Bleacher Report has two paid educational programs, the Advanced Program in Sports Media, which focuses on sportswriting in digital media, and the Advanced Program in Editing and Content Management, which focuses on editing.
We’ve been visiting college journalism programs lately talking about these programs. They’re targeted at advanced journalism students, those reaching the end of their education, as well as early-career professionals. Bleacher Report hires a fair number of writers and editors out of the programs, though there are no guarantees, and the skills developed in the programs should benefit students at any digital media operation.
One piece of feedback I’ve gotten from students and professors is that they’re having a hard time understanding what actually happens in the programs on a daily basis. What’s the curriculum?
So we’ve taken the first step in answering that question by posting the syllabus of the Advanced Program in Sports Media. We’re making some changes in the syllabus of the Advanced Program in Editing and Content Management. We’ll post that one soon.
Both the APSM and the APECM are paid, part-time programs that students can participate in from anywhere. There’s a lot of one-on-one attention from editors and instructors, which happens over the phone, email, G-chat, Skype or whatever else works for the student. The average time investment is about 12 hours a week for the 12 weeks. Students get paid upon completion of each week’s lesson and assignments.
The APSM doesn’t require students to move to San Francisco or New York and doesn’t take so much time in their week that they can’t do other jobs or internships at the same time. But don’t be fooled: It’s serious business. Walk yourself through any week on that syllabus and you’ll get an idea of the rigor involved.
I get a lot of inquiries at this time of year from students looking for spring or summer internships. The APSM and APECM are year-round, with rolling admissions. That means you can apply any time and your 12 weeks can start any time. But if you’re looking for a good journalism educational experience—or know of someone who is—have a look.
The Bleacher Report Blog will go on hiatus for the two holiday weeks and return Jan. 5.
The Nieman Lab is running a series called “Predictions for Journalism 2015.” The Lab asked “some of the smartest people we know” to write about what they think will happen in the coming year, and their answers will keep appearing through the end of the week.
As I write this, three dozen have been published. And some of those include more than one prediction. Here’s Sarah Marshall of the Wall Street Journal with 10 predictions. This is an ambitious project.
To save Nieman Lab a lot of (fictional) money, and to prove a point, I am not going to write (more) predictions for next year. It’s too hard and too expensive. So I’m going to let my computer do it.
To do this, I took all of last year’s predictions—all 38,053 words of them—and fed them to a Highly Technological Natural Machine Language Learning Algorithm Bot (nerds: a simple Markov chain generator). Using that corpus and that algorithm, I generated 200 Original Statements About the Future.
Then, using a Highly Advanced Editorial Workflow System I call editing, I cut those 200 statements down to a set of predictions that I will now claim as my own.
Among them: “We’ll probably see some more super-rich people jumping into the product.” And “We will pass from the connections. It makes sense to fact-check a twerking video. Thankfully there’s no thundersnow.”
As Waite points out, his predictions couldn’t do any worse than his predictions did a year ago, and it only took him a few seconds. That’s progress.
MediaShift, PBS’s site covering the nexus of media and technology, has named its Top 10 Media Stories of 2014 as part of its 2014 Year in Review series, which looks like it’ll be a good one to keep an eye over the next couple of weeks.
Writer Sonia Paul pegs “Billionaire Trouble” at No. 1, citing the troubles at Pierre Omidyar’s First Look Media and the recent mess at The New Republic, which is owned by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. These “troubles” are the result of what Paul calls “the tension between Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and journalists,” which figures to be a dynamic that isn’t going anywhere.
Facebook comes in at No. 2 with its “gobbling up” of Whatsapp and Oculus Rift. Paul writes:
The entire [Facebook] operation is a behemoth to be reckoned with for news organizations and other publishers. A recent Pew study found that more than 30 percent of American adults now get their news on Facebook. These algorithms that dictate what pops up on a person’s news feed, whether the user is tweaking them or not, influence how users are getting their news. The result is that publishers are ever more dependent on these social media traffic referrals, especially as users continue to increase their use of mobile devices and access Facebook from their phones or tablets. Facebook in effect is becoming a life raft to publishers, and is encouraging them to use more of its tools to promote content on the social network. The question is, even if they’re not sinking, will the life raft help publishers actually swim?
The rest of the top 10, of which you should click over to read Paul’s sharp analysis:
3. HBO’s new streaming service
4. The Amazon-Hachette battle
5. Vice, Vox, BuzzFeed raising big money
6. Hashtag activism
7. Podcast revival
8. Global journalism, the danger of “bearing witness”
9. Data journalism
10. Gamergate, online harassment
Jane Friedman, who teaches digital publishing & media at the University of Virginia and offers lots of great advice for journalists on her blog, posted her favorite digital tools for 2014 Monday.
You can subscribe to Electric Speed, Friedman’s monthly newsletter in which she “focuses on tools and resources for writers, usually digital media tools.” This post rounds up her favorite ones she started using this year.
