Visually, WashPo's 'The Root' Looks Exactly Like...A Root.

What does a root look like?

It looks exactly like what science would intend for something dug out of the ground, that's what. Which is precisely what the Washington Post's new online-only venture, "The Root," conveys at first glance.

Kind of dirty, not really cleaned up, does its job and lets leaves be leaves. (well, sort of.)

Sure, roots are tenacious. They are stable. They are dependable and anchor us. And so is the concept behind this interactive endeavor.

But one thing David Sarno didn't mention in his Los Angeles Times review of The Root, among all of the shortcomings in reporting and the star-studded staff on board for the project, is how absolutely terrible the website looks.

The design? Blocky, with colors that evoke, deliberately or not, Ancestry.com.
The images? Basic (and not very arresting).
The layout? Look at all those columns. Look at all that wasted space. Look how poor the navigation is. And for God's sake, look how far you have to scroll to get to the bottom of the page.

What is this, a blog?

And The Root is online-only! It is supposed to answer to no printed deity from high above. Even with only four people staffing the small project, it's clear that the Washington Post didn't make design a priority. For a project that comes from the interactive department, that's a mistake.

Sarno alludes to it in his review. "Visually and tonally, the Root seems to be going for a stately, moderate approach," he writes. Which is a real nice way of saying, boy oh boy, a big national newspaper gives itself a chance to break its own established mold of text-heavy, amateurish design slips and...we get this. A website that looks like one I created for kicks in middle school (And now I'm revealing my age, aren't I?)

I'm sorry to be so vehement about this project. But despite all the great content promised, I don't think the Washington Post Co. should have let this website launch until...it looked like a website made in 2008. Instead, it looks like someone took a CMS (Content Management System for non-technophiles) and went haywire.

It's confusing. It's bottom-heavy. And it's not eye-catching at all.

The Los Angeles Times' headline for Sarno's review was, "The Root doesn't reach far from the tree." And in this case, they're right about that, too.

For a stab at new media, The Root sure looks old.

Washington Post Swings At Citizen Journalism, Fouls Out

With a stomach full of turkey, The Editorialiste returns with a healthy dose of citizen journalism coverage.

In today's Washington Post, staff writer Jose Antonio Vargas reports on his own MSM versus citizen journalist tiff, backed by the words "anyone" and "Orwellian," among other things:

Aboard the crowded D train, rumbling into Brooklyn on the Manhattan Bridge, the inevitable rant explodes. A rant courtesy of Faye Anderson, whom we'll call Ms. CJ, a.k.a. Citizen Journalist. A rant directed at us, Mr. MSM, a.k.a. Mainstream Media, for all our perceived faults.

"It's not you, the journalist, it's the institution," Ms. CJ tells Mr. MSM. "You're not telling the whole story. . . . You've lost your credibility."

We listen, take notes, check if the tape recorder's working. No telling what Anderson might do if she's misquoted.

Phew! And they call citizen journalists the sassy, bile-spewing ones. Despite this retread of a story -- it is basically what this blog was originally founded upon -- it's put within the context of the 2008 election, and reads like a text version of CNN's now-canceled Crossfire. After intense discussion -- yes, still us versus them -- it ends this way:

On the night of the forum, Ms. CJ, sitting in the press room, wrote on her blog, "OK, I'm settled in and looking around. I see a lot of familiar faces from the mainstream media. As they deign to check out bloggers row, they may wonder who lets us in. I guess the debate about whether bloggers are journalists is over."

Says Anderson: "Look, everyone's trying to analyze what citizen journalism is, what its impact will be in this election. We, the citizen journalists, are figuring it out. You mainstream media folks are figuring it out. But whatever it is, there's no going back. We're here. Get used to it."

I don't know about you, but I'm disappointed. Why? Because this story has been published so very many times, and we're not any closer to closure on the issue. Hell, even I wrote this story -- two years ago. Are citizen journalists and big-J journalists ever going to get along?

Can't we just agree that the word journalism isn't exclusive? (But the word professional is.)

This article didn't add anything to advance discussion on this topic, and it sure didn't do anything for the reader. After all, isn't the reader a citizen journalist, then?

