|
 |
Monday, February 07, 2005 |
In my experience, it has been standard operating procedure for any
checked facts on stories regarding Microsoft to be anonymously
attributed to "spokesperson" when the person fielding the inquiry works
for one of Microsoft's public relations firms such as Waggener-Edstrom
or Fleischman-Hillard. When a Microsoft employee fields such an
inquiry, the answer has always been attributable to that person.
As you can see in a recent blog entry of mine, such attribution is made. I'm fairly certain this is a Microsoft imposed policy.
This raises some issues for the JOTS specification. There should
be a way that such policies can be set as preferences in a way that
automatically includes a short document like this as the part of
a full disclosure or transparency statement for any given
story.
5:00:18 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
 |
Friday, February 04, 2005 |
Objective: Provide a way to keep the raw materials going into an unpublished story from public viewing until after the story is published.
Abstract: As I said in my entry regarding the need for an RSS feed on a per editorial project basis,
one reason RSS feeds would be great for media organizations is that
they would allow editorial managers to track the projects that their
editors and writers are working on. But, editorial organizations
-- especially ones that do any investigative reporting -- probably
don't want editorial projects-in-progress to be available for viewing
by the public until after the story is published. After all, you
don't want to show your hand to competing journalists and media
organizations. So, on per category basis, you need a way to
toggle the editorial project as public or private. This of
course raises the issue of security which I'll try to address more in
depth in another post. But, suffice to say that JOTS has to have
the sort of security baked into it that gives an administrator control
over users and what authority those users have. For example, who
has the authority to switch an editorial project from private to public?
10:36:28 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
Objective: Break a transparency
channel down into sub-channels and allow people who want access to the
raw materials to subscribe to the complete channel, or individual
editorial projects.
Abstract: This is a
pretty straightfoward part of the spec and it's why the underlying
infrastructure of a blogging system may be ideal to serve as a
transparency channel's infrastructure. I've already broken this
transparency channel down into multiple categories, many of which are
focused on a single editorial project. The idea is that if
someone wants to narrow their view down to the raw materials for one
particular project, the system should make it really easy to do
this. Most blog infrastructures such as the one I'm using to
prototype this channel, will automatically generate RSS feeds for each
category. With categories, the RSS feeds and the Web site provide
a plethora of entry points to those interested in the raw
materials. For media organizations, RSS feeds at the editorial
project level would also provide editorial managers with a great way to
keep track of the stories that their staffs are working on.
10:27:00 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
 |
Thursday, February 03, 2005 |
In an attempt to evolve a system spec for designing a system that helps
journalists maintain transparency without so much burden that it
intereferes with their jobs, I'm starting the JOTS specification.
JOTS stands for Journalist's Online Transparency System and, based on
my experiences in trying to manually build my own transparency channel,
I will be proposing JOTS features whose main objective is to achieve
maximum transparency with the least amount of effort. I've
established a separate category called JOTS Specification for those of
you who just want to browse the various spec items, and offer ideas.
9:11:48 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
Objective: Establish a database
of sources and their transparency preferences as a pre-processor for
raw materials coming from that source
Abstract: The system should include a database of contacts and a tickler
that helps the journalist to understand whether or not a source has
been notified of the journalist's transparency policy and how that
source has responded. For example, the source may provide blanket
approval to publish all notes or may say "Ask First." A
more advanced feature could include a way to provide redactable text
strings. For example, a boolean (true/false) field that goes with
a source's e-mail address to that indicates whether the source is ok
with having their e-mail address published or not. Let's say the
answer is no. The "Redact Email Address" field would be set to
true, and the next time I forward an e-mail into the system from that
sender, the system automatically redacts all occurences of the e-mail
address from the text (but still gives me the opportunity to review
it).
9:07:01 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
Objective: With e-mail being
one of the ways a lot of raw data is captured, there needs to be a fast
and easy way to move raw material from an e-mail inbox into JOTS
(Journalist's Online Transparency Systems) without the journalist
having to do too much to make sure the raw material gets handled
properly.
Abstract: I've had to cut and paste e-mails in a way that formatting is
very screwy and I have to and fix it. Also, redacting senstivie
data is cumbersome and could use automation. When I receive an
email, I should be able to forward it to a system and tag it with, at
the very least, the sender's name and a title for the editorial project
that the story is associated with. The system should respond via
e-mail with a URL for editing the entry which I can click on an review
before publishing into the transparency channel. The system could
for example provide me with a way to look for specific text to redact
and then do a search and replace on that that text (instead of me
having to do it by hand)
9:04:44 PM
RadioEdit
|
|
© Copyright 2005 David Berlind.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| March 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
| Feb Apr |
BlogRolls
|
Top 10 hits for media transparency on..
1. | |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. | |
7. | |
8. | |
9. | |
10. | |
 | 3/23/2005; 11:21:16 PM. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
Categories and Current Editorial Projects*
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|