Point/Counterpoint ...

I'm not sure whether to file this as some sort of debate, or just an ultimate slam (or "burn," as we used to call 'em when we'd have insult-offs back when I was a kid) ... but it comes to us via the always fantastic Teaching Online Journalism blog (if you haven't bookmarked it already ... go ahead, I'll wait).

TOJ details a radio exchange between old school journos Pete Hamill and Fred Dicker, recounted at Gangrey.com:

Dicker: “... You can take a look at these newspapers blogs. The bloggers seem to me, Pete, to be basically opinionated stenographers, writing basically for shut-ins. I can’t imagine who would spend their time reading these things except a very rarefied, small group of people.”

Hamill: “I don’t read them, because life is too short. But I advise the young journalist, don’t waste your talent on blogs. Get to a newspaper, no matter how small, where there’s an editor who will look at your copy and say this will be better if you do this. Go somewhere where you learn the craft. Most blogs are therapy. But they’re not journalism. People who write them, except for the professional propaganda blogs, are there for therapy.

At that point, TOJ's Mindy McAdams opens the can of proverbial whoopass:

"Writing for shut-ins"? Wow, where does that come from? So the 80-year-olds reading the printed newspaper -- they are the vibrant lifeblood of society? And all you blog readers out there -- you're a bunch of lumps on a log, do-nothings, hardly worth consideration.

But wait, there's more:

It would be great to have the tutelage of a good editor, no doubt about it. But I have to wonder what your chances are, nowadays, of getting a good editor at a newspaper. Maybe there is a good editor, but will he or she have any time to work with you?

As the kids today say: Oh SNAP! Oh, no she did-n't.

Okay, at this point, I'm embarassing myself.

But the exchange does reflect the fact that for a certain segment of journalists, the Internet is still lacking in value ... still a Wild West for computer nerds and geeks.

Gotta get over that folks. Fast. Like ... yesterday.

YouTube adds online mixer ...

Got a short video you want to upload and post on your blog ... only you find the editing process intimidating (or can't get access to editing software/equipment)?

Well, rejoice.

YouTube is beta-testing an online video remixer. There are others out there, but the convenience of editing your video and then immediately posting the finished product makes this an alluring new feature.

You can add titles, subtitles, transitions, background music (presuming it's stuff we have the rights to use) and various other bells and whistles. Then you publish it, grab the embed code (as seen below) and drop it into your entry body.



Presto: Instant multimedia. No muss. No fuss.

You'll have to sign up with YouTube, but it's not an extensive process. And while I have no idea if this is adequate for longer-form, higher-quality video projects, if you just want to dump something up online, this is the smartest way to do it.

(ADDENDUM: I should remind you that this is a "beta" project, so there might be glitches to be encountered. So, fair warning. I plan on playing around with this more later, when I get some time, so I'll post more later if I encounter rough going.)

How To ... Correct A Blog Entry

This is a big one, because there are a lot of misperceptions about correcting errors on the Web.

The most important thing to remember is as follows ... and I'm bold-facing it — not because I'm yelling, but because it's so important:

• Whatever you've published on the Web, stays on the Web.

In other words, there is no such thing as "unpublishing" a blog entry.

Think of the Internet as a giant piece of paper and your blog entry as a well-inked stamp. Once you publish, you've stamped that entry to the giant piece of paper. "Unpublishing" might make the stamp go away, but it won't erase what's on the giant piece of paper.

To resort to the more technical speak, "unpublishing" an entry might remove that entry from the index of your blog, but that entry is still accessible at the specific Web address assigned to it by Movable Type the second you published.

In other words, while an erroneous, unpublished entry won't show up here:

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/streets/

It will remain visible here:

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/streets/2007/06/this_is_a_mistake.html

As such, it can be searchable under any of the Internet search engines (and that address goes out on your "notification" e-mails, too).

ALSO, if someone's using an RSS reader to read your stuff, "unpublishing" has no effect on that whatsoever.

SO, what to do after a mistake's been made?

There are many ethical and even legal ramifications to this topic, which is my way of saying there's no clear consensus on the best steps to take.

