Citizen Paine | Citizen Journalism

Being upfront would muffle the critics

A Milwaukee blogger was put on the defensive after a USA Today article reported that the city of Milwaukee had provided her with internet access and computer equipment. Had Erin Leffelman made that relationship clear on the blog, she wouldn't have become the target of other bloggers and critical comments on her Play in the City blog.

This isn't anything new. The state of Pennsylvania also fails to mention that it's covering the expenses of visitPA.com's Roadtripper bloggers, which I noted last month.

Leffelman and her defenders point to the level of compensation and argue that it's not significant. "I would hardly classify $1,700 of 'in-kind' support to do her job -high speed internet, a gift certificate for technology improvements at Dell or a $200 camera as the type of compensation that would sway anyone’s opinion," Dave Fantle of VISIT Milwaukee writes in a comment on The Blog Herald.

He misses the point, which is really very simple: Be transparent, be honest about your relationships. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to hide something even if you're not.

To Fantle's credit, VISIT Milwaukee's June 20 news release, which he posted on The Blog Herald, did explain the relationship. It also noted, regarding blogs, "Their impact lies largely in their credibility and growing awareness among an increasingly computer-literate world."

When you capture breaking news, who ya gonna call?

Paul Grabowicz and Steve Outing, both posting on Poynter Online's E-Media Tidbits last week, note that it's not just the news media asking citizens to send in their eyewitness images: Law enforcement is doing the same.

Of course, it's nothing new for the police to ask citizens to provide information. What's different in the two examples cited here is that law enforcement is setting up web sites specifically for this purpose.

After the second London bombings, British police solicited citizen photos and videos, and in Malaysia, the government wants people who witness traffic offenders to post to a Hall of Shame web site.

Outing writes:

In this blog we focus on media, where grassroots-media/citizen-journalism activity is high right now. It's interesting to see how the concept can apply to other sectors of society.

Responding to Outing's post, Brendan Watson questions whether that term should be applied to what the police are seeking:

Citizen snitching, perhaps. Community watch, perhaps. But journalism? We usually call people who do this type of work either police (or in the case of citizens assisting in police work informants). Aren't you concerned that we're throwing this term around way too much to the point that it will soon be absolutely meaningless? Perhaps better term to sum up this current digital movement is personal media. ...

Another debate over terminology. In each case, citizens are being asked to report what they observe. The difference, as Watson says in the rest of his comment:

But journalism seems to envoke an intent to communicate with a mass audience, a committment to public service, and hopefully to some basic journalistic values that aren't present in much of what is currently being called citizen journalism.

What the citizen eyewitness does with the image will be much more interesting than what we call it. It won't matter much for events with multiple witnesses with cameras; some will submit to police, others to citizen journalism web sites. But what happens when one person has the key photo or video? Does he or she post to a personal blog, submit it to large media web site, go through a middleman like Scoopt, or send it to the police? My guess is that we'll see all of the above, though if citizens come to expect payment for high-demand images -- and why wouldn't they? -- the police may wind up near the bottom of the list.

Blogger: London-CJ coverage misses the mark

Dana Blankenhorn writes that coverage of the London bombings-citizen journalism angle (see here and here) mischaracterizes citj:

The major media aren't paying for this stuff. ... (T)he key to success is a business model that includes the citizen-journalist, one that does not just take advantage of him. Papers that use free editorial help are making a devilish deal. They're assuming that the citizens are honest, and looking for work based on their honesty. ... You need some way to assure the readers that the game isn't rigged on the one hand, and some way to give contributors a stake in the game on the other hand.

He also notes that the quantity of citizen contributions can overwhelm readers, putting a premium on filters that point to the best stuff:

... (A)s camera phones proliferate, the volume of such pictures available is just going to become overwhelming. Making sense of what's out there, and getting rights to the good stuff, are going to be keys to success.

Scoopt: Our target is the guy with the cameraphone

Scoopt's Kyle MacRae responds via email to my post this week about the new service, which offers to sell your photos or videos to a publisher for a 50-50 split and a six-month exclusive license.

Here are Kyle's comments:

With reference to the initial Scoopt six-month exclusive license, you said:

That's quite a commitment to make to a new player, and I'm not sure many citizen journalists will go for it. I suppose if you're a prolific photographer, you might take a chance on Scoopt. If they do good by you, then that six-month term might not seem so stiff.

I think it's important that we draw a clear distinction here between professional photographers, aspiring professional photographers -- and somebody with a cameraphone who just happens to be in the right place at the right time and snaps a newsworthy event. Scoopt was set up specifically and exclusively to represent this last group.

