The Semanário Económico did a story about Twitter’s popularity growth in Portugal. They talked with me in the quality of Twitter expert, which sounds kinda cool. This is my second interview in two months for a story about Twitter, and both for national editions. I don’t write for any, but i show up in them. In Portuguese only, sorry.
O Semanário Económico fez uma reportagem sobre o aumento da popularidade do Twitter em Portugal, e vieram falar comigo na qualidade de estudioso do Twitter, o que até soa porreiro. Esta é a segunda entrevista que dou em dois meses para uma publicação nacional, não escrevo para nenhuma mas saio nelas. Cliquem na imagem para ler em .pdf.
Posts Tagged ‘interview
Todos nós sabemos como funciona: é preciso obter e divulgar a informação o mais rápido possível. O tempo no jornalismo é um luxo a que muitas vezes não temos direito. Mas com a polivalência exigida hoje em dia* aos jornalistas como é que se faz tudo bem e depressa?
David Dunkley Gyimah é um dos meus mestres de video favoritos, porque a sua enorme experiência leva-o a abordar o lado prático das coisas. Vejam como ele ensina a fazer uma entrevista em 3 minutos, sem grandes complicações. Ele prometeu publicar esse video, que se juntará aqui mais tarde. Os resultados podem ser vistos no segundo vídeo.
* Hoje em dia– Sim, hoje. Aceitem isso.
We all know how it goes: we have to get the information, edit and publish it as fast as we can. Time in journalism is a luxury that most of the times can’t simply afford. But with all the multitasking demanded to journalists nowadays* how can we do everything fast and well?
David Dunkley Gyimah is one of my favorite video masters, because his huge experience makes him to have a more pragmatic approach to things. Watch how he teaches to make an interview in just 3 minutes, without much fuss. He promised to publish that video, that will be posted here later.The second video shows the results.
*Nowadays – Yeah, today. Embrace that.
But there is instruction the newspapers could take to heart, history unfurling a solution worth looking at.
In May 1846 a group of American newspapers pooled their resources to maximise their range, news gathering from Europe.
Back then the Internet was the catalyst, a Victorian Internet – The Telegraph.
So what if now, online news makers pooled their video.
I understand how video made in Cumbria will be specific to that region, but here’s where the VJs rethink more laterally.
The 1st quadrant body of the video could be loose enough to refer to any community. This might give rise to an evolving format, and a new video agency could emerge.
It would foster competition amongst newspaper groups. They’ll become their own arbiters of the content and the politics of aesthetic.
To quote an old MIT maxim: demo or die.
Uma análise a uma experiência
Analisys of an experiment
Eu sei que já devem estar fartos de ouvir falar disto, mas este post encerra o assunto. O que me proponho fazer é uma pequena avaliação a esta experiência de fazer uma entrevista aberta e em crowdsourcing: o que correu bem, o que correu mal, e o que se pode retirar daqui.
O objectivo era entrevistar Dave Cohn, antes do lançamento do seu projecto de jornalismo em crowdfunding Spot.us ,oficialmente lançado esta semana. Parte das perguntas seriam feitas por leitores deste blog e eu assumiria a edição e a produção do trabalho.
Antes de mais, uma cronologia do processo:
–a ideia foi lançada a 4 de Setembro; o Dave aceitou na hora fazer a entrevista; seis pessoas colaboraram e enviaram as suas próprias perguntas para juntar às minhas;
-as perguntas foram enviadas a 3 de Outubro;
-o video (de 30 minutos!!) com as respostas foi recebido dois dias depois e editado durante a semana seguinte;
Vamos começar pelas coisas que na minha opinião correram mal:
-DURAÇÃO: apesar de estar a jogar com a data de lançamento do projecto, todo o processo demorou demasiado tempo. O Dave foi muito rápido da parte dele e muito atencioso, por isso ele não tem responsabilidades nesta demora. Não se esqueçam que a entrevista não foi presencial e que todos os contactos foram feitos por email. O que acabou por levar mais tempo foi juntar um número razoável de participações, e depois editar a entrevista em vídeo e para texto. Isto leva a outro ponto.
