Is The Doc Filled with News or Noise?

news or noise, determining news over noise,

At work, the editorial team and I used to have a document called, well, "The Doc." The Doc was a Google Sheet where we placed all the stories we intended to cover and we simply went through the stories in order. We broke the order if an important story broke that needed to get into the app and into Top News right away, but besides that we went in chronological order. Stories first on the doc were first in the app, and we did our best to ensure that we placed stories on a wide variety of topics and from a wide variety of sources on the doc. It doesn't look good in the feed when there are too many stories in a row from one source or on one topic and we don't want to come across as an app that favors certain topics or sources.

Filling the Doc Was My Favorite Thing to Do

I thoroughly enjoyed "filling the doc," as the task was called when The Doc needed to be refilled and I was good at it. I could easily find 30 stories in 30 minutes for the doc, maybe more. One way I was able to do this was that, at all times, I was fully aware of 90 percent of the stories we covered in the past 24 hours. The knowledge meant I didn't have to spend as much time checking for duplicates, since I just knew whether or not we had the story. The only time I would check for a duplicate was if the story I found was an update to a previous story or is part of a developing story. With developing and ongoing stories, it's much harder to keep everything straight versus a one-time story. Another tactic that made me so efficient was that I utilized Google News to find stories from credible sources on specific topics. I would search terms like, "North Korea," "marijuana," "sex" and "space" to find stories on those particular topics. Using Google News in this fashion was much better way than searching Twitter or following specific hashtags to find stories on these specific topics.

I loved "filling the doc." I loved encountering all sorts of different stories on all sorts of different topics. It certainly helped that I was pretty good at it too. It was especially thrilling to find a "gem," an interesting, well-written and/or very important story that hadn't yet become a big deal or that wasn't being covered by other/more mainstream outlets. Two "gems" that I personally found were the Ice Bucket Challenge and the first photos of Officer Darren Wilson in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting. I ended up on the Ice Bucket Challenge early because Michelle Wie was one of the first celebrities to participate in the challenge, and since I'm originally from Hawaii, I care about everything Michelle Wie. I wish I could claim being on Michael Brown story before it turned into Ferguson and the subsequent movement, but I really don't recall coming across the story. The Darren Wilson photos I remember, since it took several days for the Ferguson Police Department to release his name, and photos were only uncovered on Facebook after the public had his name confirmed.

I Want to Bring This Back Somehow

I'm not quite sure how to bring back The Doc and in what capacity, but I think there is value in finding so many stories in such a short amount of time (more so than the fact that I enjoy the task). Part of that value is finding the "gems" before those stories become part of the mainstream conversation. Another part of the value is finding stories that wouldn't have become part of any conversation or wouldn't have come to the surface for exposure without The Doc and spending the time to find all sorts of stories. Typically, news sites showcase stories according to the same categories: World, U.S., Politics, Local, Weather, Business, Entertainment, Sports, Tech, Arts, Health, Science etc. Maybe Food, maybe Travel, maybe Cars, maybe Lifestyle to encompass several of the topics previously mentioned.

All news stories worth covering must fall into those categories. Very rarely is the Sports category segmented into football, baseball, basketball etc. unless you're a sports publication like ESPN, for example. Otherwise, it just gets filed under Sports. Only so many Sports stories can be covered or featured in a day. Because there are limits to everyone's time and attention regarding the number of stories to read and feature, only the most popular sports are going to be featured unless something really big, incredible or viral happens in a sport like lacrosse, climbing, rugby, ultimate frisbee etc, like rugby war goddess Georgia Page. Her bloody nose is awesome for a day, but the next time anyone is covering women's rugby and encouraging women to play the sport (which is what Page wants out of all of the media hype and exposure) is probably the next time another woman breaks her nose during an impressive tackle.

Let's Talk about What's Not Being Talked About Because Much of It is Probably Important or Interesting

Rugby is important and interesting to someone, and those someones aren't just people in the United Kingdom where rugby is a much more popular sport. Topics like design, books, social media, education, the environment, architecture and more don't have to be reserved for niche publications, in my opinion. There are plenty of stories that are worth discussing, worth knowing about and worth sharing in these topics. It seems like many topics only become important or only get covered when it easily comes with a salacious headline or an eye-catching photo or video.

Overall, news should be what you make of it and what you find important or interesting, not what the local television news says or what the mainstream media decides to cover or to air on primetime. It's only when the time is spent to scour the interwebs for those sorts of stories that the conversation can start on topics we don't normally talk about, for whatever reason.

