Comments on: Thoughts on new media and ethics

By: mathewi

mathewi — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:00:02 +0000

Thanks, Michelle — I bet you say that to all the presenters :-)

By: michellesullivan

michellesullivan — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:18:38 +0000

Matthew - your presentation was one of my Podcamp highlights, so thanks very much for taking the time to come present.

For those who missed it, video archives are now available here:
http://podcamptoronto.pbwiki.com/MediaArchive2008

Just scroll down to Sunday 1pm for video of 'New media. Old ethics. - Keith McArthur & Mathew Ingram'

Cheers

Michelle

By: /pd

/pd — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:40:40 +0000

Very interesting insight Matt - no wonder I follow you :)-

I think Frans Johansson's would agree that you sit within the intersections of new media and traditional media. One foot in either side.

[OT]
You may wonder why I bring up Frans Johansson Author of the medici effect here.. oh well I learnt from him to hover around “intersections” of interest which funnel insight into things and in return I kinda jumped started him into blogging again..
http://themedicieffect.typepad.com/stories/2005...

[EndOT]
back to the point :)- I think the ethics difference between the MSM and the new media folks is simple. if its an ethics issue a person is responsible or its a company. A Company is like a facade of many faces so it kinda can get asskwed terms of responsibility's and face value and one way to build is to have that partnership with the community and build trust.

btw..My question is “Can Ethics be taught” ?

By: mathewi

mathewi — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:51:04 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Tim. I think your point is a good one -- and
it's worth remembering that in 2000, there weren't that many
newspapers (in Canada anyway) doing live breaking news on the Web.
You're quite right that being first isn't as compelling as it once was
-- and likely hasn't been for some time, in paper or online.

I didn't just mean first with the news, though -- I meant first with
the smart analysis, first with the in-depth background or added value
or research, first with the commentary and context that is often
missing in the "news" business.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Disqus

By: Tim Burden

Tim Burden — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:50:30 +0000

Mathew, you mention the differences between online and print, and say that you were willing, when you launched the Globe's site in 2000, to be wrong sometimes because it was worth it to be first.

I wonder if it is worth much of anything to be first.

From the traffic point of view, the value of a story comes after it has been indexed. It doesn't much matter if you have the story on this afternoon or tomorrow morning, in the long run.

People - well, me, anyway - wonder “what is the Globe saying about x?” after we've heard about it from some source or another. They don't go “hmmm….who had that story first?” and then award special brownie points to the site that did.

I could be wrong - I'm wrong a lot - but I see that value of being right, and credible, as far more important than being first. Maybe it mattered in the Age of Print, when if you scooped something you had it over on the competition until at least the next day. Now, it seems to me, when you scoop something onto the Web all you're really doing is giving the competition a leg up for their print editions the next morning.