Think about this: As a reader of the Washington Post, you are reading that the Washington Post is having a hard time dealing with the fact that you, the reader, can indirectly contribute and shape it's coverage, and then you're being told that they're having a hard time dealing with that fact -- under the premise that it's news you should be reading. And yet, the "citizen journalists" in the article couldn't appear more distant from the reader.

In my book, the whole thing's backwards. Can someone e-mail WaPo and tell them not to write about citizen journalism anymore unless it's in the context of the reader? And while you're at it, tell them that self-coverage (like ProPublica) is irrelevant to non-pressheads?

Someone get Jay Rosen in here, stat.

Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune Left Off Top 10 Newspaper Sites

Picked up on Romenesko, Washington, D.C.-based Bivings Group unveiled their Top 10 newspaper websites yesterday...and the results are both unsurprising and a bit of an omen.

The group's report judged newspaper sites on their web features, design, aesthetics and general usability. Topping the list? The New York Times website, followed by that of the Washington Post and USA Today.

Surprised? I'm not -- I've applauded The Times' website before and the others follow as the major, important American papers they continually aspire to be. But what's missing from this list, which includes the Houston Chronicle, Denver Post, Knoxville News Sentinel, Fresno Bee, Austin American-Statesman, Tennessean and San Jose Mercury News?

The other major, national newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and regional fortresses (some of which used to be considered national in scope) such as the Dallas Morning News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle.

Hmm. Is it possible that, in the next phase of "the media," the WSJ, LAT and Trib will be left behind? Let's see why the NYT made the cut and these did not, according to Bivings:

We love the general feeling of the NYT site, which is pleasing to the eye and easy to navigate. The site is loaded with great features, and, as of August 7, the website dropped its paid-for content, TimesSelect, which is definitely worth bonus points.

Okay. So pleasing to the eye (looks like a newspaper?) and layout are important, online-only features help make it distinct from the paper and paid-for content detracts from the experience.

Let's see how the others compare:

• The Wall Street Journal: Original typefaces are there, the design hints at the paper's layout but there's a lot of wasted space that makes it hard to get to the content. The site certainly has online-only content, but readers have to pay up.
  
  
• Los Angeles Times: Bland, but the content's easier to get to than the WSJ. Needs more images; too text-based.
  
  
• Chicago Tribune: Also bland, but the layout is more dynamic than the LAT. In low resolution, links to News and other major sections aren't even "above the fold," losing digital real estate to the classifieds, shopping, and a postage stamp-sized weather map. C'mon, guys.

Of course, the Bivings Top 10 list isn't complete or authoritative (and neither is my criticism above), but it makes me wonder how the "major" papers can compete when other smaller papers' websites like knoxnews.com and tennessean.com are mentioned before the other biggies.

It's a digital world now, baby, and the biggest newspapers are bookending the challenge, either as the best or the worst. It's becoming clear what kind of decisions are being made from the top.

The bottom line? If the website is the front door -- the front page -- why haven't the bigger papers put in the elbow grease?

Taking Responsibility: How The Sacramento Bee Protected The Hive's Freedom Of Speech

Remember the old controversy over whether or not a news publication should audit its online comments?

About two years ago, the Washington Post ran into just that problem when it literally turned the function off after the usual stock of personal attacks and profanity showed up on its pages. Bloggers were furious, citing a violation of their own virtual First Amendment, and news hounds were appalled that the Post would stifle the voice of its readers.

At the time, washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady wrote, "We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it."

Two years later, the Sacramento Bee might have just figured it out.

A new policy at the Bee requires full names attached with online comments. Old-guard 'netphiles would argue that this ruins the anonymity of the Internet, but in the Bee's eyes, it introduces responsibility. After all, if you're going to take the time to say something, you should take responsibility for it, no?

As a result, the Bee is no longer vetting comments. In this case, that's great -- it rids of the need for such energy and time to do so and gets Bee staffers back on the important stuff: the news. Plus, any time a newspaper steps away from appearing like a God-like authoritative figure ("I am the decider"), that's a good thing.

However, the current worry is that staffers within places like government institutions won't have the freedom to comment without fear of repercussions.