-DIMENSÃO: a entrevista foi demasiado extensa. É um hábito que tenho, mas quando sei que os entrevistados são pessoas inteligentes com coisas para dizer gosto de tirar o máximo deles. Mas depois isso traz problemas: o Dave teve a bondade de me gravar um video de 30 minutos, para responder de forma brilhante a cerca de 15 perguntas; na edição tive que dividir o video final em duas partes (mais de 10 minutos cada) , e reestruturar um monte de informação para a versão em texto. Para quem vê ou lê a entrevista acaba por ser demasiado.
-EDIÇÃO: se o vídeo até resulta pela presença e personalidade do Dave, a versão escrita acaba por estar desiquilibrada, confesso que tive pouco tempo durante a edição do texto e há partes que se ressentem. Mas experimentem trabalhar em duas línguas ao mesmo tempo, e vão ver que não é fácil.
-PARTICIPAÇÃO: a parte que me preocupou mais foi o número reduzido de participações. Posso ter sido demasiado optimista tendo em conta o número de leitores do blog, mas também espalhei (e espalharam) a palavra pelo Twitter. Pensei que tivesse mais por onde escolher mas no fim usei as questões de todos os participantes.
O que correu bem:
-PARTICIPAÇÃO: foram poucos mas foram bons, o que parece ser regra aqui entre os meus leitores. As perguntas eram difíceis e muito interessantes, e vieram enriquecer a entrevista. O objectivo era mesmo esse, ter mais do que eu sozinho poderia dar.E aproveito para agradecer a todos pela sua participação – a lista das perguntas creditadas aos seus autores está aqui.
-O ENTREVISTADO: se a entrevista vale alguma coisa é pelo Dave que foi excepcional no tempo que dedicou a isto. Felizmente tenho tido a oportunidade de entrevistar pessoas que respeito e admiro e todas têm correspondido. O show é dele e espero que esta entrevista tenha contribuído para divulgar o seu trabalho. Eu estou imensamente agradecido pela paciência que ele teve.
-PUBLICAÇÃO: a entrevista saltou os limites deste blog e foi publicada no OnlineJournalismBlog e ambos os vídeos foram postados no Journalism.co.uk. Houve algum feedback também em outros blogs.
Como balanço final, só posso dizer que podia ter sido melhor. Eu queria abrir o processo de realização da entrevista ao público, não só dando-lhe acesso aos diferentes passos mas convidando-o a participar.
Depois, acho que podia ter feito um trabalho final melhor, a nível de estrutura e tratamento a entrevista tem algumas falhas, mas foi o melhor que pude dadas as circunstâncias em que me encontrava na altura. Há coisas a melhorar sempre.
É engraçado reparar que a ideia de processo aberto é utilizado dias depois numa experiência da Wired com um trabalho sobre o Charlie Kaufman. Para se poder dar esta abertura é preciso pensar melhor nos formatos e nas plataformas a usar, mas tudo também depende das dimensões das publicações.
Creio que este pode ser um modelo de trabalho que pode ser utilizado eficazmente através do online: a transparência de processos e a participação dos utilizadores na produção de entrevistas traz mais valias ao trabalho final, numa perspectiva de consumidor. Os elementos chave são a confiança, a identificação e a integração.
Mais do que na criação de conteúdos, o futuro dos cidadãos no jornalismo está na colaboração em crowdsourcing, e o jornalista será a ponte entre o entrevistado, a redacção e o público, assumindo os papéis de editor e produtor.É realmente uma profissão em transformação.
E vocês -os que chegaram até aqui- que pensam sobre tudo isto? Dêem as vossas ideias e opiniões.
I know you must be sick and tired of hearing about this, but this post will put an end to it. What i propose to do here is a short evaluation to this experience in crowdsourcing an interview: what went wrong, what went great, and what we can take from the whole thing.
The goal was to interview Dave Cohn before launching Spot.us, his crowdfunded journalism project, which happened just a few days ago. Some of the questions would be proposed by the readers of this blog, and i would take the edition and production of the interview.
But, first, a small chronology:
–the idea was set on the September 4th; Dave immediatly said he would do it; six people participated and sent their own questions to add to mine;
-those questions were sent on the October 3rd;
-the video (30 minutes long!!) with the answers came two days later and the editing took part of the following week;
Lets start with the things that – in my opinion- went wrong:
-DURATION: despite taking in account the date when the project would be launched, the whole process took too long. Dave was very quick and thoughtful throughout the process, so he has no responsibilities on this. Don’t forget the interview wasn’t made in person, and that all the contacts were made by email. What ended up taking more time was to gather a reasonable number of contributions, a then editing the interview in video and text. This leads to another item.
