Real-time Journalism: il futuro della notizia
Il Monella

Mumble mumble...

Real-time Journalism: il futuro della notizia

Ovvero: il coinvolgimento del lettore nell'era del giornalismo post-industriale.

"Il tempo della notizia – news cycle – è passato dalle 24 ore ai 24 secondiIl real-time crea coinvolgimento alla luce - non a dispetto - di questo cambiamento"

Real-time Journalism - Il futuro della notizia fra liveblogging e coinvolgimento esplora il mondo del giornalismo in diretta e lancia la sfida dell'engagement del lettore: unica, vera unità di misura del mondo digitale.  

In parallelo con la pubblicazione di questo mio primo saggio in formato ebook, viene lanciata questa pagina come primo blog collettivo italiano sul tema, e approdo naturale per tutti i naviganti italiani nel mondo del giornalismo real-time. Consideratelo come un dialogo in tempo reale, invece che una monolitica vulgata:  un viaggio comune, non un soliloquio: così come auspico che sia il giornalismo del futuro.

Siete invitati - tecnici, giornalisti, curiosi e lettori - a commentare e inviare spunti di riflessione. 

Richiedete l'accesso alla piattaforma, e vi sarà dato. Potete usare il comodo box qui sotto. L'hashtag per la discussione è #realtimejourno: gli spunti colti su Twitter nutriranno questo liveblog, e viceversa. La mia email è lillo@ilmonella.com. 

  • Non vedo l'ora di leggerlo questo saggio sulle dirette. Dove lo posso aquistare?
    Tex 7/11/2013 12:59:29 PM
    Commenta ()

  • In uscita settimana prossima: con un po' di ritardo sulla tabella di marcia... ma ci siamo quasi! 


    Gli ultimi capitoli dell'ebook sono stati scritti a Nuova Iorc. Nonostante dalla foto si intuisca freddo e clima burrascoso pre-Sandy, facevano in realtà 40 gradi all'ombra. Concentrarsi è stata un'impresa. 

    SPOILER ALERT: Deliri, vaneggiamenti, previsioni apocalittiche ed esaltazione bacchica iconoclasta potrebbero imperversare indisturbati nel finale di ebookQuando me ne se chiederà conto, darò la colpa al caldo eccessivo. 



    lillo 7/12/2013 2:37:00 PM
    Commenta ()

  • Il digitale è una cultura, non una tecnica

    Il “digitale” non è una una “tecnologia”, men che meno una “tecnica”. Il digitale è una cultura, che informa di sé l’intero universo che abitiamo, in particolare l’universo dei giornalisti. Il digitale, dunque, non è il giornalismo che si fa su certi particolari mezzi (es.: il web). Se esistesse un mercato per un giornale scritto con la penna d’oca su una pergamena dovremmo sfruttarlo, ma chi al giorno d’oggi scrivesse con la penna d’oca su una pergamena dovrebbe comunque essere un “giornalista digitale”, cioè un giornalista che vive e comprende l’universo nel quale vive, che è - appunto - digitale.


    Il sentimento di questo ebook sembra quasi ispirato dalle parole di Mario Tedeschini Lalli del Gruppo Espresso. 

    Come dico nelle conclusioni, riprendendo le parole di Emily Bell, ex direttrice dei contenuti digitali per The Guardian e co-autrice del saggio “Post-Industrial Journalism”: "You need to be really quick and really good. The question of how quick is irrelevant. Everybody, long or short form, need to be part of the conversation in real-time."
    Per farlo, è necessario pensare digitale, come dice Tedeschini Lalli.

    Per il giornalismo italiano - un mondo in cui tradizionalmente fatti e opinioni si amalgamano e confondono, si dividono le righe dello stesso articolo e si cammuffano gli uni con gli altri - il real-time rappresenta non solo una sfida quanto una nuova frontiera.
    lillo 7/13/2013 11:36:26 AM
    Commenta ()
  • Visto che parliamo di futuro della notizia...

    Non possiamo prescindere dal dibattito in corso in questo momento, scatenato dall'articolo della Borri sulla misera condizione del freelance (un pezzo molto potente, ma che lascia parecchi dubbi - le va comunque dato il merito di aver innescato un dibattito.)



    Ecco qui la fantastica testimonianza di Barbara Schiavulli, corrispondente di guerra. Con nomi, cognomi e cifre.

    Tutte le tecniche, gli strumenti e le forme narrative di questo mondo non contano, se alla base non c'è professionalità e rispetto per la dignità della storia (e del giornalista che la racconta).  


    lillo 7/15/2013 12:11:01 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Perchè un liveblog?


