Slashdot Mirror
Saving Journalism With Flash and Java
An anonymous reader writes "New York magazine has a story about some of the flashy new ideas that are coming out of the labs of the New York Times. The piece prompted Peter Wayner to dig up some of the old Java applets he wrote to explore whether more promiscuity really stops AIDS and whether baseball can do anything to speed up the games. He notes that these took a great deal of work to produce and it's not possible to do them on a daily basis. Furthermore, they're cranky and fragile, perhaps thanks to Java. Are cool, interactive features the future of journalism on the web? Or will simple ASCII text continue to be the most efficient way for us to mingle our thoughts, especially when ASCII text won't generate a classloading error?"
and must die!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"they're cranky and fragile, perhaps thanks to Java"
Of course... blame Java once again. It's Java fault if developers do cranky and fragile apps...
Display Applications are for web sites.
Research applications are for research.
Content is for journalism.
Journalism receives data from research.
Journalism provides raw materials to the web.
The web presents them to us.
IT and developers create that web and hence its doodads.
Journalists (and other creators) then populate that web and doodad with content. ...
The point being: No, java / flash / doodads won't save journalism. And journalism isn't dying. It still exists but has a WEALTH of new contributors, which leaves demand for the few highly trained contributors low enough that many are leaving the field. Yet we still get our news.
I don't like doodads. When I want news I want content. Not buttons. Not animations (unless they are truly pertinent).
Journalists that create doodads are trying to salvage their career by doing something that is not PART of their career. Just like Developers who try to create content.
So ... long answer given the short answer is: No, doodads won't save journalism. But journalism is evolving, not dying.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Isn't it time we dumped ASCII and moved over to Unicode? Preferably UTF-8, which is all nicely backwards compatible and stuff?
ASCII sucks!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
...but I really prefer my news to be reported in text and pictures. The occasional Flash apps that BBC sometimes uses to explore stories feel slow and clunky. Information osmosis time is limited to the speed and pace of the program, whereas reading a text article is limited only by the user's ability to scan through it, which can be done at their leisure.
I feel like I am in the majority when I say that most of my news-reading comes during work during the few minutes I get every hour or so when waiting on something (like a compile). I don't really have the time to tinker around with a simulation exploring the possibilities. And even if I did, my patience will likely wear thin unless the simulation is either really exciting (not the case in the article) or something I'm really interested in (also not the case in the article).
Yes, it's kinda cool. But changing the face of modern journalism? I think not.
Dear Java Hating Slashdot Editors,
Java is not responsible for "generating class loader errors", any more than Perl is responsible for all the HTML errors on the Slashdot front page.
Here's the link to the W3C HTML Validator, go get yourself a clue.
Straight up text and regular pictures or video even isn't appropriate for everything.
They can be abused just as much as Flash or Java can be.
Straight up text and regular pictures or video even isn't appropriate for everything. They can be abused just as much as Flash or Java can be.
Yes, but not nearly so annoyingly.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I disagree. The web's capabilities with dynamic content was great during the US elections, during war reporting of changing borders, or in anything with charts that allow collective/isolated comparisons.
I think the use of the tools can be annoying: when it's flashy and overly attention-grabbing, stuff unrelated to story content or when it's the only way to get the information presented - text should always be available.
The use of any dynamic content, video or not, is - i think - sticking to the conventions of the web: Present the user with the option to view the information in the format. For the most part, people expect to read text in a static layout. Stick to a certain page size (possibly the entire article), use linkable photos for larger versions, don't play video or sound or flash without asking.
Oh, and realize that your ads are going to be probably ripped out if they are flash, javascript or remote embeds. You should possible just mention at the end of each story which merchants have supported your site's continuation, and a request to use them for shopping if the viewer wants to see the site continue.
It can, but it doesn't always do that. Sometimes it makes it worse by adding more fluff, like the flashy touchscreens and "holograms" on CNN.
I'm right there with you. Who wants to watch 10 minutes of video instead of an article that could be consumed in 90 seconds? (30 seconds for CNN)
I have no problem with video being made available as an extra...If you've got a journalist somewhere, have 'em shoot a little tape while they're there, then post it online with their story, and use that to drive traffic to your website.
But taking away the text article and replacing it with flash or video? That sucks.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Perhaps journalism is suffering because unsubstantiated lies are repeated so often people think they're true.
Why is it that any bozo coder who himself codes mistakes into his apps, is then hot and ready to blame the language? Dude, Java does not write itself. If you wrote it in a fragile way, then it is your fault--not the language. All that said, I'm delighted to see the NYTimes trying new things.
Unless the kind of man who sticks his peen into multiple women, tends to find different partners than those who don't...
What's most noteworthy is that there are two settings for male behavior in the simulator. Each of them is totally unrealistic, and they give completely different results. ... So, what am I supposed to learn here?
Not to mention that there's nothing too new about the results, and somehow people in the 60s understood them without a java applet. Basically what happens is that promiscuous women implicitly quarantine the men who find them. It just so happens, if I understand correctly, that there is a portion of the phase-space, where increasing the rate of promiscuity in women serves to reduce the overall rate of disease by concentrating the disease among the promiscuous while keeping men from sleeping with the unpromiscuous women.