But you know what I say to that? Baloney.

If a government staffer or any other insider has something important to say -- and doesn't want to just correct reader discussion for the sake of it -- he or she should simply e-mail the paper. Allow the paper to take anything important public, under the veil of anonymity. Isn't that what the paper's for?

If the Bee is worried that they won't get any more tips, they should introduce a special tip-off e-mail address that guarantees anonymity -- kind of like how The Consumerist treats its tipsters. If something's important, a well-written article would probably break more news than one comment among hundreds on a story.

So many news agencies are worried about how to handle the citizen masses. "But they'll curse!" they say. "But they'll be racist!" they say. Ah -- but when their name is attached, a digital trail may soon form, and they'll dig their own grave.

But I'm still stuck on this nuance: How exactly will the Bee ensure the use of a legitimate name? Or will this turn into a bunch of flamewars between "Billary Clinton" and "Hick Cheney"? I don't know.

But what I do know is that this action is not an overreaction nor infringing on freedom of speech. I applaud the Bee. If you want your freedom, stand up and claim it. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee you anonymity with it.

Terrell Owens, The Cold War And How The NFL Limits Reporters' Freedom Of Speech

Like football? The NFL thinks so. In fact, they think you like it so much that they're comfortable setting guidelines for the media on how much NFL-related video they can use on their websites. Forty-five seconds, to be specific. How's that for some Fourth of July cheer? Go, America!

Now that's some gridiron gusto, don't you think?

The NFL has long been draconian over the usage of its footage. That's why you always see the "Property of the NFL" commercial sometime in the third or fourth quarter of the game. But in this case, the NFL wants to move the traffic off sites like ESPN and Sports Illustrated and toward one of the league's 32 team websites.

Notch another one up for frustrated journalists. First Angelina Jolie limits reporters' questions, now the NFL wants to limit how many times you can replay one of T.O.'s verbal attacks.

According to Paul Farhi of the Washington Post: "The policy, announced last month with little fanfare, has frustrated journalists, who say it constricts the public's access to information about the nation's most popular spectator sport. A coalition of news organizations has been quietly lobbying the league for months to change the rule."

As Farhi mentions, the NCAA recently generated controversy for booting a reporter out of the press box at a college baseball playoff game for liveblogging the event (Apparently this violates the NCAA's monopoly on live coverage. I beg to differ, since any paying spectator has the ability to do the same.) And here we go 'round the same track again.

So what's this mean, sports fans and journalists alike? Well, that whole limiting the First Amendment thing, I think. After all, if, say, the Chicago Bears tank this season, how likely do you think they will post less-than-favorable coverage of the team? Even Roger Goodell would admit that's just not right.

Exactly. What the NFL doing is the gridiron equivalent of the White House limiting video coverage of the president to WhiteHouse.gov. And if that were to happen, cries of a dictatorship and Cold War-era propaganda would ensue. But somehow America's most-watched ballgame slipped through undetected. Until now, I guess.

Is the video the NFL's property? Well, not if they didn't take it, in my opinion. Sure, many of the other pro leagues have a ban on game footage, but we're talking about all footage. So if the aformentioned Terrell Owens decides to deck Donovan McNabb in the bread aisle of the supermarket when their teams next meet, reporters won't be able to show it because it's "property" of the NFL.

Last time I checked, the NFL player contracts didn't include signing over your soul. But maybe I missed that.

Why More Journalism Isn't Better For Journalism

"What we have here is....failure to communicate." Captain, Cool Hand Luke

Options, options, everywhere.

My blog RSS aggregator is getting embarassingly cluttered with new blogs I like - but many of them overlap to the point that I would consider dropping a few and keeping only the more comprehensive ones.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have an awful lot of new blogs, too...some covering each other.

Meanwhile, I've only got two eyeballs and 24 hours in a day. I can safely say I read more news than the average reader, but there's a limit to how much I can digest.

I can't read them all...so why do I read what I read?

That's the question newspaper publishers need to ask their readers - and themselves - when they hand down job cuts from above.

"If you lower the amount of money spent in the newsroom, then pretty soon the news product becomes so bad that you begin to lose money," said advertising professor Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri's journalism school.

