Tag Archives: journalism

The future of breaking news coverage

Today we had a natural gas explosion in south Minneapolis that caused a large fireball and was a breaking news event we covered. However, what was unique about this event was a video we were sent (as were several other media outlets) that was the first video available of the fireball.





The video was shot and sent by Robert Stephens (@rstephens), who just happened to be driving by at the time of the explosion. Stephens is the founder of Geek Squad, and full disclosure, is also on the MPR board. However, he did not give the video or his pictures only to us. He shared it via social media and gave permission to all organizations to use via those channels. What was most interesting was his followup tweet:

He did all of this, on the move, with tools anyone can easily obtain for less than $1,000. If our breaking news journalists would have had these tools, they too could have transmitted similar high-quality material back to the mothership for immediate posting. Now of course this isn’t news that these tools can aid in breaking news coverage, this was simply another example, albeit a relatively high-quality one. I was just amazed at how quickly it was put together, edited and distributed via social media channels.

You can see more photos from our team.

Hmm, perhaps I’ll rethink getting an iPad2.

‘EPIC 2014′, revisited

It’s interesting how much of this video, made back in 2005, is starting to come true. Will they save the journalism industry? With today’s unveiling of the Google Android phone, Google continues it’s “epic” growth over the media landscape.

And I for one welcome our new media overlords and look forward to toiling away in their underground research labs.

Also of interest is the NYTimes profile of HTC and its founder, Cher Wang. Gives a little bit of insight on why Google chose HTC (and HTC chose Google) for the hardware of their phone. Investors, start throwing your money at HTC stock now, if you have any left that is.

P.S. And to further prove my point of the impending Google take over, I switched my theme to a Google Chrome-based one that was available about a day after Google Chrome debuted.

The ‘targeting’ of journalists in St. Paul is grossly overblown

You’ve probably heard the stories and the rallying cries crying foul about the police presence (or state, as protesters would like to call it) to quell protesters during the RNC. You may have also heard that some journalists were arrested too, 19 in fact. That’s 19 out of over 800 people arrested. That’s 19 out of the estimated 10,000-15,000 journalists in town to cover the convention. You may have also heard the “horrible injustice” against Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman, another ridiculously overblown incident. Needless to say, I’m more than a little annoyed at how this is being spun. Even going so far as Amnesty International slamming the treatment of protesters and journalists at the RNC.

First, some transparency of course. I live and work in St. Paul. I was on the ground with media credentials at several of the protests, including the huge one Monday and the last one on Thursday that involved nearly 400 arrests. I took tons of pictures of both days.

The supposed “targeting” of journalists that happened is total fabrication, and here’s why. First, almost everyone had a camera, journalist, ‘citizen’ journalist and protesters alike. Nothing distinguished them from one another, especially in the midst of some melee. I understand that journalists want to get the best photos and the story, but several times I saw journalists crossing police lines and standing right in the thick of the protesters. That’s fine, but in my opinion you do so at your own risk. It should also be noted that a majority of the journalists arrested have already had their charges dropped.

During the Shepard Rd. incident on Monday, one of the most heavily documented group arrests of the protests, the police did in fact target journalists. When they had everyone on the ground and were arresting people, they had journalists show their press passes…in order to let them leave the area. Wow, what evil Gestapo. Several times throughout both events, I walked (slowly) toward police lines, showed them my press pass and they let me go through to get to my destination. Even when there was an altercation right up the street, they would respect the credential.

The disconnect here is that journalists expect that same respect in the middle of a melee when force is being used and pepper spray is flying wildly about. I’m sorry folks, press pass or no, that is a luxury that just can’t be afforded. It’s not “suppressing the media”, it’s police doing their job.

You may have heard the story of Marcus Washington, a documentary filmmaker from Tennessee who was sprayed with pepper spray. If you watch the video of the incident, you can see Washington at the end. He is right in the middle of the fracas trying to take video and gets sprayed with pepper spray. Just because you have media credentials doesn’t mean the police are supposed to aim pepper spray around you. You take certain risks as a journalist, Mr. Washington learned that. I feel bad that he got sprayed, as I’m sure it hurt, but it’s all a part of the risk of covering protest politics.

What is funny about the video is that if you think about it, the guy who got the better story and video of the event was well out of the reach of police and kept themselves out of danger. You can cover a story without becoming the story (and this coming from a huge Hunter S. Thompson fan).