-SIZE: this interview was too long. It’s an awful habit i have, but when i know the subject of the interview is an intelligent person with things to say i like to take the most out of them. But that brings problems later: Dave had the kindness of recording a 30 minute video to answer brilliantly to about 15 questions; i had to cut it to a two part final version (with more than 10 minutes each), and restructure a whole lot of information for the text version. For those who watch the video or read the interview online is a bit too much.
-EDITING: if the video works because of Dave’s presence and personality, the written version came out a bit unbalanced. I admit i didn’t have much time while editing the text version, and some parts resent that. But try to work in two languages simultaneously and you’ll see how hard it is.
-COLLABORATION: the thing that worried me the most was the low number of participations. I may have been a bit to much optimistic regarding the regular number of readers of my blog, but i (and others) spread the word out on Twitter. I thought that in the end i would have more to choose from, but i got to use all the questions left.
What went well then:
-COLLABORATION: they were few but they were good, which seems to be a pattern among my readers. The questions were tough and really interesting, and added value to the interview. That was the goal, to have more than what i could give on my own. And i take this opportunity to thank you all who participated – the list of the questions credited to their respective authors is here.
-THE INTERVIEWEE: if the interview is any good is because of Dave who was amazing in the time he spared to do it. Fortunately i’ve been having the chance to interview people that i admire and respect and all of them have lived up to the expectations. It was his show and i hope this interview helped to make his work better known. I’m so grateful for all his patience he had with this.
-PUBLISHING: the interview wasn’t confined just to the limits of this blog, and it was posted at the OnlineJournalismBlog and the videos at Journalism.co.uk. There were references in other places too.
All in all , i just can say it could have worked better. I wanted to open the process of making the interview to the public, not only giving them access to the different steps, but also making them a part of it.
Then, i guess i could have done a better job in the end, structurally and on a treatment level the interview has some flaws, but it was the best i could given the circumstances i was at the time. There are always things to immprove.
It’s also funny to notice that the idea of open process is used a few days later with a Wired experiment over a story on Charlie Kauffman. To do something like this you have to really think through the formats and platforms to use, but it also depends on the size of each endeavour.
I believe this could become a working model that can be used effectively online: the transparency in the process and users participation in the production of interviews adds value to the final result, in a consumers perspective. The key elements here are trust, identification, and integration.
More than in the creation of contents, the future of citizens in journalism will be in crowdsourced collaborations, and the journalist will become the bridge between the subject, the newsroom and the audience, taking the roles of editor and producer.It is a job in transformation indeed
And what about you – those who got this far. What do you think about all this? Share your thoughts and leave your opinion. Thanks.
EXTRA : full unedited video
This is a crosspost with OJB, edited by Paul Bradshaw. Videos of the interview here and here.
Alex Gamela talks to Dave Cohn, founder of the non-profit, crowdfunding journalism project Spot.us, winner of a Knight News Challenge grant, and a suggested new model for the news business. On the eve of launching the Spot.us official website, Dave told OJB how he is putting his ideas into practice, and his views on the current state of journalism.
Four months after winning the KNC grant, Dave Cohn is a happy man. He started with a wiki where he presented and tested the different sides to his project, and he quickly managed to fund three stories. Now it is on its way to fund a fourth one. All of this even before having an official website.
The way it works is quite simple: someone – a journalist, a citizen, a community – pitches a subject to be investigated journalistically; the story is then open for funding, and whoever wants can contribute with a small sum; if the target amount is reached, a journalist takes the story on; finally it gets published.
So far this model has worked well:
“We’ve raised 3000 dollars from about 100 donors, about an average of 33 dollars each.
“It’s like digital poetry”
Dave Cohn has been doing his share on networked journalism for a while now, working with the likes of Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis.
He has strong beliefs on the possibilities that the web brings to journalism, the immense power of communities, and also in a change of attitude on the journalists part.
“Journalists and journalism right now is a diaspora, we’re sort of been kicked out of the homeland of newspapers, and we need to figure out where we can go from here”.
