Since we're dealing with a fairly niche topic mainly involving local government in a small city, we were relying on some initiative from people involved in what the city is doing with the carbon tax money. The kind of engagement we envisioned was people speaking up, having a public conversation. But when it came down to it, most of the people "in the know" about Boulder's carbon tax weren't actually comfortable with taking that step.

Part of the problem is that the people most knowledgeable about this issue, while willing to have face-to-face private or group conversations about the matter, were reluctant to share their thoughts online in a persistent, findable way. That's because most of them have various overlapping commitments and concerns (business, political, social, etc.) that cause them concern when they can't directly control who hears which part of what they have to say. So far, we haven't found a good way to get around that barrier.

While dealing with this frustrating challenge, another intriguing issue arose: Most of these people expressed comfort with being interviewed, even though they are reluctant to speak up directly. We were puzzled by this.

For a long time Adam Glenn and I resisted doing interviews. After all, the point of our project was to engage the community in conversation. Resorting to interviews felt too much like traditional journalism. But now, as our project is nearing its end and we haven't yet gotten much traction in this community, we've realized that our last option is to mediate the discussion in a conventional journalistic way.

So now we're going to try yielding to that preference, by doing video interviews. We're starting to work with three people from the University of Colorado journalism school to interview some of the key people on this issue. We're just ramping up on that phase of the project, and we'll see how it goes.

Why video? We think that video will provide the most direct experience of how people express themselves, and therefore be least like traditional journalism and at least somewhat approximate a conversation.

The psychology and politics of speaking up of your own volition v. getting interviewed is pretty interesting, too.

When you are chosen to be interviewed, it can appear to enhance your importance: Someone thought you were interesting or important enough to ask.

In this audio clip from a recent IT Conversations podcast, Jon Udell interviews Dan Bricklin, president of Software Garden, on audio production. About 40 minutes into it, their conversation turned to how people perceive being sought for an interview or photo as a sign of respect:

In contrast, simply speaking up on your own initiative can appear pushy, vain, or desperate. Consider how, in the book world, self-published books are still commonly stigmatized as "vanity press," regardless of quality. That's changing slowly for some publishing markets and genres, but that stigma is hard to fight in all kinds of media.

Furthermore, being chosen to be interviewed can appear to mitigate your personal responsibility for what you say. Answering a question about a touchy subject can be far more politically palatable than choosing to raise the subject of your own volition.

Finally, many people are still uncomfortable with the idea of circumventing the social authority of mainstream news organizations. This is especially true of government officials and public employees, but it's also true of scientists, businesspeople, and others who rely heavily on authority for making decisions, statements, and deals.

Authority sometimes gets a bad rap in American society. It's very human and natural to seek authority, in order to control your personal cognitive burden (decisions, research, etc.), and to feel the security of belonging to a community bound by shared values. If we could never defer to authority, figuring out what to believe and do would be and endless daily chore, fraught with personal responsibility and risk at every turn. It's simply too much work to make up your own mind about everything in today's world.

The human social tendency to seek authority also discourages many people from speaking up directly via nontraditional or non-mainstream media -- especially on topics that involve their work or professional life. Doing so feels a little bit like you're going to sit at the "geek" table in the high school lunchroom. What will people think if you start hanging out with that crowd? Could it damage your own perceived status?

Lesson learned: For community projects that depend on participation from experienced professionals discussing their work and opinions, starting an open public conversation is probably going to be very, very, hard.

In particular, posing public questions to these people questions and hoping they will respond publicly in kind is likely to fail, because they may feel cornered and defensive.

For most professionals, government officials, and public employees, it may be better to work with their ingrained preference for the hierarchy of media: Contacting them for a private interview, asking them questions, and then presenting an edited version of the answers. Later, some of them may be willing to speak up more. But almost all of them probably will be strongly averse to starting by speaking up themselves.

At least, that's been our experience so far. Stay tuned to see how the video interviews go.]]> http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/08/resorting-to-interviews-when-conversation-stalls005.html http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/08/resorting-to-interviews-when-conversation-stalls005.html Audio/VisualGovernment & PoliticsParticipationPhilosophy communityconversationgovernmentinterviewspoliticsvideo Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:38:49 -0500 amy@gahran.com (Amy Gahran) Yesterday on the Poynter Institute's E-Media Tidbits blog (which I edit), contributor Alan Abbey posted an item about the latest spate of newsroom layoffs. He noted:

"For media workers, these aren't necessarily bad times. For every job shutting down at LA Times, there is probably one (albeit less well paid, less prestigious, and more nose-to-the-grindstone) opening up in new media. However, for media veterans, this downturn does feel similar to the widespread closures of coal mines and steel mills 25-30 years ago. What can we do with our outdated skills?"

