Premature spotlight on Spot.us

I met David Cohn through my association with Jay Rosen’s NewAssignment.net and have kept up with his sometimes frenetic activities online. Recently Cohn won a grant from the Knight News Challenge for Spot.us, a service he’s developing that’s trying out a new model of paying for investigative journalism by raising money online through aggregating small donations (i.e., “crowdsourcing”).

It’s a promising idea, David is an energetic and creative guy, and I have high hopes for what the experiment can teach us. (I tossed in a small contribution to Spot.Us’s pilot project — a study of political ads in the upcoming San Francisco election.)

But Spot.us is in what you might describe as a pre-alpha state. It’s an idea that is in the process of becoming embodied on the Web. Cohn is bravely developing it in public, showing his blog readers his designs as they evolve, plunging forward with improvised test-bed proof -of-concept efforts.

This is all well and good: it’s the best way to get a Web project moving. But it did cause me to do a double-take when I saw this extensive Sunday New York Times think piece on Spot.us. The piece calls Spot.us an “experiment” but barely gave its readers any indication that the project it was describing remains in the fetal stage.

I suppose when you work transparently this is the risk. And getting a big piece in the Times isn’t something to complain too loudly about. For the Times, I can’t fault them for spotting a trend early and wanting to highlight it. But there’s something a little careless, even sloppy, about not acknowledging — up front and in bold — that this thing they’re writing about really, you know, doesn’t exist yet. Cohn wrote yesterday about his concern whether Spot.us “deserves the attention yet”: “I honestly want to scream at the top of my lungs, ‘come back in the Fall!’ ”

The impression we’re left with is that the news industry is so desperate for salvation (or so lacking in confidence) that it will grab at the thinnest reed of any story that suggests a way out. What I want to know is: will the Times, and others, be there to give Spot.us more attention once it is fully functional and cranking out stories?


 

Clearly not self-promotional enough

On the recommendation of BoingBoing, I hied myself over to check out Polymeme, a new news-aggregator site that collects top stories based on clusters of links from expert blogs. (From what I can see it appears to be kin to Techmeme and Memeorandum.)

Polymeme looks interesting. The funny thing is, the first thing my eye landed on on the home page tonight was a headline that read: “Self-Promotion Becomes a Prerequisite for Online Journos.” Hmmm, that sounds similar to that post I wrote a few days ago about rustling up readers. Then I read the text under the headline and realized, wait a minute, this is that post I wrote a few days ago about rustling up readers. I made Polymeme before I even knew it existed. I’ve got this self-promotion stuff down!

Only, on second look, wait a sec: there’s no link to my blog, and no attribution of my words. How’d that happen? The link is actually to a post Dan Gillmor wrote at PBS. Dan quoted a paragraph from me; that graph is featured on Polymeme. (I imagine the Polymeme front page will change at some point soon, but here’s a permalink page with the same excerpt and more links.)

Well, the main thing is, the ideas in my prose are now out there. Glad to see my little contribution propagating. But I guess I could still use a little work on the self-promotion angle…


 

“Cone of Silence” contradictions

During the Rick Warren/Saddleback event over the weekend — in which Obama and McCain were both asked exactly the same questions, and Obama went first — Warren, the questioner, told the audience repeatedly that McCain was “in a cone of silence” so he wouldn’t gain unfair advantage by hearing the questions in advance. It appears that McCain was in fact in his car being driven to the event, and who knows what he was listening to.

Now, this little Get Smart reference isn’t the world’s most earthshattering issue. McCain is getting “graded on a curve” (as Josh Marshall puts it) all the time anyway. But in the McCain campaign’s reaction you can get an indication of just how hypersensitive and defense it is to being criticized by the media: McCain’s people demanded an apology from NBC for even suggesting that there was anything to the “no cone of silence” story. They also insisted that it was a terrible thing to ask whether McCain might have done something wrong because he is, you know, a former POW.

So is there anything to the story? Ultimately it’s a tiny issue, but the way it is surfacing in the media certainly leaves readers scratching their heads. Take today’s New York Times: on the op-ed page,
Times columnist William Kristol writes “There’s no evidence that McCain had any such advantage.” (That’s on the Web edition of the article; my print paper this morning read: “There seems to be absolutely no basis for this charge.” I guess Kristol is now editing his text for the Web without making any note of the revision.)

Meanwhile, an article in the very same edition of the very same newspaper — one featured with a teaser on the paper’s front page — is headlined, “Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence.’”