The only one of the six that I use—a result of my ignorance of the other five—is Evernote. It’s hardly a slick new player. Friedman admits that she’s been hearing about it for years and finally figured out how to work it in to her life in 2014. I had a similar experience, finally giving in to the nagging of certain friends and co-workers in 2011—at which point I commenced kicking myself for not having started using it in 1983, whether it had been invented or not.
I am by nature a disorganized, chaotic person. Evernote hasn’t solved that problem, but it’s helped me a lot. I am much more likely to be able to find a note, a document, an idea, a receipt or anything else that can be saved in Evernote than I was four years ago.
The first item I saved in Evernote was a reservation for my kid’s birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese’s. It’s been all uphill from there.
Friedman’s other recommendations are for Zoom, Canva, CrashPlan, Scrivener and Asana, all of which I plan to at least try.
Pretty soon we’re going to start seeing lists of the best sportswriting of 2014, and I’ll try to collect them on the B/R Blog so you and I can make sure we catch up on any great writing we’ve missed.
One way to get a pile of great writing every week year-round is to follow ESPN senior writer Don Van Natta Jr.’s Sunday Long Reads. It’s a list of 10 great pieces of long-form journalism chosen by Van Natta and Jacob Feldman, a Harvard undergraduate who writes for the Crimson.
This week’s list includes three sports stories, if you count pro wrestling as a sport. Either way, The Legend of Panther Girl, by Jeff Maysh in Victory Journal, has the top spot. The other two sports pieces are Jordan Ritter Conn’s Grantland profile of Tommy Gaines, a basketball legend turned drug addict, and Seth Wickersham’s ESPN story about Scot McCloughan, a wildly successful NFL talent evaluator who’s out of the business.
Other pieces cited cover ISIS, neonaticide, the mess at The New Republic and more.
A good first goal would be to read all 10 stories every week. A good second goal would be to make the list. Good luck.
- Journalists don’t like to be “disrupted” and shoved into a “vertically integrated media company.”
- Social hasn’t been the death knell of publishers—at least, not yet.
- New business models flourished.
- It’s a native world—as in native advertising.
- The pageview’s not dead, but it’s got competition.
Moses elaborates on each of the five. It’s short, and worth the brief read.
And lived to tell the tale.
“I didn’t expect to be able to think as clearly as I could,” McCarson told me via email. The writer, who is, uh, a heavyweight, worked out hard for six weeks at the same Houston gym where Charlo trains. “I thought once he punched me I’d lose my composure, but that never really happened. The first round was the most anxious of the four, but that’s because the adrenaline hit me and I was flustered about how fast he was. He was so fast!”
In the Boxing Channel video of the sparring match, there’s a great moment when McCarson walks back to his corner shaking his head after one of the rounds. His trainer chuckles, “Yeah, he’s fast.”
Charlo and McCarson traded leather as a fund-raiser for 6-year-old Corbin Glasscock, a friend of McCarson’s from Tyler, Texas. Corbin was diagnosed with bone cancer in October, and he and his family were at the match, according to Boxing Channel. The event raised about $8,000 for the family, McCarson said.
Donations are still being accepted at GoFundMe/TeamCorbin.
I asked McCarson what it was like to get in the ring with a world-class fighter in his prime.
“I knew how much better he’d be than me, so I wasn’t surprised about that,” he said. “But I still thought he wouldn’t be able to be so close to me and not get hit very much. But he could pretty much do whatever he wanted in there.”
McCarson said Charlo clearly went easy on him, though the fighter did land a straight left that snapped McCarson’s head back, “and he landed some pretty decent body blows every round.”
McCarson said his ribs hurt the day after the fight, but when we spoke three days later: “My nose hurts. My neck hurts. My shoulders hurt. My back. It’s bad. I liken it to whiplash after a car accident. It’s that bad, bordering on excruciating at times.”
Well, you have to suffer for your art, or in this case, your sweet science.
Once the pain subsides, the lefty McCarson will always have the memory of landing a double right hook, to the body and head. “I’m pretty sure he didn’t expect me capable of throwing the combination, so that’s why it landed so well,” he said. “That was my shining moment!”
As a followup to yesterday’s B/R Blog post about how journalists should prepare for the future—by acquiring deep knowledge—here’s a piece on PBS MediaShift headlined “How to Teach Sports Journalists to Get Out of Their Comfort Zone.”
Writer Molly Yanity, a longtime sportswriter who now teaches at Quinnipiac University, is talking to other journalism teachers, but as I wrote yesterday, anyone with an eye to having a future in media, which means a career of adapting, can benefit from the advice.
Let’s start by not letting a sports team be a beat for class and suggest the student cover an issue related to the entire department instead. Maybe it is gender issues and athletics. Or, perhaps it is law, university policy and the athletics program.
