First, if I know the audience who reads this blog, you're asking yourself, "What are the Streamys?" Well after tonight you're going to know.
It started off like this: I'm in bed about to go to sleep when I check my twitter friend feed.
A little bit of news, a word or two from @patricknorton, a bite from @wilw. Then there was @wmmarc aka Marc Salisbury.
He says, "Need an assistant for tomorrow from noon to late. No $$ but access to Streamys & After Party. You'll meet a lot of cool people!"
And for some reason beyond myself, I write him back saying asking what "said assistant" needs to do. After a little talking, Marc gives a young 23-year-old journalism student a shot. I didn't know what the Streamy's were but I study up.As it turns out, this was one heck of an opportunity.
The Streamys are an awards show (this was the first annual) for those involved in new media. Think of it as the Academy Awards or the Emmys but for people like you and I hosted by people like you and I, with the interviews of the actors and actressed done by people like you and I.
One good example of this is Felicia Day's The Guild. The pitch for the show would go like this: let's do a tv show about people that are really into MMORPGs (World of Warcraft). Look them up. They are a hilarious group of independent content creators who turn out some really unique and entertaining stuff.
Back to the story. So after taking a risk taking on a guy like me who he doesn't know, Marc picks me up and we head to do a photoshoot (where I got to meet @Sunnygault). I'm having a great time. Marc even buys me In-N-Out (i.e. fast-food ambrosia). Later we finally head off to the Streamy's and it turns out some pretty big names don't have such big heads. Some actors you may know who do these webshows are Lisa Kudrow (she does a show called Web Therapy) or Neil Patrick Harris (actor in the Whedon clan's Doctor Horrible's Sing-a-long blog). The place is pretty packed.
A few (thousand) photos later (@wmmarc I'm guessing will post them on his Flickr stream), we head into the Wadsworth for the ceremonies. Talk about funny.
My favorite part was either when Kudrow was up on stage ad-libbing her lines or when Felicia Day gave her acceptance speech for The Guild (an aside: they stole the night for the awards). Day really laid into traditional media and rightly gave credit where credit was due, to normal people who had an idea (one of Streamy's steps to success btw) and ran with it.
And that is what the Streamy's is folks. It is a bunch of people who got around the system with creative ideas and took the initiative to go for what they wanted to do: make entertaining content.
Two shout-outs:
One to Efren of TechZulu. The guy is intelligent and knows his field.
Second, a big shout out to Marc Salsbury because without him, I wouldn't have been able to have such a fantastic evening or met so many people in the industry I dream of (and find myself already) working Marc, for those that don't know, is chronicling the history new media through photography, and he is good at it. His reputation stands on its own. If you want to know more, give his stuff a look over. If you're in this industry and you have ideas, he'll make you look good.
UPDATE: Did a little grammer check.
UPDATE 2: Tech Zulu has the award winners and a written snippet of Felicia Day's speech can be found at NewTeeVee
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Gerstmann-Gate
Here is an article written by a friend of mine on the Gerstmann-Gate scandal. It is a very well written piece on how a lack of journalistic integrity hurts a publication's bottom line.
Bad, Bad Boy
A story recently has caused much uproar throughout the video-game community. Gamespot, one of the largest video-game review websites, recently fired its editorial director Jeff Gerstmann under suspicious circumstances. Gamespot claims no wrongdoing, but Gerstmann was handed his pink slip shortly after giving a negative review to a game called “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men,” which is published by, Eidos, one of Gamespot's advertisers. In addition, the video review was removed from the site, and the text portion of the review has undergone several changes since its original post. Many in the video-game community think that the timing of Gamespot's actions is too coincidental, and that its refusal to comment on the issue in the days following the break of the scandal damns them further.(Joystiq)In order to gain the public's trust and increase revenue, journalistic publications must strive for honesty and integrity in their work despite the temptation of advertising dollars.