That's pretty blunt talk, and I'm glad that Abbey had the courage to speak so frankly about the fear that established traditional journalists face. Not surprisingly, his strong words pushed buttons in thr journalism community. The very first comment left on that post was predictably cynical and reactionary:

"What do you mean by 'job' in 'new media?' I'm really interested to hear, as there are about as many interpretations as to the meaning of those words as there are colors in the rainbow. Personally, I take it as 'blogging' without 'salary/pay.' But I'm sure I'm missing something."

So where will today's journos find tomorrow's jobs? Here's my take: Not in news organizations. At least, not in news orgs as we've grown accustomed to them over the last century. That ship is quite obviously sinking. While traditional news orgs probably won't disappear entirely as a species, they're getting rarer and smaller by the minute. They're a lousy career bet -- especially for established professionals with higher salary requirements and increasingly commoditized skills.

In my opinion, journalists need to start leaping en masse from the sinking ship of the newsroom and start working for search engines, nonprofits, think tanks, collaboratives, and other kinds of businesses and organizations. In fact, it might even be a good idea to trade in the label "journalist" for the more inclusive "person with journalism skills" -- a group that includes many talented, passionate amateurs as well as professionals from other fields. That kind of humility offers considerable flexibility and room to grow.

Also, today's journalists can -- and probably should -- consciously shift away from jobs that revolve around content creation (producing packaged "stories") and toward providing layers of journalistic insight and context on top of content created by others (including public information). Finding ways to help people sort through info overload is far more valuable than providing more information. Journos also should learn to cultivate and openly participate in public discourse -- something that provokes an inordinate and irrational amount of fear in the hearts of many traditional journalists. God forbid they acknowledge that they are, in fact, human beings with perspectives, opinions, and blind spots!

**Content creation has become a commodity. That won't change **-- so journos need to stop expecting to get paid mainly to write stories. Period. Several other commenters to Abbey's post protested that the quality writing produced by professional journalists will always be in demand, and there will always be jobs for that skill. That's a nice romantic idea, but honestly I don't think it's a realistic basis for a media career strategy. Ongoing journalism job cuts prove that point.

Quality writing/storytelling is only a facet of how journos have worked. Ultimately, producing stories or prose is not the core of what we do. Rather, our mission is to help people learn what's happening (or might happen) in their world and how it's relevant, so people can make better (or at least more informed) decisions individually and collectively. This can happen in lots of ways.

So if your personal mission has morphed over time to mainly be about telling stories, impressing colleagues, being famous, or winning awards (and be honest that's where a lot of established journalists' heads are really at), journalism might no longer be the best field for you.

Yes, a few journos will still find ways to do big investigative stories, and maybe get paid for that -- but probably not very often through news organizations. That's why I'm so intrigued by ventures like spot.us, and Many Eyes, and showusabetterway.com.

So where are those fabled "new media jobs" right now?

Look for editorial or community management positions (not writing or reporting) for Web sites -- and especially sites NOT run by traditional news orgs. Dive into a different kind of culture and start getting used to adapting. Also, check out venues like Paid Content, Media Bistro and Social Media Jobs. And if you're really hooked on in-depth research and reporting, consider becoming an analyst for a think tank or consulting firm related to your beat, where you'll get to publish reports and blog for an influential audience.

Accept that many of these jobs will involve an advocacy mission or specialized audience. This means you'll probably have to learn to practice the realistic, demonstrable ethic of transparency ahead of the ultimately unachievable and (dare I say) patently inauthentic ethic of "objectivity." Remember that journalism has deep roots in advocacy, and that writing for a general audience is not the only "real" journalism.

Even better: Learn how to be an entrepreneur and work collaboratively with teams of people representing all kinds of backgrounds and skills. Have the guts to develop your own ventures wherever you see a need. (People have LOTS of needs for news and information, many of which haven't ever been well served by traditional news organizations.) Learn how to be transparent, especially in public discourse. Be willing step outside your comfort zone, to be a beginner, to find and follow passion, to try and fail.

Sound too risky for you? Then pick a skill area that's in demand (like mobile media, or social media, or online video, or locative media) and make it your business to learn how to do that. Don't expect someone to pay for your training -- but do try to wrangle a job in your news org's online or mobile operations, if you're not ready to jump ship yet and don't have lots of time for (or aren't good at) independent learning.

The direct financial costs to learning online media skills independently are minimal; the biggest investment is your time and energy. You don't have to do it all, but if you need to maintain financial stability (to support a family, retirement, gambling habit, etc.) it helps to have more concretely in-demand production skills to offer than reporting and writing.

