Category Archives: Journalism

Quantifying Words and Impact

Measuring anything is generally the stuff of scientist or statisticians.  As one who brokers in words it can be hard at first to think about how we might measure the impact of what we put out in the world.  There are so many variables. But, after priming my brain reading an explanation of a scientific study written for wordies, I was in the right frame of mind to come up with my own equation of quantifying words and impact.

I started out with something obvious: Hit Count.  One of the benefits of online journalism is that producers can really understand which articles are most widely read. With the traditional newspaper, I imagine editors relied heavily on reader mail to estimate how many might be interested in a particular subject. But with the internet, we know this within hours or even minutes. The immediacy of the internet and hyper-immediacy of social media and mobile technology have changed how we gauge interest in what we write.

But interest isn’t necessarily impact.  A video of a shy teenager who sings like Paverati went viral this week. That doesn’t necessarily mean teenagers all over the world will start belting out arias. But at least a few of them may know what an aria is now. In comparison, a member of Congress was reprimanded for wearing a hoodie on the House Floor this week. This was also the result of another viral video. And the impact of this act could be far broader.

Although having a high hit count on a given piece of media is necessary to have an impact, I decided that hit count alone isn’t enough to measure it.

My next thought went to comments.  Comments abound on line. Ever since the early days of the internet, we have been contributors in one way or another.  Remember chat rooms?

But. there’s are more than a couple of things to consider when using comments to measure the impact of what is written. Comments carry immediacy, but often lack intimacy, and quantity (q) doesn’t equal (≠) quality (Q).  No matter how many trolls contribute with their best AM radio host impressions, their contributions seldom make genuine dialoge (d) let alone discourse (D).  So with that in mind I give you the following expressions to consider:

Q < q
q without Q ≠ d
Q + q = d
d + q = D

There’s a larger question here of how we measure the the quality of comments to determine whether they contribute to dialogue, but for this purpose, lets just assume we’ve figured that out. I am not ignoring the importance of this question, just setting it aside for later consideration.

Moving on to another expression that will eventually become part of an overall equation to measuring impact is sharing (S). Media that goes viral can be considered both qualitative and quantitative.  Although not all viral media is qualitative it is all quantitative. With that it mind the question becomes how we measure the quality (Q) of viral media.

So now we add action (A) to the equation. If we want to measure the impact of media and online journalism, we need to consider action. Action is what defines Effective Media (EM), and Effective Media can be measured by the Action that is a direct result of Quality Dialogue that is Shared:

(EM=(QD(S)) = A

So, if we want to consider Impact by measuring Action, that measurement has to be proportional.

A local news story that creates community action for example can be considered effective, where a local story that goes national without Action may not be considered as effective. And, this requires us to decide which actions are effective, and which are not.

Is community action less effective than legislative change? Is legislative change more effective than public opinion?  Does public opinion have a place in Discourse where ideas are considered with great rigor?  And how do we translate and channel all of this back to those who create content, news, media and journalism?

For producers, be they journalist, content writers, media creators or what ever falls in to the et. al. of this category it’s important to consider why we do this.  Yes, we want to tell stories. Yes, we want to put information out there that may not otherwise see the light of day. Yes, we want to eat.  But ultimately, altruistically, what is it we are really trying to contribute to?

 

 

 

 

Share

Comments Off on Quantifying Words and Impact

Filed under Journalism, Tools

Journalism and Capitalism

When asked if a Journalist can be a good Capitalist, the first thing that came to my mind was baby cut carrots. In the 1980’s an innovative California farmer named Mike Yurosek, wanted to find a way to use otherwise unseemly carrots. After some experimentation and creative use of industrial machinery, baby cut carrots soon became the new darling of the produce world. Not long after their introduction, new carrots were bred for uniformity of color and size and sweetness. Now, more than 172 million tons of these cleaned, pealed, easy to consume, betacarotene packed snacks are sold a year.

The story of baby cut carrots is a nice example of how a little tweak can change consumer behavior. And on the surface, I can’t help but think maybe the same could be done for Journalism. Maybe we just need to make it more attractive, easier to consume and somehow diminutive. But then I realized we already do that with online media, and specifically micro-blogging.  What’s more diminutive than 140 characters and emoticons? And links in our online endeavors can provide the hidden nutrition in our information snacks.

So, I set aside the carrot idea and decided to revisit Economics theory to figure out exactly what this question was asking. What I found in my review was that the basis of Capitalism is economic gain that benefits the individual above all others.  The public good or nutritional value are irrelevant. And this is contrary to the fundamentals of what I believe good journalism to be: information that engages the public to participate for the betterment of society. If we are only about personal gain, then statutes like “do no harm,” have no place in our profession, and that’s something I personally wouldn’t be able to stomach.

The reality of it is, to survive as an endeavor, Journalism requires money, but to survive as a business it has to make profit. If you take the profit part out, you’re left with what is now a growing trend of non-profit journalism. Although the desire for profit can fuel innovation, the nature of non-profit (one hopes) decreases the dueling intentions.

The thing about baby cut carrots is, even though they are somewhat processed, they are still relatively good for you. Small tweaks make a difference. In Journalism, we just need to make sure we are tweaking the right thing.

 

 

Share

Comments Off on Journalism and Capitalism

Filed under asides, Journalism

What if it cost money every time you want to share?

 

 

 

Share

Comments Off on What if it cost money every time you want to share?

Filed under asides, Journalism, Tools