    If you’re wondering why I’m doing this, it’s because twitter can be hard to follow. One person tweets, gets 3 responses, then starts replying to each one, some you may see, some you don’t, and it degenerates from there, especially a sudden high-traffic topic like #prenda. What twitter is good at is is real-time.

    So, this liveblog is like a private twitter focused just on this issue, and you get to see everything. plus it’ll incorporate twitter as well. So it’s handy for everyone. And when the events over, you can look back at it.


    Grazie per la segnalazione, Anonymous.


    lillo 7/15/2013 12:28:18 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Buongiorno a tutti. Secondo giorno di liveblog. Come avrete notato, oggi si ospita una chat virtuale su temi importanti non solo per tutti gli aspiranti storytellers digitali, ma per tutti i giornalisti e professionisti della comunicazione alle prese con l'atavico dilemma velocità vs qualità. 

    Si tratta di syndication, ciò che individuo come uno degli scenari futuri più interessanti per il giornalismo alla fine del mio ebook: condivisione multi-redazionale di contenuto di qualità... in tempo reale! 
    Se non siete già al mare (maledetti!) godetevi il dibattito odierno su questo liveblog. Sarà in inglese, e avrete la possibilità di inviare direttamente le vostre domande a Craig Silverman, Mary McGuire e Laura Johnston da qui. 

    Sarò impegnato tra Roma e Milano per lavoro, ma farò il possibile per tenere questo blog aggiornato costantemente!  Enjoy!

    lillo 7/16/2013 8:28:30 AM
    Commenta ()
  • Sperimentare con nuovi formati


    by lillo on Jul 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    In occasione dell'evento Nokia 41 Million Reasons - in cui è stato presentato... beh, Mantellini lo dice meglio di me...



    Il sito Engadget - finora  a me ovviamente sconosciuto - ha sperimentato un bellissimo formato per la sua diretta multimediale: 



    - possibilità di 'mettere in pausa' il liveblog;
    - bottone 'salta fino all'ultimo post';
    - immagini pubblicate sia nel flusso verticale sia, in cima, come galleria fotografica. Le due cose sono connesse;
    - possibilità di filtrare per testo o immagini;
    - linea temporale di navigazione.





    lillo 7/16/2013 8:35:49 AM
    Commenta ()
  • Scribble Chat: Real-time ethics

    L-R: Lauren Johnston, Craig Silverman, Mary McGuire
    by Allendria on Jul 16, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Good afternoon, and welcome to the first event in our ScribbleChat series: Real-time ethics.

    Please welcome our panellists: 

    Lauren Johnston is the digital editorial director for the New York Daily News and an adjunct professor in online journalism at St. John's University.

    Craig Silverman is a journalist, director of content for Spundge, founder and editor of Regret the Error and adjunct faculty at Poynter Institute. He was editorial director and part of the team that launched OpenFile.

    Mary McGuire is an online journalism professor at Carleton University who has taken a special interest in new media technologies, specifically the use of Twitter to cover high-profile court cases.

    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:02:00 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I'm your moderator, ScribbleLive digital journalism specialist Allendria Brunjes. Please feel free to leave your questions, and I'll pull them into the chat.
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:03:16 PM
    Commenta ()
  • My first question for the panellists: What different ethical dilemmas do you face in real-time that you wouldn't face in traditional journalism settings?
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:03:56 PM
    Commenta ()
  • The biggest challenge for journalists is the lack of any editorial filter.

    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:04:48 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Social media turns traditional practices on their head. It's publish then filter, rather than the other way around.
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:05:16 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Hi all! I'm happy to be here. I agree with Mary that one aspect is that real-time situations put more decision-making onus on individuals, often without the support network of editors etc.
    I think in many cases real-time situations will exasperate or heighten pre-existing ethical dillemmas. One example
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:05:32 PM
    Commenta ()
  • ...would be the speed v. accuracy issue that is always present. (Sorry for splitting this into to posts!)
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:06:13 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Hello everyone! Happy to be joining as well! I agree with Mary and Craig. In starting live coverage, you commit to offering readers a fast-paced continuous narrative in real-time, and that's a pace that tends to move along a lot faster than the usual editorial/verification process. There's often no copy editor buffer. We put more responsibility on the contributors to be right the first time they post and to be right really quickly.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:07:29 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Yes, Craig. And, the need to be first has been taken to extremes. But the danger is that no one really remembers who was first by a second or two, but they sure remember when you get something wrong. 
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:08:06 PM
    Commenta ()
  • To take it a bit further then – when you've made a mistake, what's your process to make a correction?
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:10:06 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I'd add to that, that after so many really big mistakes in recent real-time reporting efforts from some of our most trusted outlets (examples: AP and CNN both reporting that a suspect was in custody during the Boston bombing case when in fact there was no suspect in custody, the wrong brother's photo used in Newtown, etc.), we've learned that no one is immune to some of the pitfalls of this type of coverage. At the Daily News, we are trying to feel just a bit less pressure to be first and take more time to be right. (Of course it's best to be right AND first.)