Need to Know vs. Cool to Know

My team and I used to have to do an exercise in "fascinating" and in finding fascinating stories. The exercise involved choosing, in our opinion, the five most fascinating stories that we covered within the past 24 hours. Now, we all understood the definition of the word "fascinating" and the general concept of how it feels and what it looks like. The trick was really avoiding stories like the AMA's repudiation of the military's ban on transgender people because, well, it's hard news, it's sad and it's not quite something you'd share on social media quite like #TheDress. Although I didn't share the dress. Quite frankly, it's an ugly dress. Nonetheless, most news falls into three categories: "need to know," "cool to know," and "not news stop reporting on it". I'm not going to talk about the last category because I think everyone with intelligence and critical thinking skills knows what sorts of stories belong in that category. Okay... I'll talk about it a little bit just to get it out my system.

The first ever TED Talk I watched is this one below featuring Alisa Miller. It was the TED Talk that introduced me to the wonderful world and brand that is TED Talks, and I've watched plenty of them since. I don't quite remember how I stumbled upon it, but I do remember that I showed the video as part of my Political Issues class during my senior year of college. That week, we were discussing the media, and this video illustrates the "not news" category quite well. I also totally just got another idea, but first, the video.

With the third category out of the way, that leaves "need to know" versus "cool to know." "Need to know" is similar to "not news" in that it's quite obvious what sorts of stories would go into that category. They're the type of stories, no matter the topics, that will influence a decision regarding our lives or careers or that may change our world view. They're stories about events happening in our area or that affect people we know or people similar to us.

Cool to Know/Fascinating is a Grey Area

"Cool to Know" is the grey area because there are many stories and topics that clearly fit into this news category, but depending on who you ask, would also fit into the "need to know" or the "not news" categories. For example, I know plenty of people who would argue celeb news is really "not news," but there are specific stories like Robin Williams' death that would fall into one of the other two categories. Perhaps much of the aftermath and the reaction to his death wasn't necessarily news, but the point is that "cool to know" news is much like the fascinating news that I had to choose and put together.

It's subjective, so "cool to know" news is harder to spot and to put together into an email or a feed. The five stories that I would put on my list is likely to be very different from what my fiance or what my mother would put on their list. I also think that the "cool to know" aspect of news is one that is very under-reported in the media, at least "cool to know" news that is still informative and intelligent. Like, #TheDress is cool to know in a lot of ways, but the story was spun in ways all over the web that were just fluffy and clickbait. Doing cool to know news without it being a puff piece, or clickbait, or a middleman to the good, original journalism.

Maybe finding fascinating isn't the hard part. The hard part is showcasing why something is fascinating and why others ought to be fascinated by the story. All of that part is the reporting and the news that's not the clickbait and that's not the fluff. That's the hard part.

New, Awesome, Fun Idea for My Blog

Since I spend about 30 hours a week devouring the news, I pondered over how to apply all that news consumption toward the blog. I like the news. I like reading the news. I like writing about the news. But, I don't want to do what others are paying me to do. It's best that I save those task for those who are paying me to do those things. As I said previously, I don't want to just do what everyone else is doing. I don't think that helps anyone, and some behaviors don't need to be replicated. I finally came up with that new, awesome, fun idea. It's based on the idea of "I Statements", where you express how you feel in the form of "I think" or "I feel" versus saying "You do this" or "You say this". I would apply this to various news events, explaining "I hate..." or "I like..." or "I accept..." to the correlating news story. This is a tactic no one else is doing, and I like that this method isn't necessarily constrained by what everyone else is talking about. Although, I could always pull the "I don't care about..." or "I'm annoyed by..." for those types of stories. Anyway, here's an example of what I'm talking about:

I Support: a Bill to Prohibit Employers From Using Credit Checks During the Hiring Process

Earlier this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would do just that, citing that the practice disproportionately hurts poor people. The article highlights how this practice could hurt poor people more often, since it says they are used to disqualify people of color and that women are typically hit harder with divorces and given sub prime loans. Specific statistics or anecdotes aren't shown in the article, but this isn't why I support this bill.

I support this bill because credit reports are a horrible factor to use in the hiring process. First, there's no evidence to show that a credit report or score is correlated to a person's employability, or more importantly, on-the-job success. Yes, the research does show that those with higher credit scores also do well with "task performance", meaning that they tend to complete their tasks on time and do them well. But, a good hire is much more than someone who completes their tasks on time and does them well. A good hire is also someone who fits in well with company culture, who is an engaged employee (someone who loves the job as well as the company), who shows initiative and is willing to improve their skills. Finding someone who can do the job doesn't ensure that they'll be a good hire, and they'll be the person who sticks with your company beyond the first few months.

