reporting is validated in the eye of the audience. It’s impossible to trump the reader in the Internet age. Mistakes are not soon forgotten. As Dan Gillmor, author of We the Media wrote, “the audience knows more than I do.”

The irony is that Ben Smith’s blog post became an even bigger issue after being reported second-hand by other media outlets that concurrently failed to do further due diligence on the Politico.com’s lead. Ben Smith more than redeemed himself by immediately posting an apology/correction and a lengthier column later in the day, which is something you don’t often see from other outlets (an unnamed correction in the next day’s paper wouldn’t cut it here, not to mention, some news orgs posted the official news as an “update” not a “correction.”

With 6 million pageviews a month, Politico.com is well-established as a major media player. It will be interesting to watch how it’s editors’ and contributors’ old-school print media standards translate—and hopefully advance—the integrity of online journalism. 

The attitude of many publishers towards the Web, no thanks to Google/YouTube, is—“if it’s not fair use, what, are we gonna get sued?” And when a takedown notice comes through, the image, video, or other content is removed and usually the conflict is resolved. In other instances, however, a photographer is completely entitled to send a bill to a for-profit publication or organization that uses a photo or video without the creators permission. In the old days of print, I believe they called it “plagiarism.”

There are exceptions, of course. When user-generated content (UGC) is submitted through a module or service that requires agreeing to terms (i.e. checking a box without realizing what exactly you’re doing), the original producer of the content typically often signs off their rights completely on a non-exclusive basis.

In the case of Jamal Albarghouti’s infamous cellphone video of the Virginia Tech shootings, CNN contacted Albarghouti minutes after his submission was received to negotiate exclusive rights (for an undisclosed sum. Surely the creator was aware of the key terms and the key opening clause—submitting content meant no payment from CNN or its affiliates in exchange, automatically, for “a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute...” (emphasis mine). Yahoo!/Reuters YouWitness News has similar terms, as do other sites, although to see a YouTube “exclusive” on CNN would probably be a first. In other words, no other UGC provider likely had the breadth of worldwide video distribution outlets (and cash) as did CNN (a Time-Warner company).

I wonder if any outlet has ever “bluffed” a claim of exclusive rights to user-generated content and/or how competitors could confirm the nature of their exclusive arrangement, but then again, the distortion of the term “exclusive” (not to mention “breaking news") throughout the media is for another blog post / conference.

How do you know what you can post and what *might* get you in trouble? I use a Creative commons license or badge to indicate content that I’m happy to share for non-commercial use with proper attribution. In other instances, I’ll gladly accept cash or PayPal. NowPublic, AP’s UGC partner, was friendly enough to send me a message via flickr asking permission to use CC-licensed photos of mine on a couple occasions. Is a CC license legit? Well, your work is copyrighted whether or not you ever file or register a copyright and—after only 5 years of operation, there are over 140 million pages with CC licenses. Where can you find CC-licensed content? They’ve got a search tool.

* C-SPAN’s CC-style license.
* BBC’s Creative Archive Licence Group.
* Poynter’s David Shedden’s guide to copyright & fair use.

More from sprawling depths of Los Angeles — in a lunchtime presentation at the Knight Digital Media Center online politics seminar, Michael Skoler of Minnesota Public Radio gave a glimpse of an promising approach to integrating social media and traditional media to broaden a news outlet’s coverage.  It’s potentially a good model for organizations or campaigns planning to use supporters to help tell their stories and to support their messages.  Plus, they have some neat games you can play — for instance, why not build your own fantasy Minnesota Legislature (what more could we want from life?).

MPR’s Public Insight Journalism project builds a partnership with public radio listeners by bringing them in as both cited journalistic sources and as a channel for finding under-reported stories.  The radio network has created a network of over 40,000 people who have volunteered to help with stories and regularly contacts individual members or groups of members if their expertise might be useful.

For instance, for a story that involves the Minnesota Islamic community, MPR might get in touch with members of the network who have indicated that they are Muslim. In some cases, members’ opinions or experiences might be cited directly, but in others their insights may work behind the scenes to shape the way stories are researched or presented.  Also, MPR will occasionally run surveys to find out what stories or aspects of stories are being under-covered, which has led in the past to coverage of issues from angles that diverge from the all-too-common journalistic pack mentality.