And about those credentials. Looking at the pictures it appears Mr. Washington, like many of the journalists on Monday, had the media credentials from the event, not from a legitimate media company. Those credentials meant even less than real press credentials that day. Anyone with a point-and-shoot camera could have walked up to the media tent at the event and got some “credentials.” They are what a colleague of mine called, Kinko’s journalists. If you watch one of Washington’s videos an interviewer asks him who he is with. His answer: “I’m with myself.”

In addition to that, cops aren’t mind readers. When things are getting hairy, protesters are fighting back and adrenaline is flowing, the police have to react and make a quick decision to use their crowd control devices (i.e. pepper spray) or get bowled over by an unruly mob that wants to smash windows and break stuff. They don’t have time to spot out media credentials and look out for journalists. If you are in the mob, you’re essentially part of the mob. The solution, know what you’re doing and get yourself out of harm’s way.

So many journalists have such an inflated sense of self-importance and ego they expect the police to know exactly who they are and what they are doing there. Sorry, no. The police have a job to do and that doesn’t include massaging your ego.

Which, brings us to Amy Goodman. I love Amy, she’s done great work in journalism. But, often she incites these sort of things herself. The day before she was arrested she jumped a fence to get right in the middle of a police investigation. Legitimate or not, at the time the house was the site of police investigating potential criminal activity. You wouldn’t just barge into a murder scene or a robbery scene to ask questions. Why would you do it in this case? By doing so she incites the police to react, and yes often overreact, and makes herself the story instead of actually finding the FACTS of the story. And I’m sorry, watching the video Amy clearly could have handled that better.

Now, I couldn’t be everywhere at once so I am sure there are perhaps a few incidences of overreaction by police or police brutality. But those have to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. To drape this blanket of Gestapo, evil police over every police officer there, is just inaccurate and dishonest. The majority of police that I saw were doing their jobs, some even smiling and waving at the parade and spectators.

My point is that this claim that journalists were targeted is bull. Doing the math of jailed versus non-jailed journalists and taking a scan of the wealth of coverage these protests got, it is clear that the police gave journalists a fairly wide berth. Those unfortunate few who were caught up in the mayhem are no different than catching a bullet covering a war. That sounds harsh but it is the truth. It comes with the territory. If you don’t like it Wal-Mart is always hiring and there are a ton of other journalists (more and more everyday) that would love to have your job.

I’m not saying the police were 100 percent correct in their behavior, nor am I saying that every protester and/or journalist was 100 percent incorrect in theirs, I’m just making an assessment of what I saw happening on the ground contrasted with what I am reading in the news. I’m sure someone has some episode that contradicts my assessment. However, in my experience, usually when someone says, “I wasn’t doing anything…,” the common defense in these cases, they were usually doing something.

I open the floor for discussion and if someone has evidence to prove me wrong please present it.

ABC News producer arrested in Denver (video)

You’ve probably already heard about this, but now there is video of the ABC News producer who was arrested in Denver.

The video doesn’t lie, these cops were aching to arrest someone. Pushing someone into the street and then telling them they are “blocking traffic” is just ridiculous. I am curious about what happened between the cut of cop pushing then suddenly the guy, identified as Asa Eslocker, is arrested.

Hmm, I wonder how much of this we’ll see in St. Paul next week.

AP, you’re on notice!

AP on notice!

More and more newspapers are planning on canceling their AP subscriptions due to their new and pseudo a-la carté fee structure. Many of the papers say the AP’s proposed savings isn’t enough to let them keep staff.

I find it admirable that some papers are choosing to keep staff for local coverage over a $200,000+/yr AP account for national coverage. I still wonder what these papers will use for A-section fillers but that remains to be seen. Doug Fisher over at Common Sense Journalism weighs in as well.

Sue Cross, AP senior vice president/U.S. media markets responded this way:

“The last time we had a big rate structure change was in 1984, we had cancellations then,” Cross added, saying the news cooperative is not keeping count of those seeking to drop. “My impression is that it is a very low percentage. The positive feedback has outweighed the negative.”

Obviously this has a more detrimental effect on smaller papers whom a $200,000/yr immediate savings makes a large difference over millions in aggregate savings. This positive feedback most likely comes from the big dogs who can easily afford the rate changes and the negative ripple is not so severe.

I’m not sure how all of this will play out and honestly it’s not my territory, but it’s interesting to read the various reactions to what the AP meant to be a benign change.

Thoughts?