1. Write list. 2. Sit back and watch readers lap it up

I listened to a lecture by a young journalist this week and she said something that got me thinking.

She said she was disappointed the story on her website with the most hits was a tongue-in-cheek list, rather than any of her well-researched pieces of journalism. It had been easy to produce, and readers loved it.

Lists for the lazy. Photo: puuikibeach

I wondered, why do readers love lists so much?

As I began writing this, I wondered if perhaps I should list the reasons. So I did. But the list was very small. Here it is:

Reasons we love lists

1. We are lazy.

Lists are unique in that they successfully combine journalistic laziness and reader laziness, and still draw big audiences.

Take Rolling Stone‘s recent list of the worst songs of the nineties.

It’s lazy.

But it works, and many other news organisations, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the Huffington Post and news.com.au, knew it would work and published their own stories about the list.

For Rolling Stone, it was simple. They merely asked readers what they liked (or in this case, didn’t like), compiled the answers, added a bit of a description and had a ready-made audience. I mean, who doesn’t want to see their own point of view reflected in the media?

But it’s not all about the media being lazy: readers of lists are lazy too.

The easily recognisable, easy-to-read list form is comfortable for us all. Dot points are friendly, and the white space surrounding them is a relief in a world filled with giant blocks of text on tiny smartphone screens. And you really don’t need to add much more, as the Herald Sun demonstrates so well.

We like order and structure and, increasingly, information that is easy and quick to digest. Not many people want to be staring at long-form journalism on a screen for three-quarters of an hour, their eyes jumping up and down trying to find their spot. Nice, short, structured lists are kinder to the eyes and brain.

Of course people will tell you there are other, deeper reasons we love lists. Memories are an important drawcard and enraging readers by including controversial topics works well too. There’s great scope for pictures and Youtube clips and interactivity, but overall?

Lists are about a generation with a rapidly declining attention span wanting stuff that is easy to consume. Lists might outrage, remind, anger or validate readers and their opinions, but mostly they’re just easy to produce, and even easier to read.

Fairfax, seriously.

Short one for today.

Basically all I want to say is: why on earth does Fairfax have to rely on AAP for a story about Fairfax?

Newspapers a novelty? Maybe it's because they don't have the resources to write about themselves. Photo: katerha

Here I was, reading a story about Fairfax’s ex-CEO Brian McCarthy and how many millions he was paid out, thinking “good on you Fairfax, publishing a story about your losses and wastage”, only to be totally distracted by the fact that the story had come straight from AAP.

Surely someone at The Age or the Sydney Morning Herald had access to the annual report?

Why rely on AAP when a Fairfax journalist could just have easily have done the job?

Oh, right… losses…

Be careful who you follow…

I’m not a politician or a famous person or even a super-busy person, so I do my own social media.

Who you're following can be just as scary as who's following you. Picture: petesimon

When I say “do” my own social media, I mean I tweet my own tweets, update my own statuses, add my own friends and decide who I’ll follow.

Obviously some people- politicians, celebrities, sports teams- are so busy they have someone else to do this dirty work for them.

But I’m not sure whether this is such a good public image decision. I mean, at least when I choose to follow someone I actually want to follow them and can think about the professional repercussions.

Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, may not be aware he follows someone on Twitter called “alex_rox_ur_bum” and someone else with the moniker “lifeisabitch1″.  Neither of which I’m sure are is better than “crackdaddy21″, another ‘twit’ KRudd follows.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has a slightly cleaner following list, but it still holds a few public image killers. She and Kevin Rudd both follow “CrudeNRude”, whose least offensive tweet is probably “off to a #party to get #wasted……….. #ohhhyeahhhhhh”. The others are too disgusting to repeat here.

On the other hand, maybe some of these pollies actually do run their own social media, but just aren’t as savvy as they should be.

Other social media users will judge someone based on who they associate themselves with online.

Of course politicians are supposed to accept and represent the population as best they can, but it’s probably more detrimental than positive for them to be linked to sexist, foul-mouthed and/or drug-referencing online persona.

Politicians need to realise being linked to someone undesirable online is pretty much as bad as having a dodgy mate in real life. It reflects badly on their judgement.

Focusing on Page One

A couple of weeks ago I saw a movie I had been looking forward to for months.

The trailer for Page One: Inside the New York Times promised me an exciting, fast-paced and in-depth documentary that would solve all the problems of the world of journalism.

What? Nobody reads papers anymore?!

Unfortunately, I didn’t read any reviews of the film before I saw it. Nor did I take a second to think that perhaps solving journalism’s woes might be a big ask for a film about a newspaper. Nonetheless I sat back in my independent cinema chair convinced I would at least become slightly better-informed about journalism in today’s technological world.

What I realised after watching the jumble of unfinished storylines that is Page One, is that newspaper people just don’t get it but are passionate enough that they managed to convince the makers of the film to stray further and further away from the promised theme until I almost forgot why I came to see the movie.

Yes, the film takes a brief look at why and how the newspaper industry is failing. But it never answers the most pertinent question it puts forward: what does the future hold for The New York Times?