This approach is a hybrid of citizen journalism and traditional journalism, since MPR’s audience isn’t writing or preparing stories directly, as they might on a newspaper blog.  Instead, their experience is filtered through the expertise and judgment of MPR’s editorial staff, which allows the broadcast outlet to leverage the collective intelligence of their audience without surrendering control over the direction of coverage.  They see it as getting the best of both journalistic worlds — journalistic standards still apply, but reporters get to go beyond the usual experts (the members of their “Golden Rolodexes").

MPR has developed other ways to involve readers in stories and issues, for instance by including a “help us cover this story” button on all online stories to allow readers to add extra resources or correct errors.  Much more up my alley, they’ve also built several online games based around issues of the day, with more to come.  Balance the state budget!  As someone who worked on budgetary issues in the Texas Legislature approximately 1000 years ago, I think that anything you can do to help the public understand the trade-offs involved in appropriating money is A Good Thing (the level of ignorance of some of the folks who used to call into our office was frightening).  And, build your own fantasy Minnesota Legislature, Fantasy Football-style, with points for each milestone your team members reach in the legislative process (bill introduction, floor vote, final passage, etc.).  Political nerd-fun of the highest order, let me tell ya.

Campaigns and advocacy organizations can learn from this project!  You CAN involve your supporters without completely surrendering control over your message — social media isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition.  Just don’t forget the fun factor....

She instructed the journalists to engage their online community by giving people rewards for their contributions, cultivating a team of core people who “feel invested,” engaging people in a discussion and utilizing email lists and forums.

Gahran’s discussion reminded me of my days as a teen activist, rallying my friends to boycott the neighborhood rodeo or trying to create a team of Goshen High School students to advocate for condoms in school. You want kids to show up to your weekly meeting? Bring cookies! You want teenagers to come to your rally? Enlist the football team and homecoming queen!

I thought I left that behind. Does the new new new journalism - the one that values an online community - require the tools of an activist? The cookie jar is ready.

“Nobody tells me what to do,” Amato said yesterday, when explaining why he prefers to post video to his site rather than to YouTube.

Maybe bloggers have independence and autonomy from mainstream media, but they keep throwing out more and more rules.

After I wrote my first blog for Pop+Politics, I was told that it needed to be more conversational, looser, breaking away from structure. It should read more like an email to my friends than an article for my USC Annenberg class. But isn’t that structure? Isn’t being told that you must use a conversational tone a rule? Where’s my autonomy? What if I love the inverted pyramid so much, I want to use it all the time?

James Joyner from OutsidetheBeltway.com said yesterday, “If you’ve got an editor, you’re not a blog.”

Do you agree with that?

Different media outlets have entities that they call blogs, and some are edited, some are not. Is Joyner right, and if there is an editor, they should rename their (so-called) blog?

Joyner also said that if you spend days on it, it’s not a blog.

Ok, I get the idea: raw material is best, or it’s at least the latest trend. But how do you create a rule like this? What if you spend hours on a posting? Does it get to be a blog then? What if you go back and edit it the next day? What if you spend days thinking about it?

More importantly, what is the purpose of creating rules for blogs? Is it to teach new blog users - like me - how to better communicate in this medium? Do these rule-makers have evidence that a conversational tone, lots of links, some contentious commentary and unedited material that was written in less than a day is most effective?

Or are the rules created because blogs are becoming mainstream?

Stop - you’re both wrong! Could there be any worse reason for a reporter to blog or not blog than the hip or cool factor?

Reporters should want to blog (and maybe I should just end that sentence there...) because blogging encourages reader interaction, opening a dialogue between the journalist and the people about whom - and for whom - they report. It also allows the journalist to share more personal experiences from their reporting, perhaps to show more of their personality and, in some cases, to troll for sources or information for stories. Some reporters also see it as an opportunity to throw out ideas or rumors they’ve heard, but haven’t confirmed.

If a reporter doesn’t want to do those things, fine. But it seems silly to blog just because it’s hip or cool. And it seems even crazier to keep from blogging for that reason.