    Instead of jumping in with reports we haven't independently confirmed in the very early stages, we have encouraged reporters to tell the audience that we are aware of reports circulating on XYZ and are trying to confirm, and will update when we are able.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:10:43 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Oops! Sorry Allendria! cross-posts ...
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:11:04 PM
    Commenta ()
  • No worries! Your post certainly brings up good points, too, about the pressures of being right versus first.
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:11:59 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Lauren makes good points. Most editors would probably say they want reporters to be both first and right, but the need to be first with info in this day of wall to wall coverage and twitter coverage is an old fashioned value that probably needs to take a back seat to being right.  
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:14:24 PM
    Commenta ()
  • For corrections, one aspect with social and real-time reporting is that you want to think about how you can help it spread and have as much impact as the original error.

    So the first thing is to actually make a correction: a clear expression of what was wrong and the related correct info. Then you want to try and highlight it or flag it for readers/followers etc. Use CORRECTION or something to help it stand out. And then you want to try and encourage people to share it, retweet it to help it spread.

    A correction that nobody sees is not an effective correction...
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:14:28 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I see that in more newsrooms people are starting to adjust their value calculations on real-time events and coverage. They are realizing that if you are consistently correct and responsible and show restraint, then in the long run you establish more credibility. People come back to you.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:16:24 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I add a correction to the initial post if we reported something that was just wrong along with a new post in the blog timeline that updates and corrects prior misinformation. It will read something like: "In an earlier post we reported that XYZ had occurred." Then add that the story has developed and the information is now different.

    I think it only makes sense to stay transparent about the process. We know that in this style of story-telling, we are telling stories AS THEY DEVELOP, not after they have happened. Things change in breaking news. Initial reports are later knocked down. Real-time story reporting tells the story but also reveals a lot to readers about the information-gathering process.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:17:18 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Yes, indeed, corrections need to be seen and journalists need to be transparent, too. Corrections   also need to be inserted into stories online, not just published in a correction column. Given the way people search information online and find old stories online, they can miss corrections published elsewhere or at the bottom of stories. I like the idea that stories should be corrected and then flagged as having been corrected.
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:18:45 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Totally agree with Mary and Craig - the correction needs to be right in there with the story, not disembodied so we guarantee that readers see them paired and understand that information first put out there has now changed.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:20:17 PM
    Commenta ()
  • You're all bringing up good points about the prominence of corrections. Lauren, do you have policies for different types of real-time corrections in your newsroom?

    And on that note, should a newsroom have a real-time ethics guide or policies in place? What should these policies include?
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:21:38 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Also: don't be afraid to write your corrections with a bit of style. They above all must be clear, but if it's a funny error you can joke about, or an opportunity to offer some valuable info/background, go for it. That makes it something worth reading.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:21:41 PM
    Commenta ()
  • When reporters tweet mistakes, they need to be corrected quickly on Twitter, too. But I am intrigued by the different views about whether tweets should be erased, too, or left online.
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:22:18 PM
    Commenta ()

  • As for social media policies, Allendria, most newsrooms now have such policies.  In our research we were not always able to get copies of the policies, but social media editors confirmed they existed and were being updated. The American Society of Newspaper Editors was one organization that issued guidelines for others to follow.


    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:24:19 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I'd start with an ethics policy that sets out the fundamentals in terms of what's expected in the newsroom. These are independent of any kind of application of reporting.

    But there are certainly things that are specific to real-time reporting/social media that could be part of your practices and warrant their own guides.

    As an example, attribution is a fundamental ethical issue. But the 'how' of it can change slightly when you talk about print versus blogs versus liveblogs versus video etc.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:25:22 PM
    Commenta ()
  • The Toronto Star's policy includes this piece of common sense.

    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:26:43 PM
    Commenta ()
  • “Never post information on social media that could undermine your credibility with the public or damage the Star’s reputation in any way, including as an impartial source of news.”
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:28:15 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I like clear, common sense language like what Mary just shared.