My contention is that the true amateur doesn't know or care about photographic licensing -- and, further, nor should they care. Scoopt is not for people making a living or seeking to make a living from photography; Scoopt is for somebody who realises that one day he just might take a great picture and could get some money for it. The true amateur with a cameraphone doesn't want to phone a picture desk editor and haggle or auction a photo.

Indeed, the true amateur probably doesn't know what a picture desk editor is, or how to approach one. But he does know that newspapers and magazines buy pictures if the picture is strong enough. Scoopt helps him make that sale.

Scoopt also protects the rights of our members. What happens when an amateur with a hot photo phones up a newspaper? Chances are he'll (unwittingly) sign away universal rights in exchange for the price of a hot dinner. The paper will then sub-license the photo around the world and the photographer will receive not a further penny. But with Scoopt, the photographer always retains copyright. We will license the photo for publication on his behalf, potentially time and time again -- and the photographer will ALWAYS get 50% of the fee.

We need an exclusive license for the reasons given, and which you quoted.

Basically, we must be able to guarantee to a publisher that we can deliver what we promise -- for instance, a one-day-only exclusive right to publish a photo on the front page. The easiest approach for us would undoubtedly be to demand assignation of copyright from our members. In other words, when a member submits a photo, we would automatically own that photo and could do whatever we want with it. (This is what our lawyers advised!) However, we simply feel that this is unfair on the photographer. It is, we believe, right and proper that even a complete amateur with no interest in or knowledge of copyright and licensing should retain copyright to his own works, always. The six-month exclusive license is a compromise that gives us the security we need to trade on his behalf without stripping the photographer of his rights.

In summary, if Scoopt was a traditional photo agency pitching to traditional pro or pro-am photographers trying to make a living from photography, I'd agree with you and we'd offer a range of (complicated) licensing agreements.

But Scoopt is different. We represent the true amateur who gets a scoop snap of a newsworthy event and wants a) the best possible price and b) an easy life.

Scoopt aims to be middleman for UK citizen photos and videos

Scoopt is a new service that tries to connect UK citizen photojournalists with publishers. You take a picture or video, send it to Scoopt and they sell it. In exchange, Scoopt gets 50 percent of what the publisher pays. That part of the deal may seem reasonable to many amateurs, but Scoopt's six-month exclusive license may not.

During that time, you can't do anything with the photo. "In short, you agree not to publish the photo in any way, shape or form, either directly or indirectly, for six months," Scoopt says.

Here's how Scoopt explains its needs for that exclusivity:

To understand this, imagine that all we had was a non-exclusive license. Let's say you take a 'hot' photo and send it to Scoopt. We do our thing and license the Daily Planet to publish the photo on the front cover of tomorrow's edition.

Naturally enough, the Daily Planet wants to keep this scoop all to itself. Indeed, that's precisely what it's paying for. But unless we have an exclusive license, we simply can't guarantee this. If you or somebody acting on your behalf were to go to the Daily Bugle and sells the same photo (or a similar photo, if you took several of the same event), or even if you were to upload it to a photo-sharing site, the Daily Planet would lose its scoop.

We need an exclusive license for six months in order to guarantee that a scoop stays a scoop. This is where the money is to be made. Your money!

That's quite a commitment to make to a new player, and I'm not sure many citizen journalists will go for it. I suppose if you're a prolific photographer, you might take a chance on Scoopt. If they do good by you, then that six-month term might not seem so stiff.

Current TV recently drew some criticism for a three-month exclusivity policy, though it has responded by saying that it may come up with other options.

Scoopt also might want to consider giving contributors some alternatives. Perhaps the percentage split could vary depending on what sort of licensing rights the photographer is willing to give up.

Linkprops to Phototalk.

UPDATE: Scoopt's Kyle MacRae responds.

Free bloggers taking payments from freelancers

Adam Glenn of I, Reporter alluded to citizen journalism's threat to freelance journalists in a BBC Radio interview this week, and an Accuracy in Media article published Tuesday gives a real-life example from Roanoke, Virginia:

Brian Gottstein, a former online columnist for the Roanoke Times, told AIM that he along with 6 other columnists were dismissed from the newspaper, which is focusing on a more "blog-driven" approach. Gottstein said all the columnists who were cut were contract columnists and included "mainly the web-only commentators on life, religion and politics."  The letter of dismissal, obtained by AIM states that "Interactivity and timeliness are the [sic] prevalent on the Internet today. That's why you hear so much about blogs…We've decided we need more of that at Roanoke.com. To that end, we're planning to change our model toward an interactive, blog-driven approach and away from the more formal single column format." ...  The newspaper suggested the columnists could start up their own unaffiliated blogs and the paper would link to them, but they would no longer be paid by the newspaper.

Glenn, interviewed on BBC Radio's Up All Night, said:

I've gotten emails from fellow freelancers, who say, "We already get paid so little, and now newspapers are going to be getting their content for free."

The Roanoke Times, which maintains a columnists page, now also features a page listing Southwest Virginia bloggers.

Accuracy in Media writer Sherrie Gossett and former Roanoke Times columnist Gottstein question whether the newspaper site will be able to maintain an acceptable level of quality with the new model. Gossett asks, "(A)re newspapers confusing the influence of a handful of well-written and entertaining blogs and the cumulative power of the distributed model with the age-old popularity of starting up your own (online) diary?"

It's a legitimate question, and it depends on what the paper does with the bloggers. Slapping together a list of local blogs has value, but it isn't enough. The Roanoke Times may know that and have bigger plans. What they could do is feature the best posts by the independent bloggers in print and on the Times' Roanoke.com, and pay those freelancers for those posts.

The problem for freelancers is the gap between the time when publications cut them off and figure out a payment model that keeps everyone happy.

That raises a question for me: Is there a web site that acts as a clearinghouse for freelancers and bloggers, listing sites that will pay authors per post?

Where's the transparency - squared?

The Boston Globe raises concerns in "For a fee, some blogs boost firms" about businesses paying bloggers to tout their products without either party disclosing the relationship.

Blogger transparency is It's a valid issue, but the Globe's piece on Boston.com doesn't offer the ability for readers to post comments, one of the best mechanisms for making journalism transparent. So, unless you go hunting, you won't see that some of the bloggers are responding on their own sites to the Globe's story:

Susan Kaup, a blogger who has some complaints about the story, says on her own weblog, "At least we have our blogs to set the record straight." Whether or not Kaup has legitimate gripes with the story, why not let her respond directly with a post that Globe readers would see?

Jeff Cutler, another blogger featured in the story, also responds on his own site. His blog has the same shortcoming as Boston.com, no ability for anyone else to comment.

More critical comments about the article here at pc4media.

So, the blogosphere is buzzing with discussion about the Globe's article. But none of that discussion is happening on the Globe's site, costing Boston.com some potential traffic. More importantly, should the Globe wish to respond to the criticisms of its article, it doesn't have a visible vehicle for doing so.

The story is not new -- here's an AP story published in January and a post at Micro Persuasion following Country Music Television's deal to hire a blogger recently  -- but it's an important one.

The Globe story quotes Ed Shull, the CEO of USWeb, saying, "'In our opinion, paying bloggers is no different than Tiger Woods getting money to wear the Nike logo."

The difference, of course, is that the public is well-aware of the endorsement deals that athletes have. Most people know that when Tiger Woods wears a Nike cap, he's being compensated to do so. I don't think that most people would assume that a blogger who mentions a florist is being paid for the reference.

It's all about disclosure: that the payment is being made and what, if any, control the business has over what the blogger may say.

UPDATE: Just ran across this Ad Age column via IWantMedia.com. It's worth a few laughs.

Typepad offers text ads for bloggers

Typepad has announced that users of its Pro level of service now can display text ads to generate revenues from their blogs.

Details here.

Steve Outing writes about the new feature at Poynter Online's E-Media Tidbits:

Since a growing number of news organizations' websites now host "citizen bloggers," this might be an idea worth copying. I've been thinking lately about how to pay volunteer bloggers. Here's a way to provide them some financial incentive to keep writing without any cost to the publishing organization.

I agree with Outing that giving citizen journalists a way to make money from their work, even a small amount, is going to be a key element to the future of the grassroots media concept. Tying those payments to hits and possibly even user ratings would be a way to reward quality.

Typepad's Pro level costs $14.95 a month or $149.50 a year. So, for people using Typepad's less-expensive options (I use the Plus level), you'd have to weigh the additional features of the Pro level and your potential earnings from the ads. The latter would be a guess, as Typepad gives no indication of how much ad revenue a blogger could expect.

A related development (via J.D. Lasica's post at NewMediaMusings.com) was the announcement of Current TV's video submission policy. Current pays $250 to $1,000 for videos submitted to its web site that it then selects to air on its television program. (BTW, ya gotta check out Mark Rinehart's BASE jumping video now featured in the first slot on the Current TV home page.)