Let’s see if or when the paper attempts to resolve this.


 

Essential skill: The art of rustling up readers

I saw this on Twitter today from Jay Rosen:

Publishing used to be the barrier. Now that publishing is easy, getting your stuff picked up, linked to is an essential skill.

Jay was responding to a question from Howard Rheingold, who asked:

Skills for digitally-savvy journalists: RSS, map mashups, widgets, Twitter (video goes without saying). What else?

I read Jay’s answer and had two thoughts. One, this is absolutely right. Two, it is an insight that most working journalists today — at least those who are working for some newspaper or broadcast outlet or magazine, as opposed to those who have already lighted out for the online territories — are occupationally blind to.

They cannot see this because, all their working lives, the business of gathering their audience has been handled for them. Whether you are a brilliant journalist or a total hack, you get accustomed to assuming that you have a lot of readers because you are gifted and wonderful and creative. Whereas, in truth, whether you are in fact gifted and wonderful and creative, or not (and you? you are — of course you are!), you have those readers because you work for some company that has supplied them for you.

In other words, most journalists confuse what they have inherited ex officio with what they have earned through their own talent and sweat. It’s comforting but fundamentally unrealistic. (See Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody for more on this.)

This privilege disintegrates out on the Web once you leave the protective umbrella and traffic supply of a media company. For instance, this little blog used to be associated with Salon.com. In its previous incarnation as part of the Salon Blogs program, it got a significant amount of traffic off Salon’s home page. That was great — but it didn’t have much to do with the quality of what I was producing. (I suppose if I had raved like a lunatic or begun to peddle miracle cures, David Talbot or Joan Walsh would eventually have spoken up.)

When I left Salon the blog became an independent entity. Of course its traffic declined. I could have poured my energy into posting round the clock and promoting the blog — maybe I should have! I’d certainly have had fun. But I’ve been writing books instead. That challenge, at this point in my life and career, feels like it’s pushing me harder and teaching me more. And it’s a living. So the blog is a side effort, and I’m content, for now at least, with its being a poky little personal blog that people who are interested in my work can follow.

So the blog goes along day by day with a few hundred page views (measured for real, conservatively) or maybe breaks a thousand or two on a good day, and I’m fine with that. But then every now and then somebody I don’t know decides to promote something I’ve written on some high-traffic Web crossroads — and suddenly, blam, the traffic goes through the roof. For instance, last week I posted my thoughts on Sarah Lacy’s book. My regulars read it (or not), and I moved on. A week later, some kind soul posted a link to this review over on Y Combinator’s Reddit-style “hacker news” feed, and, blam, thousands of people were reading it –or, you know, at least loading it in their browsers.

Thank you to whoever did that. Writers are always grateful for readers.

This is the way the Web works. If this (or any) blog were my primary focus, I’d be out there rustling up readers for it, because that’s what you have to do. I think a lot of journalists still see this as a grubby, low, self-promoting activity that is beneath them. Of course, it can be done in a grubby way (and often is) — but that’s true of everything. Writing headlines is, after all, another form of the art of rustling up readers. It can be done with style and flair; it can be done crudely and effectively; it can be done clumsily and stupidly. But it must be done. There is no alternative.

Watching how Salon’s home page drove traffic to all its stories through the years depending on the quality of the headlines we wrote taught me to respect this art. The business of publishing a book and figuring out how to get it noticed taught me even more not to look down on it. It is, as Jay said, an essential skill for any journalist who does not already have some guaranteed audience in the back pocket. Those guarantees are increasingly rare — for entry-level folks, they’re virtually non-existent. Relying on them might be even more painful than learning some new tricks.


 

Who’s gonna win? Follow the state tallies

People ask, “Who’s gonna win in November,” and then they talk about national polls or national issues or national debates. All those things are absorbing. But if you want to know who’s gonna win, there’s only one thing that really matters, and that’s the state-by-state electoral vote count.

That’s why the electoral-vote.com site is such an election-year essential. (It started up in 2004.) All you need to do is look at the map as it stands, roughly, now, and you can see what the election’s faultlines are.

The first thing you may notice is that the split between blue Democratic states and red Republican states follows the greatest divide in American history. It’s Civil War time all over again. East of the Mississippi, the old Dixie states go to McCain, and Obama takes Lincoln’s Union states — with the very-close Ohio (now leaning McCain-ward) as the only break from the pattern.