    One of the other big things is also ensure your policies are not just stored in a drawer somewhere. Find ways to talk about them in the newsroom on a regular basis, and encourage people to suggest changes or offer examples over time. The more it's front of mind and used/discussed, the more it can have a positive effect.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:29:39 PM
    Commenta ()
  • So truthfully - an ethics and best practices policy is something I am now in the stages of trying to figure out as we develop a more structured action plan for real-time coverage.

    We've experimented a the Daily News trying to figure out which stories our readers seem to respond to most actively for live coverage. We host a lot of live sports-casting blogs, we have a few chat series in progress, and those are much easier to watchdog. But it's really the breaking stories that capture the widest viewership and we learn a lot with each effort from the mistakes we've made and from the things we've done right, too.

    We do have policies for social media and blogging - they are fairly standard in expressing that employees should avoid conflicts of interest with their beats, make clear that personal opinions to do not reflect the views of their employers, etc.

    My short answer is our real-time policy is a work in progress. For corrections, I try to just correct the record as I go and be as right as possible in every moment. As far as reporters, we have a set of best practices for social verification which includes contacting and locating sources to confirm where and how information was gathered, who took the photo, do we have permission to use it. All of these things. I'm just going to hit "post" b/c this is turning into a book ....
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:30:34 PM
    Commenta ()
  • FULL DISCLOSURE: I have corrected some typos in my previous post.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:31:48 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Social media and the way they work change so rapidly, so I would suggest that an ethics policy involving them would also have to be a constant work-in-progress.

    I am going to bring in a question from a reader now...
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:32:52 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Do platforms like Twitter and Facebook have an obligation to make it easier to post corrections/updates? If no one retweets/shares a correction, it loses a lot of its value.
    MilesJKenyon 7/16/2013 4:33:00 PM
    Commenta ()
  • We found some news organizations now issuing guidelines that reporters should not retweet information from other news organizations until they have been able to verify it independently. That's also a good piece of common sense and good old fashioned news values.
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:33:00 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Good question, Miles. I watched with interest earlier this year when the Globe's Andre Picard tweeted and retweeted and retweeted many times a correction to a story he wrote. I thought he showed a lot of diligence in retweeting himself when others did not.
    Mary McGuire 7/16/2013 4:34:34 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Another point from a reader...
    Allendria 7/16/2013 4:36:29 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Something I noticed last week that was really interesting was Anthony De Rosa's method of disseminating a correction: He sent a tweet to every single person who retweeted or mentioned the previous, incorrect information to send them the updated, corrected information.

    To me, that makes sense. If you make a mistake, you should put in the effort to make sure everyone knows that you were wrong; that what you said wasn't true. I don't think this makes you or your organization look bad -- I think it makes you look responsible.

    That all said, my question: How do we get more people to think this way about the fluid nature of real-time reporting? To realize you shouldn't bury a mistake; that things change in real time and you need to be able to adapt accordingly?
    Belinda Alzner 7/16/2013 4:36:33 PM
    Commenta ()
  • I like Mary's "common sense" comments and Miles, that's a good question and relates to Craig's earlier comment - it's much easier for us to put a correction on a story or a post in a live blog and to make sure it's connected to the information that was wrong.

    I think it would be interesting if Twitter allowed a function to link tweets, so a corrected tweet was some how associated with a previous tweet. I'm not sure I'd call it an obligation, but I would appreciate it. Right now we tweet with CORREX and hope as many of the same readers as possible see the second post.
    Lauren Johnston 7/16/2013 4:36:50 PM
    Commenta ()
  • Thanks for the question, Miles. I personally have spilled a lot of ink writing about Twitter corrections. (My most recent piece is here: www.poynter.org

    I think these platforms should help make it easier, but they are not going to create specific correction functionality, as far as I can tell. So, as I write in the above linked piece, what we need to do instead is think about how we spread best practices for social media corrections within journalism and to everyone. It's not just about us. And I do think there is still a role for tools that help with corrections.

    But a native Twitter correction function? I don't see it happening.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:38:19 PM
    Commenta ()
  • One more link to offer on this is a piece I did last summer giving advice of how to properly offer social media corrections: www.poynter.org

    I suggest doing what Anthony did, which is to engage with the retweeters to ensure they help spread the correction. It gets the network effect moving in the right direction.
    Craig Silverman 7/16/2013 4:40:08 PM
    Commenta ()
Offerto da ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform