Let’s begin with the Internet-connected TV sets that were all the rage at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show. True, there were several competing systems on display, but that doesn’t mean broadcasters should dismiss them, says Arthur Greenwald at TVNewscheck, because those systems could soon converge.

If so, they’ll arrive in one massive wave that could completely disrupt the way people watch TV — and threaten the way broadcasters do business…Today’s smart TVs are precocious toddlers, little more than key word matches within a single program guide. But they’ll soon skip a grade and display much more sophisticated selections.

When a broadcast channel is just one of dozens of icons on the screen, how hard will it be to find? And when promos don’t reach viewers, how hard will it be to sustain expensive programming?

Now, consider the aggressive push by YouTube to launch 100 channels of original, specialty programs available only online. Those channels won’t just be watched on computer screens and tablets. Thanks to connected TVs at set-top boxes, they’ll be watched on big screens, too. So broadcast execs should worry, says consultant Will Richmond.

YouTube – and the many others who are pursuing original online programming – are still in their early days. But when combined with changes in viewer behavior, the proliferation of connected and mobile viewing devices and the firming up of online video monetization models, I’m betting that these efforts, particularly those led by YouTube, are going to be a highly disruptive force to the traditional TV ecosystem.

Broadcasters have been counting on mobile digital TV to change the game in their favor. When users can get high-quality streaming video for free on multiple devices, the thinking goes, they’ll be less interested in paying for “over the top” services that require an Internet connection. But mobile TV has been at the starting gate for a couple of years, while connected TVs and set-top boxes are selling now.

[Update: Just hours after this post was published, The Huffington Post announced plans to launch a live streaming video network this summer, described as “never-ending talk show.”]

What are broadcast executives doing to prepare for this disruptive future?

The assignment feature allows producers to tell photographers how much they’ll be paid. Photo and video journalists retain rights to the work they create using the app and can share it with their followers on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.

The free service launched for iPhone last November; an Android app is in the works. Rawporter allows publishers from news organizations to bloggers to solicit either video or stills via geolocation push notices and to pay users for their work. In an interview with the citizen journalism blog NewsMeBack, co-founder Kevin Davis said the tool aims to make it easier for “everyday people to cash in on being in the right place at the right time.”

Rawporter wants to help media outlets crowdsource cost-efficient news content that they would normally not have access to. At the same time, it’s important to us that our contributors’ rights are protected, and that they get the recognition they deserve. That’s why, if something sells, contributors get paid. If something is used, they get the on-screen or online credit.

The new reality of local TV newsrooms, which produce more hours of news than ever before, makes these kinds of tools appealing to managers and anathema to professional photojournalists. We’ve written about this new world in which everyone is a news photographer before. YouTube claims that many news organizations are using its Direct platform to collect citizen reporting about news events, among them ABC News, the Huffington Post, NPR, Politico, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, WHDH-TV in Boston, Tribune Company, Gannett, Al Jazeera, and ITN News. Rawporter is so new, it’s hard to tell if it’s being used at all. The question, once again, is whether these tools are a serious threat to the profession.

My own sense is that newsrooms won’t use these services instead of staff photojournalists, but they may turn to them when news breaks where they can’t go, or when they can’t get somewhere fast enough. But freelancers could face a real pinch if stations find they can reliably and quickly get cheap video of breaking news from a bystander with a smartphone. Beyond that, asking non-journalists to get video in what could be dangerous situations raises all kinds of ethical red flags.

What’s your view?

As I noted last August, the nightly summaries now give viewers a real choice. Just how different the network newscasts have become is apparent in Andrew Tyndall’s new 2011 Year in Review report.

International news dominated network television coverage with three of the top five stories of the year: political turmoil in Libya and Egypt, and the tsunami and earthquake in Japan. And the networks took noticeably different approaches, with NBC spending the most time on international news and ABC lagging in third place, despite the name of its broadcast–World News.

ABC also spent the least time on hard news and substantially more time than the other two on features and soft news. CBS spent the most time covering the economy while NBC led the group in weather coverage–perhaps not surprising given its corporate ties to the Weather Channel.

The list of correspondents who got the most air time is revealing in itself. ABC’s David Muir got the most exposure by far, 343 minutes covering domestic news. ABC’s White House correspondent Jake Tapper was in second place with 283 minutes. NBC’s Richard Engel reported on foreign news (246) and Chuck Todd from the White House (226). It’s usually a given that covering the White House is a ticket to lots of air time but that didn’t hold true for CBS. That network’s top reporter was Nancy Cordes (226), who covers Capitol Hill.