Although the facts of the case don't lead to a definitive answer, the kernel of the Gamespot-Gerstmann story reintroduces the topic of journalistic integrity into the minds of the gaming public. Supposing the allegations are true, is it a sound business move to fire a writer for giving a bad review to a sponsor? The simple answer is that it is not. The cons outweigh the pros definitively on a completely rational basis. The obvious benefit to this behavior is that being sponsor-friendly leads to higher ad revenues; but all is not well in Fist-full-of-dollars-land. Firstly, this is bad journalism, and it causes deep-cutting effects that undermine the quality of the publication. Instead of honest reviews that feel personal, the reader will be left with cookie-cutter turnouts that are more advertisement than editorial. And this in turn is bad for business, even if nobody finds out.
Most people don't like to be deceived. When a publisher deceives its reader-base, it undermines the very public that it serves. This stigmatizes the publisher and defames its brand-name.
Sponsors pay a lot of money for their ads to be shown by a publisher; the more people see the ads, the more potential buyers they will have for their product. So it makes sense then that a company would not want to sponsor a publication that essentially tells its readers not to buy that product. It also makes sense that if the publisher puts pressure on its writers to endorse its sponsor's products, then they stand to make a lot of money in ad revenue. But there is much more at play here than ad revenue. Once this course of action is decided upon, it leads down an unbeneficial path. Essentially, the benefit only continues as long as the public is unaware of this relationship. If readers find out that the publisher of their favorite reviews is being paid for giving good reviews, then it is not in their best interest to continue reading the publication: it has ceased its utility, because they are essentially getting the same information from the reviews as from the company itself. The surprising thing is, people don't have to explicitly find out about this relationship in order for it to affect their choice of reading material.
Bad journalism begets bad journalism. Once the publisher makes it clear that they will fire writers if they don't tow the company line, the quality of the reviews begins to diminish. The writing staff begins to fear standing on its integrity, because that could get someone fired. If continued firings or pressure is used, the reviewers will no longer be able to tell what their bosses expect; they will take fewer risks; they will take less interest in their assignments; the overall quality of the writing will decrease. Even if that series of events does not occur, if readers figure out that the reviews don't agree with their own sensibilities, they will stop trusting the reviews and eventually stop reading them.
Readers don't want to read reviews they can't trust, so they will naturally move to more reliable sources. Readership slowly drops as more readers catch wise. This makes the advertisers nervous; ads are definitely not going to be effective if nobody ever sees them. The demand for ad-space drops and the ad revenue with it. The publishing company is now making less money, and they have two options: fire some writers, or pay writers less money. In either case the effect is the same, the quality of the writing gets worse; either the workload increases and there is less time to do a decent job, or the staff has less motivation to produce high-quality writing.
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas; advertisers have heard this saying too. They know it is bad for business to be associated with a disreputable company. And that is exactly what lies do to whomever is caught telling them, make them disreputable. Most people are unlikely to buy a product if they think that the company selling it cannot be trusted, and this makes companies very careful about whom they do business with. This effectively can cause a major loss of ad revenue for the hypothetical review website that gets caught in this scenario. Whether or not the website has a loss in readership, the advertisers may decide to withdraw their sponsorship in order to distance themselves from the scandal. It is very easy to see what a negative impact this can have on the publisher's bottom-line.
The scenario is admittedly hypothetical, and the publisher could potentially reverse the process at any point. However, it is a road that leads only one direction; if a publisher consistently does not make journalistic integrity a priority, then it will eventually lead to the publication's financial ruin.
It all comes down to trust. If people trust a website or a publication, the publication will see it's readership increase and revenue streams grow. When a publication betrays the public trust, it becomes useless.
Recently, Gamespot issued a statement saying that Gerstmann was fired only after an internal review. The company denies any wrong-doings or that Gerstmann was fired because of the scathing review. Still, since the story broke, Gamespot's web traffic has significantly declined.(Alexa) Pandering to the advertisers costs money. It's that simple.
Bad, Bad Boy
A story recently has caused much uproar throughout the video-game community. Gamespot, one of the largest video-game review websites, recently fired its editorial director Jeff Gerstmann under suspicious circumstances. Gamespot claims no wrongdoing, but Gerstmann was handed his pink slip shortly after giving a negative review to a game called “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men,” which is published by, Eidos, one of Gamespot's advertisers. In addition, the video review was removed from the site, and the text portion of the review has undergone several changes since its original post. Many in the video-game community think that the timing of Gamespot's actions is too coincidental, and that its refusal to comment on the issue in the days following the break of the scandal damns them further.(Joystiq)In order to gain the public's trust and increase revenue, journalistic publications must strive for honesty and integrity in their work despite the temptation of advertising dollars.