Of course it’s a tough question, and of course thousands of people have already tried to answer it, but for journalists and consumers alike it is the most interesting aspect of the documentary and one that isn’t explored closely enough.

Page One had so much potential. The makers had access the one of the world’s greatest newspapers at a crucial point in its history- before it went behind a paywall- and yet there is not nearly enough detail about where newspapers are going or how to get people to pay for content.

Instead, the doco jumps from personal stories, to Wikileaks, to journalism scandals at the paper, to war correspondents, to drawn out sighs from journalists wondering “what if”.

David Carr is the most interesting person in the film, but perhaps his journey would be best suited to its own short documentary, rather than having weird family scenes interspersed with all the other stuff going on. His dry sense of humour is perhaps Page One‘s saving grace and his passion for The Times could probably have worked nicely as a contrast to the realities of its declining readership, if only the makers had chosen to stick with that storyline.

Coming away from Page One, I’m not sure what was more strange. The fact that a movie about a newspaper had jumped around so erratically that it seemed more like an internet browser with ten different tabs open, or the fact that I, a member of tech-savvy, inattentive Generation Y, wanted a more focused storyline with, if nothing more, some answers.

At home with the PM

Since the ABC aired its new show At Home with Julia on Wednesday night, there has been much debate about how “appropriate” it is.

At Home With Julia. Photo: ABC

Yes, Australian politics often descends into satire, but does the national broadcaster really need to satirise the private life of our leader?

After watching the show, I came to two conclusions.

One: I feel sorry for Tim Mathieson.

Two: Julia Gillard is a terrible partner.

These two thoughts stemmed purely from the show. Having seen photos, read numerous articles and watched both Julia Gillard and Tim Mathieson on TV, never before have I given a second thought to their private life.

And nor should I. I vote for a party and leader based on policy, not on how comfortable their private life seems. Yes, an individual’s ethics and public behaviour influence my opinions as well, but surely a private life should remain just that: private.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for those telemovies about ex-leaders (eg. Hawke) that dramatise someone’s leadership and private life years after their term has finished, but satirising our current PM’s personal life has the potential to sway voters (either direction) by presenting them with a caricature of Gillard in fictitious situations.

Waddling and warbling, Amanda Bishop’s portrayal of Gillard is unflattering to say the least. Phil Lloyd, playing Tim Mathieson, is a downtrodden, unsatisfied “house-husband”, whose main purpose seems to be to appear (in the crudest of terms) pussy-whipped.

Yes, there were a few laughs throughout the episode, but most of those were more closely related to politics, than the prime minister’s sex life. References to Rob Oakeshott’s long-winded speeches were funny, and Bob Katter’s obsession with Australian produce made me giggle, but Tim Mathieson being insulted by every second character wore thin pretty quickly, as did Gillard’s pet names for him. The show is not necessarily nasty about the PM (Mathieson is another story), but it seems she is being patronised and her status diminished.

It would be reasonable to assume then, that for those who don’t support Gillard, this nationally broadcast disrespect would be fantastic.

But even those who have little reason to like Gillard have weighed in on this debate. According to the Herald Sun, Therese Rein (wife of ousted PM Kevin Rudd) said the program ridiculed the PM’s family life, and described it as “pretty rough”.

Surely the office of the prime minister deserves more respect than a semi-funny comedy focusing more on her partner and dog than Gillard herself. Why is it OK to make sexual jokes about the country’s most powerful person? I can’t see the same kind of series getting a run if it were about John Howard, or even Paul Keating. I am not defending Julia Gillard or saying she deserves protection from criticism, but I do think to air a show about her private life is to descend further into this inane political media we have at the moment where clothes, families and lifestyle are in the public domain more than policy and performance (and I’m not talking the sexual kind).

I just think if we’re going to belittle the prime minister, at least let’s do it based on her leadership skills, rather than her home life.

The neglected blog.

You know what’s really annoying? You want to know one of the things that irks me like no other? Something that really, really gets on my nerves?

Ahhh the competition. Photo: Annie Mole

When people start blogs and then don’t update them.

In other words, what I have done.

Yes, I’ll admit it.

I’ll come right out and say it.

I started a blog and after about six months, I neglected it.

Like an abandoned puppy at the pound, my poor blog was ignored.

People visited, took one look, realised there wasn’t anything new, and quickly left.

Blog posts were started, but never posted. Photos were found, but never uploaded.

For this, I am truly sorry.

I know, from experience, there is nothing worse than starting to follow a blog, and then having the blogger get up and leave. It hurts, and it’s plain rude.

I have no excuse for breaking rule number one of blogging, and only hope I can redeem myself.

More posts will come. And they will be regular. And they will be here soon.

To be continued….

 

So you’re a wannabe journo?

OK Laurie Oakes, you got lucky. I’m not going to give you a serve, but only because something more interesting came along.

And by more interesting, I mean something that affects me more. And for once it’s positive.

Photo: William and Mary Law Library

Being a journalist is difficult. People don’t trust journos (often with good reason) and are usually only happy to be interviewed if they’ve got something to spruik.