Skoler exhibited 2006 Select a Candidate, Minnesota Fantasy Legislature (see “commissioner” Bob Collins’ league notes), and The Real Agenda.

So what are “serious games” and how can they function as tools of engagement for news/political Web sites?

Some think these “serious” or “ubiquitous” games will be fundamental to harnessing collective intelligence. A lofty goal, but one that could essentially lead to more utopian, user-friendly and maintenance-free forums on a Web site or portal.

“The future of collective play: Fostering collaboration, network literacy and massively multiplayer problem-solving through alternate-reality games,” was the title of Institute for the Future researcher Jane McGonigal‘s keynote at a recent Serious Games Summit. McGonigal argues that collaborative, puzzle-like games will become integral to humans’ tendency to imagine and strive for a “best-case scenario future.” Further analysis of McGonigal’s keynote can be found here and here.

A great resource for game ideas, analysis and conception is at the Serious Games network on Ning. Ning, co-created by former Netscape co-founder Marc Andreesen, is a portal that enables any casual Web user to create their own social network (see my as-yet-undeveloped, Thelonious Monk-inspired rhythm-a-ning). For even more on serious games, see the CALT encyclopedia.

You may have heard of Cruel 2 B Kind, the latest ubiquitous gaming craze taking over the world. The name of the C2BK game is “benevolent assassination,” an extension of McGonigal’s theory that all Internet users share a desire for ”a life more worth living.” Click here to watch the game in action or find out for yourself Saturday in Santa Monica.

Another example of serious games seriously at work was the USC Center on Public Diplomacy‘s Reinventing Public Diplomacy Through Games Competition. This contest attracted submissions from around the world dealing with topics ranging from interactive after-school programs to discussing international water issues to simulating the Israel-Palestine conflict. Even the awards ceremony was simulcast in Second Life. I encourage you to read more about the project and the winners here.

The panel for the second presentation includes Jason Manning, political editor at WashingtonPost.com; Amy Cox, special projects assignment producer at CNN.com; and Rachel Nixon, deputy world editor at BBCNews.com.

The biggest changes in just those two years between 2004 and 2006 was the explosion of blogging and the increase in interactive features on these sites.

CNN.com allowed users, not just pundits, to score debates and showed the average scores given to each candidate. BBCNews.com had a baseball graphic to explain the American elections process. WashingtonPost.com took the cake on this one, though, with a “March Madness"-style feature, Midterm Madness, that allowed users to predict winners for every congressional race. Surprisingly, 4,000 users actually submitted their predictions, and the lucky winner was about 4 or 5 races off, Manning said.

The various uses of the U.S. map were really fascinating, and there might be a whole field of study there - how the map of the country has become a powerful visual in representing the political views of the United States.

It was heartening to see these editors focused on getting users to their sites and interested in and informed about politics. Isn’t this the goal of a free press in the first place?

For example, the ability to record every interview and put audio clips up online is great, except, as Lee Horwich from USA Today pointed out, someone has to take all the material - sometimes hours of tape - and edit it. We are making more work for ourselves, sometimes without a concurrent increase in resources or time for the journalists who have to do that work.

Several reporters said they often felt overwhelmed with all that was expected of them. If they are asked to write a news story for the paper that will also go on the Web site, write a blog about it, and put together some multimedia content, suddenly all the work suffers.

The issue of overwhelmed journalists comes up in reporting too. How does a reporter record an interview, take pictures and get notes for a story all at once?

The unlimited size of the “news hole” could be something of a mixed blessing too. Reporters now see the space on the Web site as an opportunity to write a 2,000-word story whenever they feel like it - but that may not be in the best interest of the readers, or the editors who have to check the story. The obvious answer, as someone pointed out, is to give the story the length it deserves

So it seems we’re just dealing with the same questions we’ve always dealt with in journalism - we’re just learning how to apply them in new media. How much space does a particular story warrant? The curse of the internet might be the temptation to write as long as you want (the lazy choice), but the advantage of the internet is that the story can get the length it deserves without worrying about how much space is left in the paper. Making that decision can only make the product better.