What makes people click?

Experian's company "hitwise" tracks the market share that Internet news agencies have http://tinyurl.com/2qcd2n. The most popular by far is Yahoo news and it makes me wonder what makes them almost twice as popular than its closest competitor CNN.com. First, I thought it may simply be the case that many have Yahoo as their homepage and get a lot of hits for not really trying. Well that may be the case, but Google is also a popular homepage, but its news service is used less than half as much as Yahoo News. I compared the top 10 sites and Yahoo is appealing to the eye, and easy to navigate, but so are the others. I will make an exception that Google News is visually abrasive and thus harder to navigate. Maybe its popularity comes from a public sense that Yahoo is a news consolidating website and not a news gathering or writing site? There is some truth to that, but then why would Google rank so low and CNN rank so high? Advertisers? eh hard case to make. Stories? nothing really unique here. What is it? I know my mouse clicks when I have news that is reliable, unique, appealing to the eye, and compelling. I know I am not breaking new ground with my opinions here but why is Yahoo so huge? Aren't they being bought out by Microsoft? Weren't they almost a failure 5 years ago? What is going on? I'm not angry, I just want to know so I can make a good career choice by knowing what makes people click.

Dead Trees Retaliate!

All of the trees that were mowed down for real estate developement and made into paper are rejoicing over the current economic crisis. The New York Times is reporting that Sacramento, Ca based McClatchy Co. is going to sell the Miami Herald Tribune http://tinyurl.com/698wt3.

**On a side note I find it humerous that the Tribune is the source to go to about the New York Times going through its own economic scare.**

The Miami newspaper recieved most of its income from real estate advertisements and the bust in the housing market has sent those revenues through the floor. This has put a huge strain on the paper and we can expect to see a painful demise of this paper unless someone wityh a lot of faith and money comes to the rescue. This is the story of many newspapers aroudn the country. I know newspapers won't die because they can't. Newspapers have the footsoldiers that find the news that broadcasters use for their wraps. I just can't explain how newspapers will survive. I know they are trying the internet and cuttig costs (employees), but will that be enough? Can anyone out there ease my mind on the subject?

Forget Consolidation... We've got Foreclosure!

The New York Times is going bust? Well not quite yet. Fortunately they're only in dire economic straights, which is this economy is much better off than many of the large firms. The article in the International Herald Tribune http://tinyurl.com/5gqopn is quite alarming. For a long time I have been concerned about new agencies simply having a job opening for me, now I might have to worry about having profitable news agencies that exist. I am not screaming doomsday just yet, but the economic crisis keeps creeping closer to home and frankly I'm glad I have a few
years until I am really on the job market. Hopefully by then things will be on the up and up and I can hope to feed a family.
One part of the article stuck out to me, and is why I am not screaming doomsday, yet. When the article talks about how the NY Times is worried about the economic crisis digging into profits I started turning the rusty wheels in my head. I'm no financial genius here, but doesn't that mean the company is still profitable? We're not talking about trying to bailout debt here. We're worried about stockholder dividends and CEO bonuses here. The greed of Wall Street keeps our economy moving, but it needs to be kept in check. We're watching now the Big 3 go through what the Times may experience if they don't learn from the world around them. There is still time to save themselves, if they don't let greed overrun their good business sense.
I don't think if the Times fails journalism is dead, but making a living being a journalist will be a lot harder working for smaller organizations. Maybe the CEO should read the articles their reporters write and take a hint or two from their buddies in Detroit.