Being a journalism student can be more than difficult. It can be downright impossible, especially when people won’t speak to you because they know it’s only for an assignment and they’re unlikely to get much out of it for themselves.

Which is why I’ve found my experience at university so surprising.

In the past 18 months I have been amazed at just how many people are willing to help a student who clearly doesn’t have a Fairfax or New Limited business card.

Community groups, government ministers, councils, festival organisers, youth outreach workers, sporting groups, emergency service staff and choirs have all been willing to lend me a hand during my course.

Of course I’ve been turned down by others, like the Prime Minister’s media liaison and Victoria Police, and it’s a real blow when this happens.

Often, the difference between a pass and a fail is whether or not someone calls you back for an interview.

So thanks, to all of you who understand this. Because while it’s not easy being a journalist, it sure as hell isn’t a walk in the park being a journalism student.

Dear Mark

Mark, Mark, Mark.

Who told you you were a journalist? Was it the nice people at 60 Minutes? Or was it something you just decided?

It must have seemed like a good idea at time. Journalism! How hard can that be?

Well, Mr Latham, it may shock you but as a “journalist” you should probably know there are some types of behaviour that are unacceptable.

Your aggressive pursuit of Prime Minister Julia Gillard is one example.

Photo: Peter John Chen

Most reporters try to treat their potential interviewees with respect no matter how well they might know each other.

Even your boss, Nine Network CEO David Gyngell recognised your approach lacked respect and crossed the line.

For those of you who aren’t aware, Mark Latham’s attempt at interviewing Ms Gillard on the campaign trail consisted of him accusing Labor of complaining about him to Nine, then aggressively telling her to “have a dig” at Kevin Rudd.

He followed this up wonderfully by then appearing on Sky News and denying that he had raised his voice or been aggressive. Instead, he insisted that it was Ms Gillard who had in fact touched him inappropriately.

Look, Mark. Like I said, I don’t know who told you you could be a journalist or why they told you, but they must have been confused.

Journalists report the news. They tell the public what’s happening, why it’s happening and what people think about it.

Reporters shouldn’t be the news.

At the moment, Marky, you are the news.

And you are making other journalists ashamed of their profession (don’t worry, I’ll be having a go at Laurie Oakes soon too).

But Mark, if you’re going to act like this, maybe it’s better that you start a diary and write all your angry thoughts and accusations down there.

Oh wait, you’ve already done that.

Being a good sport hard during World Cup.

The Australian media’s coverage of the World Cup is making me wonder where we should draw the line between sports reporting and opinion.

Photo: 1Happysnapper (photography)

In Australia, it is illegal to publish anything that offends the dignity of, or scandalises, the court. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this can be classed as contempt of court.

Now I’m not trying to lump soccer referees into the same group as judges, but surely there needs to be some respect for their final decisions.

Take the Herald Sun’s online piece that refers to “another bizarre refereeing decision”.

Or even better, the Sunday Age’s front page headline:

Ghana 1, Australia 1: So Cruel. From ecstasy to agony as refs do it again.

I, and most people who watched either the Australia vs. Ghana game or the Brazil vs. Ivory Coast game, would probably agree that there were controversial decisions made.

But reporting on the players’ and crowd’s reactions to the decisions is one thing, and putting across one’s own point of view quite another.

Even the ABC’s World Cup coverage includes open criticism of the referees, with statements like:

…Lee Addy put in a nasty tackle from behind on Bresciano – the type of tackle that earned Tim Cahill a straight red card against Germany.

The referee, however, only awarded a yellow card for the meaty tackle.

I know it’s what many people were thinking, but not everyone (and I would imagine Ghanaian fans fall into this category) would agree.

When you’re publishing online anyone can read your work. While the Australian news outlets are writing primarily for an Australian audience, even sports coverage should not be one-sided.

I’m not saying reporters shouldn’t include people’s opinions and reactions, and I’m sure as hell not saying they should make their articles bland and flavourless.

What I am saying is when decisions are made on the football field they are made by someone a little more qualified in refereeing than a journalist.

Report what has happened and what people think of it, but don’t make your work a glorified account of your personal disappointment.

Honest Aunty

Now I remember why I love the ABC so much.

Only Aunty (and maybe, maybe SBS) would be so open about criminal charges against one of their own.

Host of the ABC’s Collectors program Andrew Muirhead has been charged over accessing child pornography after the Australian Federal Police seized computer equipment from his Hobart home.

The ABC has covered the story online and on TV.

The seriousness of the charges and Muirhead’s guilt or innocence aside, the ABC is to be commended on its handling of the issue.

The Collectors has been taken off air indefinitely and Muirhead has taken unpaid leave.

Where other broadcasters and news organisations actively avoid reporting on anything that might harm their image, the ABC has managed to handle this serious, and potentially embarassing, situation with transparency.

Other broadcasters should take note: instead of covering up or avoiding news about your own network, try being honest and upfront. It might just work wonders for your credibility and ratings.