Couldn’t have anything to do with this being the first credible presidential run by an African American, could it? Nah…

West of the Mississippi, the pattern’s a little less even; Obama gets the coast, McCain gets much of the heartland, but there are Democratic inroads here — in recent elections New Mexico has often voted Democratic, but Colorado’s new to the blue roster.

Much can change between now and November, of course. But if you look at the count today, you see that a lot of conventional electoral wisdom just doesn’t hold this year: Obama could lose Ohio and Florida and still win the election handily. He can even win it, closely, if he also loses Indiana, which is currently in his column on electoral-vote but is very much up for grabs (it’s been a reliable Republican state in the recent past).

There’s just a lot of fluidity in a lot of these states. Ohio could still go to the Democrats. Obama has a shot in Montana, of all places. And even Virginia might be in play. Colorado’s plainly up in the air. The Republicans might have a chance in Nevada and New Hampshire. McCain trails by 5-7 points in all the upper Midwest states (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin), as well as in Pennsylvania and Michigan; a lot has to happen for these states to get more competitive, but it’s entirely possible.

This is the stuff Obama’s strategists are poring over right now. They did a superb job during primary season in managing a tough, long campaign across 50 states in sequence. Now they’ve got to do the same thing all at once.


 

Open Salon launches

Not one but two big developments (coincidentally simultaneous) in projects that are intertwined with my life! The first, noted below, was Chandler 1.0. The second is the unveiling — for what is being labeled a public beta — of something called Open Salon.

While the news is not live on the Salon site yet, it’s already on Techmeme, so I’m going to go ahead and note it.

Open Salon is the present incarnation of a project I proposed a long time ago at Salon as we tried to figure out a future for the old Salon Blogs program, which had been built on Radio Userland, a program that had fallen by the wayside.

When Dreaming in Code was done I returned to Salon and started to work on it. A year and a half later, we had some neat prototypes, but we were still awfully far from launching, I got excited about a new book idea, and it was time for me to move on.

The Open Salon that opens its doors today — it’s been in private beta for a while — is an outgrowth of the work I did back then, but of course over the past year the project has evolved much further. I’ve been concentrating too assiduously on my book deadline to do more than cheer the present effort from afar, and I can take little credit for much of anything about Open Salon in its present form. It’s the work of Kerry Lauerman and his team — and, now that the participants are using it, it’s in the hands of Salon’s readers the people formerly known as Salon’s readers, to make of it something new and exciting.

The one thing I’ll claim is to say, proudly, that from day one at Salon I was the editor pushing the publication hardest toward opening out to the Web and experimenting with ways of using it to bridge the ancient divide between writer and reader. I’m delighted to see Salon taking this next step. Congratulations to everyone there who helped make it happen.

There’s a post by Matthew Ingram up already. Also one at CNet (“Salon launches blogger ‘tipping’ system”) that, I think, may put far too much emphasis on one small feature of the project — the “tip jar.” I have no inside information but it seems inevitable to me that Salon will want to experiment with the whole idea of reward mechanisms, and I would be really surprised if the “tip jar” was the only effort made in that direction.

UPDATE: Joan Walsh’s official announcement about Open Salon is now up.


 

Chandler 1.0 ships

When I first began reporting on Chandler for Dreaming in Code at the very start of 2003, there was talk of shipping a 1.0 version within a year. Then, in following years, the project got so bogged down that at times it was hard to imagine it ever arriving at such a milestone.

Well, on Friday, the OSAF team released a 1.0 version of Chandler. At the moment I am too deep in the swamps of blog history circa 2001 to do full justice to this news, but must take note nonetheless.

Chandler, of course, is the personal-information-management application whose story sat at the center of my first book. I last checked in on the project at the start of this year, when OSAF and Kapor parted ways.

It’s been close to six years since Mitch Kapor first announced plans for Chandler, and the application today is quite different from what was envisioned then. But it does fulfill at least a portion of the ambitious agenda Kapor set: It’s fully cross-platform, and, from the user side, it takes a very flexible approach to data. The program was once positioned as a calendar with email and task capabilities, and it’s still got those features, but it’s now presented as a notebook program — it’s “The Note-To-Self Organizer.” You store information free-form and then can organize it according to now/later/done triaging, turn items into tasks and schedule them on the calendar, group data in multiple collections, and share it across the web via the Hub server. I’m looking forward to experimenting more with it.

The OSAF blog post announcement includes some more detail. And James Fallows has a good post up at the Atlantic.