Although the facts of the case don't lead to a definitive answer, the kernel of the Gamespot-Gerstmann story reintroduces the topic of journalistic integrity into the minds of the gaming public. Supposing the allegations are true, is it a sound business move to fire a writer for giving a bad review to a sponsor? The simple answer is that it is not. The cons outweigh the pros definitively on a completely rational basis. The obvious benefit to this behavior is that being sponsor-friendly leads to higher ad revenues; but all is not well in Fist-full-of-dollars-land. Firstly, this is bad journalism, and it causes deep-cutting effects that undermine the quality of the publication. Instead of honest reviews that feel personal, the reader will be left with cookie-cutter turnouts that are more advertisement than editorial. And this in turn is bad for business, even if nobody finds out.
Most people don't like to be deceived. When a publisher deceives its reader-base, it undermines the very public that it serves. This stigmatizes the publisher and defames its brand-name.
Sponsors pay a lot of money for their ads to be shown by a publisher; the more people see the ads, the more potential buyers they will have for their product. So it makes sense then that a company would not want to sponsor a publication that essentially tells its readers not to buy that product. It also makes sense that if the publisher puts pressure on its writers to endorse its sponsor's products, then they stand to make a lot of money in ad revenue. But there is much more at play here than ad revenue. Once this course of action is decided upon, it leads down an unbeneficial path. Essentially, the benefit only continues as long as the public is unaware of this relationship. If readers find out that the publisher of their favorite reviews is being paid for giving good reviews, then it is not in their best interest to continue reading the publication: it has ceased its utility, because they are essentially getting the same information from the reviews as from the company itself. The surprising thing is, people don't have to explicitly find out about this relationship in order for it to affect their choice of reading material.
Bad journalism begets bad journalism. Once the publisher makes it clear that they will fire writers if they don't tow the company line, the quality of the reviews begins to diminish. The writing staff begins to fear standing on its integrity, because that could get someone fired. If continued firings or pressure is used, the reviewers will no longer be able to tell what their bosses expect; they will take fewer risks; they will take less interest in their assignments; the overall quality of the writing will decrease. Even if that series of events does not occur, if readers figure out that the reviews don't agree with their own sensibilities, they will stop trusting the reviews and eventually stop reading them.
Readers don't want to read reviews they can't trust, so they will naturally move to more reliable sources. Readership slowly drops as more readers catch wise. This makes the advertisers nervous; ads are definitely not going to be effective if nobody ever sees them. The demand for ad-space drops and the ad revenue with it. The publishing company is now making less money, and they have two options: fire some writers, or pay writers less money. In either case the effect is the same, the quality of the writing gets worse; either the workload increases and there is less time to do a decent job, or the staff has less motivation to produce high-quality writing.
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas; advertisers have heard this saying too. They know it is bad for business to be associated with a disreputable company. And that is exactly what lies do to whomever is caught telling them, make them disreputable. Most people are unlikely to buy a product if they think that the company selling it cannot be trusted, and this makes companies very careful about whom they do business with. This effectively can cause a major loss of ad revenue for the hypothetical review website that gets caught in this scenario. Whether or not the website has a loss in readership, the advertisers may decide to withdraw their sponsorship in order to distance themselves from the scandal. It is very easy to see what a negative impact this can have on the publisher's bottom-line.
The scenario is admittedly hypothetical, and the publisher could potentially reverse the process at any point. However, it is a road that leads only one direction; if a publisher consistently does not make journalistic integrity a priority, then it will eventually lead to the publication's financial ruin.
It all comes down to trust. If people trust a website or a publication, the publication will see it's readership increase and revenue streams grow. When a publication betrays the public trust, it becomes useless.