So he has been thinking about all this for a long time now, but the concept underlying Spot.us is rather recent for him: “I’ve been working on Spot.us as an idea for little over a year.”
Although it sounds simple, the task of building a platform has been complex, with all its nuts and bolts.
“Building a website in general is complex, and this is also building an organization. I have to remember this is a non-profit, so there’s a lot of framework behind that, to which I’m new to”.
But Dave Cohn is enthusiastic about it:
“I love every minute of it, because it’s like digital poetry. I have the opportunity to build this website as i envisioned it, and granted there are things that come up along the way that force me to put out some fires and do certain things, but they’re all part of this process, of , again, digital poetry.”
And who can participate? Spot.us “is not a news organization”, so he says he’s not considering hiring anyone. It’s “a marketplace, a platform that independent journalists can use to crowdfund for themselves”.
“It’s for freelance journalists, and it works on a pitch by pitch basis. We encourage everybody to do a pitch, everyone who wants to do this professionally.”
However, he recently announced that he is looking for journalists and communities to work with him.
The project has been promoted in two distinct ways: one, more traditional with the help of a marketing company. The other, based on a grassroots approach to the organized communities.
“It’s not really about marketing, but partnering with people that already have communities organized, and say: Look, you are a community, you have invested interested on something, you want something covered by a professional journalist, what is it? Lets find out what it is and how a professional journalist can cover it”
And what is Dave Cohn’s role in all of this?
“I’m an entrepreneur, strictly interested in the issues of journalism. What I’m passionate about and what motivates me is figuring out how journalism can continue to thrive, despite the death of its institutions. So I’m a journalist/entrepreneur in that sense where I’m trying to figure out how journalism can rethink itself and redefine itself so it can continue.”
Crowdfunding as a new business model
One of the most discussed issues on the new media blogosphere is how to find a sustainable business model for the news industry. Spot.us’ crowdfunding model raised some doubts over the possibility that groups with their own agenda might fund specific stories, thus skewing the journalistic goal of the project, in contrast with traditional media that appeared as the gold standard.
Dave Cohn is very clear about this:
“There’s no such thing as clean money. It’s a myth that newspapers’ money is clean. And anybody who is working in journalism knows the story of a publisher who killed an investigation because it would have threatened some advertising dollars.”
He argues that the process must be transparent every step of the way, and show “where the money comes from, limit donations.”
Besides, the names and the reputation of the professionals involved are at stake – the journalist who proposed to write the story, the editor, and the media who will publish it.
Cohn believes the role of the community is crucial, and everything changed when people got access to the new web tools:
“Maybe in the 1960’s community organizing meant gathering a bunch of people picketing, but now young people when they want to do community organizing they create media: they create a YouTube video, or a Facebook cause.
“And I think more and more you will get successful citizen journalism projects, and they’re usually led by civic leaders or community leaders, who have taken responsibility and said: look, this is an issue of my community, how can I help benefit it? Well I’ll take it online, organize online, by making media”.
One of the major shifts in the news paradigm is the growing need – and ability – that people have to claim issues that are close to them in the news agenda. And this raised questions about the effectiveness and the role of journalism, and how it served that need.
“People have serious information needs,” and “that’s what journalism should be: serving the information needs of people.
“It’s not producing a newspaper. A newspaper is a packaged product that is delivered to your door. What journalism does is to inform people, and i think people will always want information, especially about their local community.”
And now people can demand for the information that affects them and their communities, and in depth. Now that the communities know they can have their voice heard, nothing will ever be the same.
“As long as we are tied to geographical locations we’re going to want to know what’s going on in our geographical location. So that is not going to disappear, people want in depth stuff.”
Journalism on the spot
Dave Cohn has an analogy to explain what has changed in the relationship between users and media.
“If you walked into a restaurant and the waiter told you what you were going to eat for dinner, you’d walk right out. But that’s the way news has traditionally been served.
“When you look at it historically, we came out of a time where it was top-down communication, so that made sense: here’s your news, here’s what’s important.”
Now the people can order the information they want off the vast menu called the web, and the definition of what is news or not is no longer decided by a restricted number of people.
