Quantifying impact: A better metric for measuring journalism

January 14th, 2012 § 4 comments § permalink

Before Isaac Newton, words like mass and force were general descriptors, as James Gleick writes in The Information:

“the new discipline of physics could not proceed until Isaac Newton appropriated words that were ancient and vague—force, mass, motion, and even time—and gave them new meanings. Newton made these terms into quantities, suitable for use in mathematical formulas.”

The term information was similarly amorphous until Claude Shannon, while working at Bell Labs, quantified the concept in bits.

* * *

The journalism goals and business goals for news organizations are out of sync.

Pageviews. Unique visitors. Time on site.

Some journalism might be best quantified partly or wholly by one or more of those ways, but we need to explore deeper beyond these fairly simplistic metrics.

We know how these terms are defined, but what do they really mean? What do they help us achieve?

In creating a theory of information and quantifying information in bits, Shannon aimed to remove meaning. “Shannon had utterly abstracted the message from its physical details,” Gleick says.

For journalism, the goal should be to add more meaning to the information we use to measure our work. Granted, our current metrics aren’t meaningless. We use them because they do have meaning: views, comments, shares, etc. each has a meaning and can be measured based on that one-dimensional measure. The quantities of metrics increase because the works of journalism they describe are meaningful. Or, put another way, impactful.

So, what if we measured journalism by its impact?

» Read the rest of this entry «

Highlights from #asne news hacker (a.k.a. programmer-journalist) Twitter chat

November 1st, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I did a quick round-up of today’s #asnechat on news hackers. Enjoy!

Update: ASNE also Storified the chat.

Steve Jobs’ legacy and a lesson

October 5th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

A few minutes ago — a few hours after news of Steve Jobs’s death became public — I tweeted the following:

Steve Jobs' greatest legacy is not the products he created, but what they enabled and who they inspired.
@greglinch
Greg Linch

That tweet, in plain text:

Steve Jobs’ greatest legacy is not the products he created, but what they enabled and who they inspired.

Soon after tweeting that, I thought of a lesson for journalism: we shouldn’t focus so much on what we do as much as what we enable, who we impact and what comes from all that.

Speaking of Jobs’ legacy, watch his 2005 Stanford commencement speech:

Update: Not long after publishing this post, I noticed a hashtag and decided to re-send the original tweet with #stevejobslegacy appended. And — whaddya know it — it was added to the New York Times’ homepage widget:

New York Times homepage with Steve Jobs tweets

ONA11: Evening events during the conference

September 21st, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Hey, everyone! I’m here in Boston through Sunday for this year’s Online News Association conference. I’ve compiled a list of evening events for networking, socializing, etc.:

Wednesday

Thursday

AAJA tweetup (waitlist)
Nieman Lab happy hour

Friday

SND@ONA meetup
Karaoke (disclosure: I’m organizing)

Saturday

I haven’t heard of anything planned yet for after the OJA banquet, but people always go out after

Anything I missed? Let me know in the comments!

Rushkoff challenges Gleick’s idea

September 12th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Browsing my Google Reader on Sunday, I found a Q&A on Wired with Douglas Rushkoff discussing Program or be Programmed, a book I’d recommend to everyone.

Now before you leave because you don’t care about programming (you should care) or you think this will be too technical (it’s not), I need to clarify that the book is not so much about computer programming as it is about the more general concept of programming, plus understanding the biases of digital technology. As Rushkoff says, you either use the software or you are the software; you’re either the passenger or the driver, but not necessarily the mechanic.

I read the Program or Be Programmed (as an ebook, of course) in November 2010 and try to keep up with new things Rushkoff writes or says on the topic. Why? As Daniel Bachhuber once said to me (I’m paraphrasing): an author’s talking about a book after it’s published can be better than reading the book itself because the ideas are not only more clear and concise, but also because the author has reflected more after writing the book. To invoke Steven Johnson, the ideas grow over time.

After reading the Q&A, I watched Rushkoff’s Webvision 2011 keynote embedded at the end of the Wired post (and re-embedded here):

I highly recommend watching the entire hour-long remarks (or at least an older six-minute version or this post). As someone who has read Program or Be Programmed, I still found it well worth my time to hear the concepts reiterated and expanded upon, plus the additional insights he shares.

One insight that stuck out the most is the following rebuttal of James Gleick’s The Information, which I read in June and also recommend:

“But this is still a human-focused world. We are still in charge here. James Gleick is just wrong — he is wrong. It’s not ‘The Information.’ Human beings are not just the latest and temporary container of information on its way to higher forms on silicon. If information decides to reside in silicon rather than in people, then it will be unaware and unconscious information. It’s not the information — it’s the communication. These are communication technologies, not content delivery systems. The information is the content. [...] The humans are the message.”

I’m not sure if Rushkoff is referring to a specific part of Gleick’s book (I re-read some highlights I’d made in The Information to check with no luck) that relates to humans or the overall thesis (seems unlikely), but I’d be very interested to seem them discuss this together. I know the SXSW 2012 panel picker is closed, but is it too late to propose this as some kind of keynote conversation?

More on The Information

For some background on The Information, read Nicholas Carr’s and The New York Times’ reviews. Also, here’s a video of Gleick discussing the history of information and how the role of the Internet:

  • Subscribe via RSS

  • Subscribe via Email

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Online Hangouts

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Tweets