The other impression you get from the list of most-used correspondents is that ABC and NBC have an A-list, while CBS spreads the wealth. ABC and NBC each have five correspondents in the top 20; CBS has the remaining 10.

One last note: NBC’s Brian Williams has a much larger ”magic“ quotient –the term used at CBS back in the days of Walter Cronkite to describe the amount of time the anchor spent on camera during the broadcast. NBC Nightly News had more than 1,000 minutes’ worth of non-reporter stories, compared to about 850 on CBS and 600 on ABC.

Using Facebook for a TV investigation: Proof that social media are great reporting tools.

Digital note-taking tools: A review of free and low-cost software to help you keep track of information.

How to learn social media skills at mid-career: A three-point plan for getting up to speed on social media.

Is there any hope for quality in local TV news?: Review of a documentary that paints a gloomy picture.

Why journalists should learn to love data: Tips and tools for working with data that can lead you to great stories.

Do-it-yourself interactive graphics: How to use ManyEyes.

Recommended journalism textbooks: Originally posted in 2008, an updated list leading off with the second edition of Advancing the Story.

Secrets of the TV stations of the year: The shared newsroom culture and personal connections behind the three 2011 winners.

How to interview children: A tip sheet on how to talk to kids on camera.

Resolve to be a more enterprising reporter: What is takes to turn better stories (posted on New Year’s Eve 2010).

What did I learn by looking back at this list? It seems pretty obvious that tips and how-to posts are most popular with NewsLab regulars, so one of my goals for this year is to bring you more of what you’re looking for. If you have specific requests, please let me know.

In the meantime, here’s to a terrific 2012.

This was the year that Al Jazeera English made its mark in the U.S. with its coverage of the Arab Spring, says the Huffington Post. It was also a terrible year for NPR, as top bosses were ousted and the network got a big story terribly wrong–falsely reporting the death of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Biggest interview scoops of 2011? HuffPo gives credit for most of its top 10 to TV networks, with ABC in the lead for snagging the first interview with Giffords, among others. Also on the list, NBC’s Bob Costas’ interview with ex-Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, which Costas later said came as a complete surprise and was set up at the last minute by Sandusky’s lawyer. Maybe it belongs in a different category: scoops that fall in your lap.

In television, it was a year of departures, says Tom Jicha of the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. In TV news, he highlights the end of Katie Couric’s less than stellar five-year run as anchor of the CBS Evening News. I’d add a few more.

• Meredith Vieira stepped down from NBC’s Today Show, also after five years. “It wasn’t working for me in terms of my personal life,” she said.
• Christiane Amanpour was eased out as host of ABC’s This Week just over a year into her tenure with the broadcast still mired in third.
• Keith Olbermann, unceremoniously dumped by MSNBC, found a new home for Countdown, doing the same shtick for fewer viewers, on Current TV.
• Glenn Beck, boycotted by advertisers, parted ways with Fox News and started his own Web channel.

So many anchors and reporters left CNBC this year, one critic wondered about “brain drain.” And there was one more memorable departure–Andy Rooney, the longtime curmudgeon-commentator for CBS’s 60 Minutes, died in November.

Broadcast-related entries on Mashable’s list of top digital journalism events include the rise to Twitter stardom of NPR’s Andy Carvin and a new emphasis on mobile delivery, calling CNN’s acquisition of the iPad app Zite ”arguably the biggest mobile move by a news organization.”

The list of biggest journalism gaffes of the year, courtesy of HuffPo, includes several recent whoppers, including Fox News’ use of an Obama photo to illustrate GOP poll results and NBC’s Chuck Todd flipping the bird on air. There were plenty of local screw-ups too, including the Minnesota anchor whose slurring newscast video went viral who was later arrested for DWI. And the Minneapolis station “investigation” that claimed dog meat was for sale in New York’s Chinatown apparently based on a reporter’s having misheard the word “duck.”

For my in-depth take on more serious trends in local TV news, you’ll have to wait just a bit longer. I’m writing that chapter again for the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s annual report, The State of the News Media, due out in March.

When did videotaping become a crime?

Several recent incidents suggest a disturbing new trend: public safety officials targeting photographers, including professionals. “Cops don’t want to be identified,” says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “They don’t want their pictures taken.”

The relationship between journalists and police officers has always been tense, of course. “They’re both aggressive professions, and sometimes they get in one another’s face,” says John Timoney, former police chief in Miami and Philadelphia.

But something clearly has changed. “It used to be guys with a reputation for not following orders” who wound up in confrontations with police, Dalglish says. “These days, it’s folks keeping their mouths shut and doing their jobs.”