“Traditionally, 0.001% of the population determined the news agenda, and they were called editors, and the reason they were able to determine the news agenda is because they were the only ones with a freelance budget.”
Cohn has written and debated profusely about what needs to be done to improve and renew the trust in traditional media. And to him, background changes must occur.
“The way news media are structured need to be rethought or re-tooled, so it can respond more, and be more open, but it’s not their fault, it’s nobody’s fault, it’s just the way those organizations are structured, because it came out of this history, and it literally is history now, what worked 30 years ago doesn’t work anymore.”
The trust relationship between audience and journalists isn’t rock-steady. I asked Dave Cohn if the view of the world given by journalists wasn’t too narrow. He says it’s not about the journalists.
“I strongly believe that journalists in general, when you talk to them one on one are in general really good people, and they have strong beliefs. They’re doing what they’re doing because they believe in it, and they’re passionate about it. Individual reporters and journalists, their view is not too narrow.
“I think the problem comes in that, the institutions they’re part of – the newspapers or the news organizations – are structured in a top-down way, where orders come from the top, individuals can’t make necessarily decisions on the fly, and that caused them to be somewhat narrow, or unable to pivot rapidly or in response to the community, that now has a voice in result of the internet.”
Although he is critic about the slow evolution of traditional media, Dave Cohn is not extreme in his opinions.
“I think a lot of times in this traditional or new media debate we cast things in black and white a little too often. It’s always more complicated than that.”
The future and some advice
For now, Spot.us is based in the San Francisco Bay area. But Dave Cohn is interested to expand his project to other regions and cities, like New York, Los Angeles or Seattle, while he is probing the acceptance the project might have in other countries.
“The web code application is open source, so if you want to use it and start it in your own country or in your own city, I would be so happy and honoured. I want people to take this, it’s open source for a reason, take it and use it in your own city.”
And to those who want to start their own ventures?
“Start small, start realistic, and iterate.”
He reinforces the idea that the true power is not in technology, but in people:
“Community trumps technology any day of the week.”
That is the true spirit behind Dave Cohn’s work. He leaves one final piece of advice, both for journalists and entrepreneurs:
And he knows what he is talking about.
|Segunda parte da entrevista com o Dave Cohn, o criador do Spot.us.
Podem ver a primeira parte aqui: Dave Cohn – Spotlight on Spot.us – Part 1
You can watch part 1 here: Dave Cohn – Spotlight on Spot.us – Part 1
Dave Cohn é o criador do Spot.us, uma plataforma de jornalismo de investigação financiado pela comunidade. Aos 26 anos, Cohn é uma das referências do jornalismo online, não só pelas suas ideias mas pelo trabalho desenvolvido neste projecto, que lhe valeu uma bolsa no Knight News Challenge deste ano.
Dave Cohn (aka DigiDave) formou-se na School of Journalism da Columbia University, e trabalhou para a Wired, a Seed,o New York Times, e com Jeff Jarvis e Jay Rosen em projectos de jornalismo colaborativo. Até agora, já foram realizadas quatro reportagens através deste modelo de financiamento comunitário.
A poucos dias de lançar oficialmente o Spot.us, ele responde a algumas perguntas sobre o projecto, e sobre o jornalismo nos dias de hoje. Esta é a primeira parte, a segunda será publicada amanhã está aqui.
Dave Cohn is the creator of Spot.us, a platform for community funded investigative reporting. At 26, Cohn is a major reference in online journalism, not only because of his ideas but also for this project that earned him a grant from the Knight News Challenge.
Dave Cohn (aka Digidave) graduated at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, and wrote for Wired, Seed, the New York Times, and with Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen in different collaborative journalism projects.So far four news stories were funded by this community funding model
Few days before the official launch of Spot.us he answers to some questions about his project and his views on today’s journalism. This is the first part, part two will be published tomorrow is here.
Dave Cohn enviou um vídeo de 33 minutos para responder à nossa entrevista em crowdsource, que deverá ser publicada em diferentes versões para o final da semana. Desde já, quero agradecer ao Dave pela sua generosidade em responder às 15 perguntas que lhe enviei.
Dave Cohn sent a 33 minute video answering to our crwodsourced interview, that should be published by the end of the week in different versions. I really have to thank Dave for his time and generosity in answering to the 15 questions i sent him.