The big picture: Ultimately, if you're REALLY concerned with keeping yourself afloat in the media/news field (rather than just hunkering down in a comfortable silo and avoiding change) your smartest strategy is prepare your escape from traditional news organizations as soon as possible. It's pretty obvious that most news orgs are shedding traditional journalists as fast as they can get away with. It's not realistic to hope that your news org (or the traditional news business in general) will shelter you indefinitely.

It's far easier to learn to swim on your own -- and to jump off and get away -- before this sinking ship drags you under.]]> http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/07/swimming-lessons-for-journalists005.html http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/07/swimming-lessons-for-journalists005.html FinancialPhilosophy adaptationcareerevolutionjobsjournalismmobileskillsvideo Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:27:32 -0500 amy@gahran.com (Amy Gahran) Mobile media isn't just the future -- it's the present, big time. Recent research from the Pew Internet and American Life project shows that mobile devices (especially cell phones) are already the can't-do-without-it media tool of choice for many US demographics, especially among Hispanics and Latin Americans. (Read more analysis of this research, and what it can mean for community media at the Knight New Media Center.)

Mobile is becoming a key channel for all kinds of content and communication -- so it should be a key focus for anyone providing news and information to almost any community.

So why am I (a fairly geeky media person) so far behind the wave of mobile technology?

I hate talking on the phone. That's why, after all these years, I still use a cheap, pre-paid, bare-bones cell phone. But I adore mobile technology. I'm fascinated by the growth, the penetration, the flexibility, and the diversity of what's possible these days with handheld devices that work on wifi or cell networks.

So I'm holding out -- impatiently, now -- for mobile technology and service to catch up with what I really need: a pro quality all-in-one mobile blogging/reporting tool. And I almost had it. It was literally in my hands, then it slipped away...

I want a mobile device that can take great photos, video, and audio; geocode/tag all my content with real GPS data, work with a high-speed network, connect and sync easily with my laptop, and not be a total pain for real writing. (I detest both thumb keyboards and the iPhone touch keyboard for anything more than a few words at a time.) Something I could use for covering live events well without having to lug around a laptop or carry multiple devices.

What would this tool look like? In addition to phone service, text messaging, and web browsing, here's my list of must-haves:

• Compatible with a Bluetooth keyboard
• 3-G network compatible
• 5 megapixel camera minimum
• Saves photos, audio, and video directly in standard compression formats (jpeg, MP3, MP4, etc.)
• Real GPS
• Not the Windows mobile OS
• Good battery life
• A local retail vendor so that I can get immediate repair or replacement if needed.

Until a few days ago, I thought I had it all. I bought the Nokia N95-3 via Amazon.com -- and proceeded to fall in love.

This sweet, small, versatile, high-quality device has been available for a couple of years in Europe. Only recently it became available in the US.

Last November, while in Barcelona, a UK friend introduced me to the N95's delights. I got to play with hers, and immediately saw that this was the tool I'd been waiting for.

This gem is not easy to find in the real world. So far it's only sold from Nokia's two US flagship stores (in New York and Chicago), and at a few Best Buy locations. I live in Colorado, so currently my only option was to purchase my N95 online.

I spent three days learning the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the N95. It wasn't all smooth sailing, but it was great fun. The interface is complex, and getting some services configured was not straightforward. But I persevered, and made it through all these bumps. I knew was ready -- and finally equipped -- to do the kind of moblogging I've longed to do.

The US version of the N95 comes with a free service called Share on Ovi (formerly Twango), which several N95 users told me is excellent for multimedia blogging on the go. Unfortunately, the phone Amazon sold me came with firmware that was very outdated -- about a year old. In order to use this service, I had to update the firmware.

So I went through Nokia's firmware update process (which annoyingly, is Windows-only, but I was willing to deal with that to keep my precious N95 ready for adventure). It appeared to proceed and complete without a hitch.

After the upgrade, I tried to restart my N95 -- but couldn't. The Nokia logo flicked inanely on and off. The firmware update turned my phone into a brick.

I was heartbroken. It was like seeing a loved one suffer a stroke.

I called Nokia, and learned that the only way to get my phone fixed or replaced was to ship it to them and wait 10-14 business days for it to be returned. And since I didn't buy it from Nokia, they wouldn't guarantee that they'd fix or replace it for free. Meanwhile, the clock was ticking over at Amazon, which only allows refunds on cell phones within 30 days of purchase.

I struggled with the decision. I wanted to give Nokia a chance, but I didn't trust that they wouldn't ultimately leave me stuck with a brick, a bill, and no time to get my nearly $600 back from Amazon. And looking ahead, I knew that if I came to depend on the N95 the way I hoped to, and if it bricked out again, I couldn't be without it for weeks, shipping it back and forth to wherever Nokia dictates.