In the Milwaukee case, Fillinger was charged with obstructing a police officer after he objected to being forced back “for safety” while members of the public were allowed to stay put, watching the house fire from across the street. His boss concedes that he used an expletive and raised his arm when the officer closed in on him, but says the arrest was not justified.

“While the language was coarse, I truly believe Clint had no intention of touching the officer, and the whole thing certainly did not rise to the level of being dropped to the ground and handcuffed,” says Jim Lemon, news director at Milwaukee’s Fox affiliate, WITI. “It was a bad spur-of-the-moment decision made by the police commanders on the scene.”

Two recent cases in Suffolk County, New York, reflect similar bad decisions. In late July, a photographer for a local TV news service was arrested while videotaping the end of a police chase. An officer ordered Phil Datz to leave the scene, even though he was standing on a public street with other people. When Datz asked where he was supposed to go, the officer responded, “I don’t care where you go, just go away.” After Datz set up in the next block and started shooting video again, the officer jumped in his squad car, raced up to Datz and arrested him for obstruction. The charges were dropped.

A few weeks after that incident, an emergency services official in the same jurisdiction manhandled a photojournalist for New York’s NBC-owned station, WNBC, as he tried to videotape the cleanup of a chemical spill. The official grabbed the photographer’s camera and tried to wrestle it away.

What’s different now, some say, is the proliferation of cellphone cameras on the street combined with heightened concern about terrorism. “I think that post 9/11 police treat everyone with a camera as suspect,” says Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association. “In certain instances, news photographers are singled out because of their high visibility.”

Photojournalists aren’t the only ones who have been targeted. Cases are pending in several states against citizens who have been arrested and had their cameras confiscated after videotaping police action. And the arrests keep coming, even though the police keep losing in court. The latest ruling, from an appeals court in Massachusetts, said the First Amendment “unambiguously” protects the right of citizens to videotape police officers performing their duties in a public space. Journalists clearly deserve the same protection.

“The press may have no greater rights than those of the general public,” Osterreicher says. “They certainly have no less right of access on a public street.”

Police officers should know better than to run anyone in just for taking pictures. “We tell them constantly at the academy, ‘Take it for granted, you’re going to be on camera,’” Timoney says. “Everybody has a camera and they’re entitled to use it. We police have to suck it up.”

Journalism groups say officers need training to make sure they understand the rights of professionals and citizens alike to take pictures of police activity in public places. But Timoney doubts that more training is the answer. “If police don’t understand this now, all the training in the world isn’t going to help.”

Piling up victories in court probably won’t help either. When charges against photojournalists are dismissed, as they inevitably are, the police officers involved pay no penalty and face no sanctions. Suing for false arrest might make a difference, Dalglish says, by hitting the police department where it hurts – in the budget. But it’s unlikely any cash-strapped news organization would be willing to shoulder the cost of a lawsuit just to make a point.

So what’s to be done? Keep shooting, I say. Nothing makes a better case for the First Amendment than good video of a police officer behaving badly.

Originally published by American Journalism Review, December 2011

“After 45 years of chasing news professionally, I realize I cannot be first on the scene with a camera unless I am the first one on the scene,” says WCVB photojournalist Stanley Forman in the latest issue of NPPA News Photographer magazine.

The problem [is] that as a long-time news photographer, I cannot beat the competition any more. The competition is anyone who has a cell phone, smart phone or any other portable device that takes still or video. The other problem is that practically everyone has the technology and knows what to do with it.

Forman says this new reality has changed the way he approaches breaking news. He still tries to beat the other stations to the scene and shoots the best video he can right away. But now, he has an additional task: Find the best images other people have shot and secure them for his station.

“I do well on the search for the best stuff available because my station sort of allows me to make offers to the owner of the images with a financial reward,” Forman writes. Right there on the spot, he screens what others have shot and decides if it’s “good enough” to offer to purchase it.

Has the new reality changed the way you operate in the field on breaking news? I’d be curious to know how.

Donahue’s is just one of the voices in a new documentary, “Running on Empty: The Brain Drain in Local TV News,” produced by two Quinnipiac University journalism professors, Karin and Bill Schwanbeck. If it sounds like an unrelievedly gloomy look at local television news, that’s about half right. Former reporters and news directors paint a grim picture of a business content to replace experienced journalists with cheaper, less capable rookies–a business that largely refuses to invest in quality. According to the Schwanbecks, only four of 40 stations in the top ten markets give investigative journalists time to cover stories in depth: WFAA and KDFW in Dallas, and KHOU and KTRK in Houston.

The film doesn’t stop there. It also examines some efforts to change the paradigm, including non-profit journalism centers and online sites. But it’s clear that those efforts alone won’t fill the gap.