Mumbai Retweets Help inform Opinion

I watched the developing events of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai with horror. I switched channels to find new information and every so often a new video or interview would shed more light on the situation. The general feel I got as I read the tweets on the attacks, was that many of the tweets were simply repeats of headlines from news agencies. As far as the twitter culture pushing the idea of journalism forward is concerned, the tweets on Mumbai didn't do much to convince me. I did appreciate the mumbaifeed and sky news and a few others, but in general the tweets were not insightful. It isn't bad that people were spreading repeated information, but from the perspective of bringing new information to the surface, twitter in general didn't cut it. There are several reasons that may contribute to this. The prevalence of twitter in the region, news correspondents that use twitter, and priority of placing new info on twitter while trying to put together a wrap for TV. I think twitters real value was its ability to give a forum for analysis and clarification. Tweeters can fact check, analyze statements, and flesh out ideas on what the event means for the world. Twitter may not give new ideas but it may become its own version of public debate. News agencies that currently incorporate twitter with the newscasts may also find it as a useful point from which to gauge public opinion. There are limitations to this usage as well, but nothing is perfect. I think twitter will be a good way to tell us why news important rather than what is news.

A Journalist Learning from the Past

Christiane Amanpour's introspective look into her evolution as journalist is helpful to young journalists like ourselves http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/24/sbm.amanpour.essay/index.html?eref=rss_topstories.
We haven't talked a great deal in class about reporting on very sensitive subjects or stories that we might get emotionally involved in. I recently went to do a story on a center that helps BYU students with varying disabilities. I went in ready to do a quick interview and turn it for a 30 second wrap for the afternoon. As I read more about the center and carried out the interview I felt myself being pulled into the story. My older sister has a learning disability and have the same disability but to a lesser degree. After the interview I went into the studio to write and report and I felt like the story deserved more than its 30 seconds. I talked to my news director and got approval for a three minute feature. While my experience is nothing compared the genocides and wars that Amanpour has covered I feel I may have out myself in an activist rather than a journalistic role. Before I proceed with the feature I will need to take a step back and be more objective. While features are not hard news, it should follow journalistic ethics nonetheless. What do you think I should do to take myself out of the story? Might this be one of the rare opportunities to put myself into a story? Is there such thing as a good time to put yourself into a story. Let me know!

No cooking these books:Whatch where the vote... I mean money goes.

The Federal Election Commission released the amount of money each news outlet spent on campaign coverage as Fox's Brit Hume reports http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=212323. The drastic slant towards President-elect Obama is hard to ignore. I do not thin we should be ignorant and believe journalists are robotic followers of today's events. They have passions, convictions, and values like normal human beings. What we can see from the money spent to cover each campaign is that there was the media following a trend not following news. In our class we discussed how the media covered Obama more because he was a novelty. A relative newcomer to the political arena, African-American decent, and charming, Mr. Obama caused the media to as Chris Matthews said ' feel shivers up {their}} legs'. Well, when their legs were shaking a lot of loose change feel out, about twice as much as fell out for Senator John McCain. You can account for some the difference because of the run off between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, more pit stops, and because of the Obama campaign charging up to $1500 for media outlets to cover his victory party. I can see more money for that reason , but twice as much. I think CBS really has some explaining to do. Am I overreacting? Is there good reason to spend twice as much on one candidate and not the other? How much was the vote swayed because of this? Shout it out and let me know below in the comments.

Watchdog to the Extreme! Politico 44

The website www.politico.com launched a new website at http://www.politico.com/politico44/ . The new website aims to cover the presidency of Barak Obama minute by minute. The website includes links to multiple stories surrounding the president-elect. It even includes a calendar with minute by minute updates as to what he is doing. In my opinion this is a beautiful resource for the media and public. Politico enages politcial analysts from all views to weigh in on the news of the day, and having a resource to gauge what our president does daily will be a wonderful way to keep government accoutable for its actions. I would love for every government official to have something similar. It may be viewed by some to be looking for mistakes and ways to jab at him, but as journalists aren't we supposed ot do all we can to make sure government does what it is suppsoed to? I do not condone witch hunts. I'll repeat myself, I do not condone witch hunts! I am of the firm belief that we should simply report the good and bad, and having close tabs like Politico 44 will enable everyone to do just that. As a public servant his time is our money, our lives, and our future. I want to praise him for his successes and hold him responsible for his failures, and get to know him as a person. Lastly, what do you think? Should we hold public servants to this level of scrutiny? Let me know and comment below!