Much like a TV doctor dispensing advice, let me be clear ... I'm speaking generally here about a variety of hypotheticals. If your situation is life-threatening (or, in our case, career-threatening), consult your editor and they'll get the lawyers involved. Do what they tell you to do.

This entry is more related to preserving the credibility of your blog in the greater blogosphere, where ... believe it or not ... the best thing you can do to ensure your credibility is to quickly and honestly own up to mistakes.

Again ... speaking generally ... the best practices depend on the gravity of the mistake:

For small errors, spelling at the like, I don't see a problem with making the correction, as long as you provide a small line at the bottom, such as:

(This entry has been updated to correct spelling and grammatical errors.)

For moderate errors, more factual stuff, let's look at two methods:

1.) Add an additional graph below the original content, clarifying the mistake:



2.) A slightly flashier — and more fun — method is using "strikethrough." This provides a line through the erroneous information, to be followed by corrected info.

It looks like this:



This can require a little more art in the re-write, and while it's an accepted (if not encouraged) practice in the blogosphere at large, it makes more than a few print-based folks way too nervous.

If you want to try it, though, use the following code around the words you want to remove:

<span class=strikethrough></span>

In the following format:

Correct text here. <span class=strikethrough>Stuff to be striked through </span>. Back to regular text.

Note: This has been used successfully by some bloggers to be a little playful, such as:



It's an effective technique in the right hands, but use it this way extremely sparingly.

The choice is yours, but I'd recommend the first, simpler, approach. Especially while you're still learning the medium.

For MAJOR errors (non-litigational division): You will have the urge to just yank it down. Do your best to fight that urge. (And don't get cute with the strikethrough.)

Instead, think about the best way to use an "UPDATE" block ... It's absolutely the best way to clarify/correct the information without looking like you're trying to weasel out of something.

However, there are times when something just has to come down.

In those times — we're talking Defcon 1 here — take everything out of the entry body and replace it with an explanation of what was done and why. Be contrite and specific, like so:



Please be aware, though, that the incorrect information is probably still floating out there in Cyberspace somewhere. That's just a fact of 21st century life.

LASTLY, again, if you think you've made an error involving libel, contact your editor and the lawyers and do exactly what they tell you to.

The beauty of <br clear=all>

So, let's suppose you have a piece of art that's deeper than the text block you're embedding it in. At worst, it drives into the post below it and looks awful. At best, an angry browser will punish you with grey space!



NOOOOOOO! It BURNS! It BURNS!

Sorry, not sure why I did that. Anyway, if you want to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen, drop a little piece of magical code at the bottom of your entry that looks like this:

<br clear=all>

This code effectively draws a line at the bottom of the photo and creates white space to the left to even things out. So, no runover, no gray space, no fuss.

et voilà!:



Not an overwhemlingly vital piece of info, but it might come in handy.

The NCAA/blogger saga continues ...

A couple interesting points/opinions in the case of the NCAA expelling a newspaper reporter who was live-blogging a college baseball game:

• From Deadspin:If we are understanding the NCAA correctly, someone who is sitting in a press box providing "live" updates from a game is breaking some sort of ridiculous "rights" policy, but someone who is watching the game on ESPN and doing the same thing is not. We do not know if this applies to anyone who might update their site from their blackberry from the stands. We hope they eject their ass too. Oh, and if a friend of yours texts you asking the score, you better not tell write them back. The moral of the story: If someone from the NCAA is giving you grief about live blogging a game, just step 50 feet away. The NCAA has now, by definition, given the proverbial guy in the basement better access to his/her readers than someone in their own press box. SMART.

According to the Washington Post, the source of the problem was a memo circulated by the NCAA:

The newspaper said the university circulated a memo on the issue from Jeramy Michaels, the NCAA's manager of broadcasting, before the first super regional game Friday. It said blogs are considered a "live representation of the game" and blogs containing action photos or game reports are prohibited until the game is over.

And the newspaper's response via their lawyer:

"It's a real question that we're being deprived of our right to report within the First Amendment from a public facility," Fleischaker said. "Once a player hits a home run, that's a fact. It's on TV. Everybody sees it. [The NCAA] can't copyright that fact."