Recently, Gamespot issued a statement saying that Gerstmann was fired only after an internal review. The company denies any wrong-doings or that Gerstmann was fired because of the scathing review. Still, since the story broke, Gamespot's web traffic has significantly declined.(Alexa) Pandering to the advertisers costs money. It's that simple.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Writing about murder- Journaling about journalism
I promised in a twitter message that I would write about my experience on covering my first murder trial.
====Disclaimer====
As this is a journal of my experience, not a news article, you will be reading some of my opinion.
Once again, I am not a lawyer, a judge, or on the jury. This is a story coming from an up-and-coming journalist who is LEARNING. Thus, this article despite my best efforts, may contain an error or two. Treat this like Wikipedia, not the L.A. Times.
Got it? Good.
===============
The night before:
I was in class, stressing out about what I should do for my court article. It had to be on a criminal trial. The teacher was excellent at giving several tips including who I could rely on for information (read: not the court reporter, clerk, or judge. Who is left?) regarding the background of a specific case.
NOTE: I didn't have a clue what I was going to report on last night. So I asked God to help me out.
Morning and Afternoon.
When I went into the court house, everything worked out PERFECTLY. While going through the metal detector, I asked an Sheriff's department officer if he knew of interesting cases today. He said that there was going to be something going on in A-5 at 11. A CLUE!
So I went to A-5 around 10-1030. The judge was hearing several cases.
I approached the baliff's in the room and asked for more information, which they provided.
I also was able to talk to one of the detectives in charge of the investigation. He was also a witness.
I obtained contact info from both the prosecutor and the defense to obtain a statement later.
It really was like a puzzle. Getting one whispered clue about where I should be at such and such a time or who I should talk to to get specific information.
So, some tips for my fellow freelancers and beginning journalists:
Things I have learned last night and today:
1. Baliffs are your best source for background info.
2. Be careful of how loud you ask certain questions and be aware of your surroundings as you don't know who might me behind you e.g. the defendants family.
3. Remember, ANYTHING said in a courtroom is public and can be legally written about. Use your own discretion.
4. Be Bold. Don't be intimidated. Some people won't like you. Some people will. Please the people is not your job, telling the truth as accurately as possible is.
5. Nevertheless, be sensitive. Having had family in prison for crimes, I can tell you it is important to remember what your words will do to the families left in their wake.
Well that, is about it. 'Til next time
====Disclaimer====
As this is a journal of my experience, not a news article, you will be reading some of my opinion.
Once again, I am not a lawyer, a judge, or on the jury. This is a story coming from an up-and-coming journalist who is LEARNING. Thus, this article despite my best efforts, may contain an error or two. Treat this like Wikipedia, not the L.A. Times.
Got it? Good.
===============
The night before:
I was in class, stressing out about what I should do for my court article. It had to be on a criminal trial. The teacher was excellent at giving several tips including who I could rely on for information (read: not the court reporter, clerk, or judge. Who is left?) regarding the background of a specific case.
NOTE: I didn't have a clue what I was going to report on last night. So I asked God to help me out.
Morning and Afternoon.
When I went into the court house, everything worked out PERFECTLY. While going through the metal detector, I asked an Sheriff's department officer if he knew of interesting cases today. He said that there was going to be something going on in A-5 at 11. A CLUE!
So I went to A-5 around 10-1030. The judge was hearing several cases.
I approached the baliff's in the room and asked for more information, which they provided.
I also was able to talk to one of the detectives in charge of the investigation. He was also a witness.
I obtained contact info from both the prosecutor and the defense to obtain a statement later.
It really was like a puzzle. Getting one whispered clue about where I should be at such and such a time or who I should talk to to get specific information.
So, some tips for my fellow freelancers and beginning journalists:
Things I have learned last night and today:
1. Baliffs are your best source for background info.
2. Be careful of how loud you ask certain questions and be aware of your surroundings as you don't know who might me behind you e.g. the defendants family.
3. Remember, ANYTHING said in a courtroom is public and can be legally written about. Use your own discretion.
4. Be Bold. Don't be intimidated. Some people won't like you. Some people will. Please the people is not your job, telling the truth as accurately as possible is.
5. Nevertheless, be sensitive. Having had family in prison for crimes, I can tell you it is important to remember what your words will do to the families left in their wake.
Well that, is about it. 'Til next time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