Producer Karin Schwanbeck says she hopes the documentary will spur some change, possibly an effort by the FCC to hold stations more accountable. But she admits she’s not optimistic. “I’m not sure if it’s too late,” she says. “The genie is out of the bottle and I’m not sure if we can put the genie back.”

Given that assessment, why is she still preparing young would-be journalists for jobs that might not exist? Because, Schwanbeck says, she hopes they’ll be the ones who might be able to make a difference. “As Dan Rather would say, ‘You have to learn to write and you have to learn to fight.’”

So says Laurie Oakes, political editor of Australia’s Nine Network, in a media lecture that’s full of interesting stuff. His comment struck me, in part, because I’d just finished reading a Q-and-A in SPJ’s Quill Magazine with ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger, winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for his series on “The Wall Street Money Machine.” Eisinger was asked how he overcomes roadblocks when people don’t want to talk to him.

I’m very clear and up front with people, and I lay out what I’m working on very clearly to them. I have an excess of disclosure and explanation of what I’m doing with them to reassure them that I’m serious and careful. And I think that persuades people. I think that they have a bad idea of what journalists are up to, and if you emphasize and then show them that you are extremely careful and you want to be fair and accurate, I think that builds trust with them even if they know that you’ve got evidence of things that don’t make them look good.

Sneaky, Eisinger is not. But is it ever OK for a journalist to be sneaky? It probably depends on what you think that term means. As far as Oakes is concerned, he says he was being sneaky when he asked a question of a source that appeared to be based on hard information but was really just conjecture about a pending appointment.

“When will Gair take up his diplomatic post?” Shocked silence at the other end of the line. Then: “How did you know about that?” Bingo. Sure it was subterfuge, but subterfuge in the public interest.

That doesn’t strike me as underhanded. He’d identified himself as a journalist and was just fishing for information. So if that’s the definition of sneaky, I guess I’m for it. How about you?

What’s giving me a headache is the quandary I’m now facing—maybe you are too—over what to do with my page on Facebook.  For years, we’ve been advising journalists to separate their personal and professional presence on Facebook, which is exactly what I’ve done with NewsLab. But Facebook’s new “subscribe” feature now lets you create public posts on your personal page that everyone can see (if you allow subscriptions), while restricting others to friends or friends of friends.

The subscribe dilemma

There are several advantages to the new system but also some pitfalls. Once you allow subscriptions on your personal page, all of your friends are automatically subscribed to your public posts. If you’ve friended people only for professional reasons, you can now subscribe to their posts (presume they turn on subscriptions) and unfriend them. They’ll still see your public posts and they’ll never know you took them off the list. Lavrusik says Facebook deliberately chose the verb “subscribe,” which doesn’t carry the same implication as “friend.” For journalists, it’s certainly less of a stretch to subscribe to a public official’s posts than to become his or her “friend” or “fan.”

Another plus of the new system is that anyone whose friend request you ignore automatically becomes a subscriber to your public feed. You don’t have to do anything and they won’t necessarily know you didn’t accept their request. Nice.

Timeline trouble?

The changes don’t stop there. Facebook’s new timeline view gives users more space but makes information more accessible in ways that may be discomfiting. The good: Status updates are no longer limited to 420 characters; anything longer used to have to be sent as a note, but now a post can run up to 5,000 characters.  And photos in the timeline are bigger and snappier. An album cover photo gets the most real estate so it’s important to select wisely.

The timeline also makes it easy to see everything you’ve ever posted by date, without scrolling to the bottom of each page and clicking “view older posts.” It allows you to add information retroactively (and get rid of it, too). The goal seems to be to make Facebook the repository of your entire life story, or at least the story of your online life. One critic says this change will make Facebook a stalker’s paradise. If you haven’t cleaned up your profile lately, there’s no time to waste. Employers are certainly going to use the new feature to learn everything about you.

Here’s another potential pitfall. The status update type defaults to whatever you used last, so you have to be careful not to send “friends only” posts to the whole world if your most recent post was public. One positive new feature is that you can change the type of post retroactively, so if you goof and you’re aware of it you can fix it.

Profile vs. page

But the “subscribe” feature only applies to personal profiles, not pages. And some of the features of pages—most importantly the traffic “insights”—don’t apply to personal profiles. So if you decide to use the subscribe feature and post both personal and professional items on your personal page, targeting them to different audiences, you won’t know as much about who’s reading what you write as you do now, using a page. See why my head hurts?

So what would you do? Should I activate the “subscribe” feature and use my personal profile to post professional stuff for public consumption?  If I do, should I keep the NewsLab page on Facebook and cross post there? I welcome all suggestions!