Now, if that sounds like a realistic description of the world to you...
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
We're being presented a summary of a story in text. The linked articles are all blocks of text with some images, and a few links to the aforementioned interactive features. I read about these interactive features. The text makes them sound really interesting. But ironically, since the text told me exactly what I was going to find when I played with the interactive simulations, I didn't feel any particular need to actually play with the simulations themselves. Now we're going to sit around and argue, insult each other, and make references to tired internet memes... all using blocks of text.
The basic model used by newspapers and magazines- large blocks of text, sometimes with embedded pictures, and a place for readers to leave comments (in the olden, bygone days, these were the Letters to the Editor, today it's online forums)- it still works really well in terms of conveying information. I think that additional features [links to other web pages and videos, interactive content, the ability to update stories within moments of recieving new information] all add a huge amount value to more the traditional content, and provide for a richer means of communication. But they are by no means necessary for good journalism. And they are certainly not a substitute for good journalism. People still have to find the important stories, talk to the sources, figure out what's going on, and then present it. Interactive web pages aren't going to tell you whether the White House is exaggerating the evidence on WMD, whether Sarah Palin is capable of assuming control of the country, or what kind of leader Barack Obama will really be.
It's true that newspapers are facing something of a crisis due to declining advertising revenue. But if anything, I probably spend as much or more time reading stories than I did before. That suggests to me that it's their advertising model that is hopelessly outdated, not the journalism.
Long answer: because it's more portable that way. I don't have a fancy-shmancy iPhone where I would have ubiquitous Internet access (but it doesn't matter anyway because it can't run Java or Flash!) so taking RSS feeds on my gadget with me on the run works best. No need for pictures (most of the time), gimme the vanilla information.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Investigative journalism will certainly still be a "needed skill" and "useful to society" if all the papers die. That's the whole issue. See, right now, those papers and magazines provide most of the infrastructure and career opportunities for journalists. Want to be the next Woodward? Well, you go to journalism school, then get a job at whatever paper will take you and (hopefully) work your way up to the NY Times or whatever prestigious news organization.
You need print media, and not just a few "elite" papers but a whole bunch of options, if you want journalism to remain even a semi-viable choice of profession for smart and motivated individuals. (And "semi-viable" is generous; most of the journalists I know are lucky to stay above the poverty line.)
I subscribe to a traditional print paper, so I do pay something for news. If there's government corruption or incompetency, I want to read about it. If there's a war going on, I want to read about it. I want to read about major - or even minor - crime and accidents, depending on how close to home they occur. I want to read about changes in law that affect me. I want to read about major economic and business stories (e.g., "IBM terminates several hundred contractors"; "UNC drops effort to open airport"). I want to read about major social trends. I like the editorial cartoons, the comics, and the sudoku.
This morning I read a story on the new Governor's agenda, and I read a story that the outgoing Governor just signed an order that e-mail should be treated as a public record.
I suspect there are all kinds of proposals going to the state legislature that I'd be curious about, but that I don't know about.
That being said, I think the big keys is to have exclusive stories that people want to read.
The problem is, you all (the "traditionals", at least in the decisionmaking rooms it seems) are defining "exclusive" as "first" and that becomes "rushed and shallow." You know what aggregaters have taught me? That a huge percentage of newspapers' "front pages" are the same story, in the same words regurgitated, as the wire stories. Those aren't the ones I come back to or spread around... the ones I come back to (and share) are those with considered analysis and thought. First to market "scoops" just doesn't pay the bills so much anymore.
Consumers also want text. I can read 5 articles in the time it takes to watch one. But if you don't provide text I won't come at all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
what difference does it make whether you have a constant internet connection or not? if you're going to download RSS feeds from the internet onto your gadget, you could do the same with a Java applet or Flash. it's not like streaming video where you need an internet connection to view it.
they're just another form of digital multimedia. and just like photos, not every article needs them, but when it's appropriate they can add a lot to the article. i mean, why hold back when the technology is available, costs nothing, and is easy to use? if there's a story on a new space mission, why not let readers see the accompanying photos or video footage?
this isn't the 90's. we're living in an age now when almost everyone has a cellphone or some other sort of portable device with storage capacity measured in gigabytes and capable of displaying rich multimedia like images/video and play CD-quality audio. so if you're writing a game review, why not include a video clip of the gameplay? if necessary, content publishers can use a format (like MIME) that degrades gracefully. if your device can't play video, it'll just show the images and rich text--or just plain text.
images will probably still be the most common type of media accompanying news stories, but there's no reason for us to arbitrarily limit ourselves to text and images. it's not going to "save" journalism (because there's nothing to be saved), but it would be cool to read a story about a new space vehicle and be able to view a rotatable 3D model of the vehicle.
If you would look into the statistics of a news site, you would notice the enormous number of pageviews on the front page, how few people end up at the level of an article and how fewer people ever visit a back ground story.
The challenge for journalist is thus to engage readers, but also not to waste their time.
For that, journalists must carefully choose the media for telling the story.
Infographics can actually help in time management. Also assisting in block reading would be useful.
Examples:
Harder to do then just plain text? Definitely! More compelling and giving more insight? Absolutely!