It seems to me that, when the ranks of newsrooms are thinning, the editorial options are exploding. How can papers afford new blogs, new online video, new podcasts, etc. - things that do not directly replace elements from the traditional newspaper - when they have less staff than ever before?

Have they installed beds in the newsroom yet?

And does it matter? Is anyone even reading the new stuff? (Or paying for it, advertisers?)

A recent column by a friend of mine highlighted his newspaper's lack of an ombudsman. Given the paper's limited financial state, it's understandable. However, the paper struggles with quality because it doesn't have the cash to hire enough people. Everyone's outstretched and doing the job of two staffers - and the paper is often a veritable mess of typos and poor editorial choice the next day. Yet they've recently expanded their online presence quite a bit - and I know for a fact that there's no "online editor" at the paper.

In the long-term, how can this be a solution for a newsroom? How can a publisher or an owner expect the employed journalist to write, edit, record, or shoot even more?

Isn't it better to have five pages of solid, thorough writing than 15 of cliche-ridden copy?

When is the point where we remember what a publication's goal really is - inform instead of meet the deadline? I know deadlines are important and readers trust that a paper will be out at the same time each day - but I'm starting to lose trust in the quality of writing crammed in.

It's the same reason why I cut this blog back to twice-a-week posts from daily posts.

On one of the financial blogs I subscribe to, I read once that a better solution to earning wealth isn't cutting costs so much as raising revenue. That is, while it's important to track expenses, there's a boundary of quality of life that we shouldn't breach. If you keep cutting corners, you won't have any paper left.

Publishers should take heed. Some of my favorite newspapers are losing their cachet, and I really don't think it's because journalists are less talented. They're just outstretched.

And the jury's still out on whether all that extra work is bringing in more profit.

Mano E Mano: The Editorialiste meets "The Editorialist"

Dear Rob Anderson,

We've got to talk. This new blog, "The Editorialist"? I must admit, I'm feeling a little snuffed. I spend my time, my blood, my sweat, and hyperlinks to analyze the grassroots movement and often throw in my opinion - editorializing, so to speak - to fill a niche market and my desire to write when freelancing in New York doesn't pay the bills. But then I read on IWantMedia that you've got better ideas. In fact, your idea is so good, so original, that you're gonna launch it with The Washington Post. Without an "e."

Ouch.

All for an "e," Rob? I'm hurt. This was just Valentine's Day! Where's the saccharine love?

Sure, your blog covers op-eds, and mine covers the components of a changing industry. Sure, I write this on my own unpaid time living below the poverty line and you write this commanding health benefits and a prestigious masthead. But Rob, baby - what's a blogger to do when you hijack his name for use in mainstream media? And nary a link to me in sight!

Robby, you're pushing me ever farther into the fringe media, the netroots, the blogging jungle. And you, that lovely mainstream media, get all the credit for being "cool," "with it," "hip." And most times, I'm with you on that - sometimes you MSM people need to loosen up a little, and I like seeing you walk around with iPod nanos and podcasting and all of that. You're really getting with it; good for you. But why did you have to steal a poor blogger's thunder?

Tell me - was it your editor's idea?

After all, what if the L.A. Times started "DailyDose" or the Chicago Tribune started "Gonzette" or the Philadelphia Inquirer started "Talker" or the Wall Street Journal started "Bizmodo"? Would that be cool?

No. Not cool at all, Robert.

There are plenty of freelancers who get their ideas copped by their editors. But a blog? That's low. Surely WaPo HR has room for a young blogger - who by day is actually is a living, breathing, ethical, hard-working journalist! - who needs a regular paycheck to support his pipe dreams of, you know, life stability in an era where higher education equates with Mercedes-Benz and it takes 40 (yes, 40!) times my $2000 rent to live where I went to school...a block from the projects.

You know, instead of ganking his calling card. I'm running out of PB&J for lunch, you know.

In the face of adversity, Nick Denton would be asking for his acid martinis extra-shaken. But me? Well, let's just say that I'll be writing with a stiff upper lip.

A blogger scorned. It's on, Anderson.