This forces students out of the routine and into a completely different mindset. The student must identify complex story ideas, conduct difficult interviews, analyze public documents, consider different forms of media for presentation and still search for feel-good stories not found in press releases.
It also guides students to think unilaterally about a topic that sustains their attention for a long period of time.
It forces them to care.
Imagine if a major news outlet assigned a reporter to the NFL & off-field issues beat. The stories would be diverse, informative, ahead of the breaking news curve and serve a real purpose in society outside of fantasy football.
Yanity also suggests that writer be aware of historical context, and that they find ways to care. That is, work on stories that actually mean something. She cites Kate Fagan’s Brittney Griner profile for ESPN, “Owning the Middle,” as an example.
Bleacher Report NFL writer Michael Schottey passes along a Chronicle of Higher Education piece headlined To Prepare 21st-Century Journalists, Help Students Become Experts.
The piece, by G. Pascal Zachary, a professor at Arizona State’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, is aimed at other journalism educators, but any “21st-century journalists” can benefit from its ideas. Zachary argues that journalism educators who are responding to changes in the media business are putting too much emphasis on teaching students how to use new digital tools. This has “become a new orthodoxy, a meek response to the radical changes in who journalists are and what they do.”
The truth is that good journalism depends on expertise that arises from subject-area mastery, deep engagement with rigorous disciplines, and interdisciplinary skills. As journalism schools embrace digital tools as a solution to threatened extinction, journalism consumed by the wider public is increasingly created by experts who reach mass audiences directly through TED talks, blogs, articles, and tweets, for example. Think of Paul Krugman, an economist now best known for his journalism on economics, public policy, and world affairs. Or Nate Silver, who also holds economics degrees and is among a handful of the hottest journalists on the planet.
Zachary writes that when he began his career in the 1970s, he “thrived on a kind of arbitrage. I went to City Hall and observed a meeting. I went to the police station and got a report. I acted as intermediary between a star athlete and his fans. The days of arbitrage journalism are long gone. Journalists instead need deep knowledge.” He concludes:
The creative destruction of journalism as an occupation remains in full swing. Much is uncertain, but this much is clear: In an era of pervasive digital networks that instantly deliver news with scant human help, the successful journalist will be, above all, a knowledge maker.
Food for thought, and it leads to an important question: What do you know?
Note: “Scant human help” refers to algorithm-generated journalism.
You may have been following the story of the bloodbath at The New Republic in the last week.
Here’s a Huffington Post lede to get you up to speed if not:
NEW YORK—Dozens of staff members and contributing editors at The New Republic resigned en masse Friday morning, less than 24 hours after top editors Franklin Foer and Leon Wieseltier quit over a dispute with management over the magazine’s direction.
New Republic owner Chris Hughes and newly installed CEO Guy Vidra announced Thursday they were repositioning the 100-year-old magazine to become a “vertically integrated digital media company.” They hired Gabriel Snyder, who previously ran Gawker and The Wire, and was most recently at Bloomberg Media, to be its new editor-in-chief.
We don’t need to get into the guts of the dispute between Hughes, a Facebook founder who says TNR must modernize to become a sustainable business, and the old-school journalists who quit as a group, accusing Hughes of replacing journalism values with, in the words of a person quoted by the Daily Beast, “Silicon Valley jargon.”
But it’s worth reading two pieces that get into the use of the word “product,” which we talked about on the B/R Blog recently.
Jay Rosen of NYU created a Storify around some tweets that he says shows a disconnect between how journalists and technologists understand that word. I’ll stitch four of Rosen’s own tweets together to show his central argument:
Technologists tend to ask what the “product” should be, and they know what they mean by that. Product = “what the users interact with.” To technologists, “product” is always changing because tech changes, platforms rise and fall, user habits shift, what works evolves, etc. For journalists, “what should the product be?” is an EASY question to answer. Should be great journalism! Big stories. Brilliant writing. Because of this disconnect around “product,” technologists and journalists talk past one another. Result: “dinosaurs denounce buzzwords.”
Dave Winer, a pioneering software developer and writer who used to do a podcast with Rosen called “Rebooting the News,” writes that as a technologist, he thinks about “product” exactly how Rosen says technologists think about it. Addressing “news people,” Winer writes:
Maybe The New Republic editors were a little hasty? Maybe it was just a language disconnect. I think perhaps you guys just realized there is a world out there that doesn’t think the way you do. Is that really so bad?? For all of our lunacy tech really has produced some good stuff, over the years.
I can’t tell you whether you should embrace a so-called Silicon Valley approach to journalism or stand and fight for old-school journalism. But whichever side you’re on, I think it’s worthwhile to work hard at understanding what everyone involved is really saying, and, as Winer suggests, considering the possibility that someone else’s way of looking at the world might be valid.
Innovation is the dominant theme in the media business in the last decade or two, and innovation always starts with someone looking at the world in a different way.