So with heavy heart, I gave up -- for now. I canceled my cell contract, packed up the phone and accessories, and shipped it all back to Amazon for a refund. I just couldn't deal with that poor level of service from NokiaUSA. I knew I would just keep getting my heart broken.

So I'm back in mobile waiting mode. I'm hoping that either the next generation iPhone will offer more features I need, or that Nokia or carriers that support the N95 will wise up and start selling this phone locally and offering local service and replacement.

It was a painful learning experience. But I am encouraged that devices like the N95 exist. I see how useful they can be to bloggers, journalists, and anyone covering a community or events. But with mobile technology, the terms and quality of service is as important as the hardware.]]> http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/04/my-brief-torrid-affair-with-the-nokia-n95005.html http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/04/my-brief-torrid-affair-with-the-nokia-n95005.html Audio/VisualMobileTechnology cell phonemobilemobile webnokia N95wifi Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:42:14 -0500 amy@gahran.com (Amy Gahran) Earlier this week I was at WeMedia 08 in Miami, where I was on a panel about the Knight News Challenge. (Last year, Adam Glenn and I won a Knight News Challenge grant to fund our community journalism project, the Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker.) Also on the panel were Gary Kebbel, director of the News Challenge progam for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and fellow grantee Nora Paul of the University of Minnesota.

Here are five points I think are useful to anyone considering applying for a News Challenge grant, based on Adam's and my experience so far.

1. Not sure your idea can work? Good!

They call it the News "Challenge" for a very good reason: As far as I can tell, none of the News Challenge winners are attempting projects that are obvious "sure things." Knight's goal is to fund pioneering news projects with the potential to build and bind community. Yeah, "pioneers" -- otherwise known as "the guys with the arrows in their backs." Pioneering in the media field takes courage to persist in the face of uncertainty, skepticism, and setbacks. In my opinion, Knight is demonstrating exactly the kind of courage they wish to support through this program.

2. Don't over-think your initial application.

From what I've heard, several News Challenge applicants and winners spent considerable time (sometimes weeks or months) painstakingly crafting their initial application. In contrast, Adam and I brainstormed a few dozen potential projects, narrowed it down to a short list of just over a dozen ideas we thought were strongest, and submitted applications for each of those. Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker happened to be the one that "stuck."

The News Challenge process will guide you through fleshing out your initial concepts both logistically and financially -- so trying to figure out all the details up front won't necessarily gain you any ground. IMHO, it's more important to find strong ideas that match the News Challenge goals, express those ideas clearly, and convey that you have the passion, skills, and resources to give your ideas at least a decent chance of success.

3. Expect a learning curve with the grant world.

A great thing about News Challenge is that these grants are not just for nonprofits and academics. Companies, independent professionals (like Adam and me), and other nontraditional grant recipients are welcome to apply and can indeed win. If, like me, you've never applied for or gotten a foundation grant before, be sure to budget some time as part of your project to learn how to work with this process. It's not onerous or scary, but it is a whole new financial and procedural world. The experience is valuable and positive, but it will require some work and time.

4. Have a plan A, B, C, and D -- and budget for ALL of them.

What if your initial strategy doesn't work? You don't give up, you keep trying with Plan B. What if that doesn't work either? Or the next option? If you're truly pioneering new media territory, make sure you plan to be adaptable -- and budget for adaptability as best you can. Knight wants all its grantees to succeed; but they really expect to learn important lessons from each and every grant.

In my personal opinion, this is one way the News Challenge proposal refining process could be improved -- more emphasis on planning and budgeting for adaptive strategies.

5. Be honest with yourself, and with Knight.

When your initial approach either doesn't work or hits snags, be sure to speak up and turn to Knight for guidance sooner rather than later. This can be scary because no one wants to "disappoint" a major funder with news of setbacks or missteps. But the News Challenge process is rather different from winning a contract to implement a project.

Remember that Knight is basically funding an R&D process here. They sincerely want to learn -- and often you learn more useful information from problems and missteps than from perfection. Again: Keep adapting, and share what you learn, and you won't really "fail" here.

...Anyway, those are my tips.

I encourage people with a passion for changing how media works so it can serve communities better to apply for News Challenge grants. I'd definitely do it again.

Why? Because it's pretty common for unscrupulous folks to monitor networks used by many people with the express purpose of "sniffing" userIDs and passwords. This can have obvious bad consequences if they get access to your web-based e-mail -- but it can also mess up your blog, too.

I learned my lesson last November...