Blogs I Love: Lifehacker.com

This is the first of a series of posts that will stress what I think are great blogs. Some will be corporate. Some will be major media. Some will be independent.

The idea here is to get a feel for what is best practices, what works, what doesn't and why, with an eye toward improving our own work here.

As always, chime in with your own observations about these sites, as you see fit.

Up first:



Lifehacker.com

I like the entire Gawker family of blogs. They're smart, often funny, fearless and probably annoying to all the right people.

Even though, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not that much of a tech guy, I love Lifehacker because it so effortlessly mixes nuts-and-bolts productivity advice ("Choose a memorable password with Diceware") with much softer fare ("Recharge with a meditation nap).

It's all on one general theme (making yourself more productive and happier using technology and science), but it also goes all over the place, in a categorized, tightly organized way.

Which is a Gawker trademark.

Take time and explore the Gawker Universe (except Fleshbot! Many, many warnings about Fleshbot! It's about online porn, so beware!)

In the meantime, think about your own blog in terms of organization. What sub-categories, if you will, fit into the broader context? Can you establish regular features to cover that turf? (Such as — Hey! — "Blogs I Love"?)

Feel free to nominate new blogs you love, as well.

Sound the alarms!

Bloggers are under attack! A reporter was chased for blogging from the press box.

From Romenesko:

(Louisville) Courier-Journal sports reporter Brian Bennett had his media pass revoked and was ordered to leave the press box during a college baseball game Sunday because of what the NCAA said was a violation of its policies prohibiting live Internet updates from its championship events. "It's clearly a First Amendment issue," says C-J executive editor Bennie Ivory. "This is part of the evolution of how we present the news to our readers."

This is going to be more of a problem for everybody as the distinction between print and broadcast media becomes more fluid.

Some of the comments on the original Courier-Journal story are pretty interesting:

"The producer of the event owns the intellectual property rights. What the CJ illegally attempted to do was the same as bootlegging CDs and DVDs. It's the same thing as sneaking microphones into a concert and broadcasting it over the airwaves."

An opposing view:

"His blogging is no different than ESPN giving an update on a CBS NCAA tournament game. Does CBS deny ESPN to give coverage of March Madness simply because the game is not over yet? I'm sure ESPN pays for the rights to use video replays and such but a person sitting at a desk has the constitutional RIGHT to discuss the portion of the game that has already occurred."

Lawyers, start your engines ...

UPDATE: This just in from Tacoma, where word is that the NFL is taking steps to limit the amount of NFL player/coach audio and video any site not owned by NFL.com can broadcast, and for how long.

Tacoma News-Tribune blogger (and Seahawks beat writer) Mike Sando takes on this short-sighted policy, and offers an interesting suggestion:

For years the Seahawks have uploaded video from press conferences with coach Mike Holmgren and others. Most of the good questions (and some of the lame ones, of course) were asked by people who covered the team every day. Reporters should be less inclined to ask questions in that setting if the league monopolizes the audio and video. (Emphasis added.)

Oh, yeah, it is so on ...

Clip and save ...

Well, go to this post, THEN clip, THEN save.

It's "gear for the multimedia reporter." It's pretty great.

Enjoy.

• Basic kit: Gear for the multimedia reporter (Via the always awesome Lost Remote)

ADDITIONAL MUST-READING: The No-Fear Guide to Multimedia Skills

Tough love ...

This is only tangentially related to blogging, but this list of "10 obvious things about the future of newspapers you need to get through your head" is interesting for anyone interested in the state of Web news.

One blogging-related item makes the parade, and it's more about the reporter-blogger dynamic than anything else:

Bloggers aren’t an uneducated lynch mob unconcerned by facts. They’re your readers and your neighbors and if you play your cards right, your sources and your community moderators. If you really play it right, bloggers are the leaders of your networked reporting projects. Get over the whole bloggers vs. journalists thing, which has been pretty much settled since long before you stopped calling it a “Web blog” in your stories.

There's a fair amount of "ouch" throughout this list, but it's worth the time to read it.

• The list