Correcting the record

Please allow me to clarify an annoying statement from this morning's Post and Courier.

Not only did my frighteningly intelligent and capable wife receive absolutely zero credit (internally or publicly) for the South Carolina Press Association second-place award that her Lowcountry Election Experience blog received in the category of Best Online Project, but this morning's story failed even to mention it.

Rather, the newspaper gave the credit generically and incompletely to the website formerly known as Charleston.net.

The newspaper's Web site, www.charleston.net, took first place in the Online News Project category for presidential election coverage, and Best Integration of Print and Web Coverage, as well as Best Photo Gallery on a Newspaper Web Site, for "Locked Down."

No mention of the second place for Janet's blog, which she created via Typepad and operated independently of Charleston.net.

But what about the full-page ad celebrating the paper's victories? It cites the award this way: "The Post and Courier Staff -- Online News Project -- Election Coverage."

Here's why I want to be clear about this, and it goes beyond dumb-ass press awards and me being miffed at the way Janet's contributions were handled (it would have been nice to see the newsroom editor who contributes the most to the paper's online presence, Melanie Balog, receive some due recognition, too, but I digress).

This award wasn't just Janet's -- it was YOURS. To say that the Lowcountry Election Experience blog was a "staff" victory ignores the angle that certainly impressed the judges: Janet's blog featured YOUR TWITTER STREAM. She asked local bloggers and Tweeters to tell her what was going on at the polls on election day. She streamed your Tweets live throughout the day on the front of the blog. She posted the reports you sent in by email or called in from your cell phones. And when she was asked to write the letter describing the entry for the judges (I happen to have kept a copy she sent me for review), that was the feature she emphasized.

But perhaps the most innovative aspect was the use of the Twitter feed to allow voters themselves, from anywhere in the Lowcountry, to monitor and report on what was happening, whether they had trouble signing in or had been in line for hours. From before the polls opened until the last ballot was cast, the site was receiving first-person accounts.

Did P&C staff members contribute? Yes. Maybe a half dozen of them, based on my quick review of the blog. But that misses the point.

As far as I'm concerned, this episode matters because it reveals yet again the casual contempt with which Old-Media companies still treat anything resembling new media. Giving the credit to Charleston.net, an outfit that was so poorly run in 2008 that the company laid off its director at the first possible opportunity, merely rubs irony into the wound.

The pattern that I'm describing was related perfectly last week by author Clay Shirky (emphasis mine):

Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world was increasingly resembling the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. Meanwhile the people spinning visions of popular walled gardens and enthusiastic micropayment adoption, visions unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.

Anyone wanna bet on the odds the SCPA adds a "Best Attempt At Obscuring the Relevance of New Media" category to its 2009 contest?

Comments

[Michael]

No wonder print papers are endangered. Just another example of the slanted way in which the Post & Courier covers, or doesn't cover, news.

[Ken Hawkins]

While I largely (if not completely) agree with you inanity of the paper's decision to take credit for a user-maintained Twitter feed (It's a bit akin to taking credit for what a dinner guest says at your house).

I have major qualms with the whole Press Association awards. Sure, it helps distinguish good work -- but you have to be a newspaper to participate.

These awards get no competition from TV station, bloggers, new media.

And that's not even to point out that association gives a special section to just the three biggest papers -- which means that with first, second, and third, each paper is virtually guaranteed to take at least one spot.

One would think that journalistic training would make your question a contest with three winners and three contestants.

These winners the best in the state, among those clinging to the past.

[Ken Hawkins]

Errm. A lot of typos in there: While I largely (if not completely) agree with you on the inanity of the paper's decision to take credit for a user-maintained Twitter feed (It's a bit akin to taking credit for what a dinner guest says at your house), I also have major qualms with the whole Press Association awards. Sure, it helps distinguish good work -- but you have to be a newspaper to participate.

These awards get no competition from TV station, bloggers, new media.

And that's not even to point out that association effectively gives a special section to the three biggest papers in S.C. -- which means that with first, second, and third places, each of the big three are virtually guaranteed to take at least one spot.

One would think that journalistic training would make papers question a contest where there are three contestants and three winners.

These winners the best in the state, among those clinging to the past.

[Chuck Boyd]

Hey Dan, Here's a link to "I Want My Rocky" http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=160217a group in Denver with a plan of charging for online news so "reporters get paid for their time and effort in gathering news."

The item says it'll take a base of 50,000 paid subscribers and they feel they can replace the now dead Rocky Mountain News.

Whatcha think?