Second, credit reports can have mistakes on them. Credit checks are legal, and under Fair Credit Reporting Act, job hunters are allowed three to five days to fix mistakes. However, when 40 million Americans have mistakes on their credit reports and correcting those errors often takes a lot longer than five days. Of course, job hunters get those extra days to fix errors if the employer gives them a chance. Most don't, simply saying that they aren't going to hire you. Employers may be able to weed out a bad hire, but it's also possible they're rejecting a really good hire based on faulty information. Employers may want someone with a good credit score, but they ought to want someone who will succeed in the position. If that person who will succeed doesn't have the best credit score, then the employer is only hurting themselves by not hiring them.

I support this bill. I will talk to my representatives about this bill when the time comes.

Can I Just Be a News Expert?

Is there such a thing as a news expert? I ask because that's what I want to be. If it already does exist, then that's what I want to be and I want to know what it takes to become a news expert. If it doesn't yet exist, then I'll figure out what it means to be a news expert, do that, and then call myself a news expert. Perhaps expert isn't the best word, especially if I have to create this position or persona. I looked in the thesaurus (cause that's what I do), and I like the sound of "news specialist" and "news master". I think "news artist" also has a nice ring to it, but I do have a little trouble envisioning what the news artist does on a day-to-day basis.

The Mothership is Calling Me Home

The mothership called when I was checking on my application status with About.com. I applied to be the guide for the US Liberal Politics section months and months ago. It's so long ago I don't even remember when I applied. I checked on my status, only to find out once again that they haven't gotten around to may application yet. While browsing their list of available topics, I discovered that About.com was also accepting applications for their World News section! It's as if the Internet knows I'm in need of my mothership! I applied right away. I really don't know if I could handle both sections, but I'd love to do the World News section if I had a choice between the two. I'll be happy if I get one or the other.

I'm so glad to be doing news again. That was why I started my business. That was why I stopped freelancing. I didn't want to be stuck covering what someone else wanted me to cover or what other people thought was important. I wanted to cover what I thought was important and what I felt needed covering. I strayed from all that chasing marketing clients and using my marketing training to build an agency, even though I didn't really want an agency and had no intention of going into the marketing industry. I don't think I was really doing that work for the right reasons, and I don't think I ever had the confidence in myself to do marketing like I do to do the news. The news is just absolutely amazing! Each day you learn something new, and you never know what's going to happen next! It's truly a career path where every day is different. No two days on the job are exactly the same.

I'm Wondering How to Turn this Into a Business or Really Good Side Gig

I have two great news gigs right now, one with News Headquarters and another with a news app that's launching in January (when it launches, I can reveal the name of this app). I'm really enjoying the work I'm doing for both of them, and both of them also have room for advancement and additional work. If those opportunities come up, then I plan to take them and to drop some of my other clients if I have to. I'm absolutely happy to be reading and writing the news again. I'm thinking that what I might have to do is slug it out for the next year or two, working in the industry and figuring out where I can fill in what's missing. I'd like to use this blog and/or Stirring Media to do that, but I'm really not sure how without duplicating what's already being done. I don't want to just duplicate. I want to shake up the news industry with an innovative approach to reporting, delivering, and interpreting the news. I'm just not sure what that innovative approach is yet.

Contributing to the Information Diet

There's a book I read about two years ago called, The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption. I remembered that I liked the book and found it informative, but after two years, I've forgotten the premise and main points. Since it's a short book, and since I've gotten back into the news business, I've borrowed it from the library to read it again. I think this is an important re-read as I am fulfilling the role of creating news and content for the consumption of others. I've already gone through the introduction, which refreshed memory that Information Diet makes the case that the consumption of news/information should be treated like how we ought to consume food. The over-consumption of food can lead to a variety of diseases, and the same can happen with a hyper-consumption of information in general, or in the over-consumption of the wrong information. As summarized in the introduction of the book:

If unhealthy information consumption creates bad information habits the way unhealthy eating creates food addictions, then what good is transparency?... You cannot simply flood the market with broccoli and hope that people stop eating french fries. If large numbers of people only seek out information that confirm their beliefs, then flooding the market with data from and about the government will not work as well as the theorists predict.

The overall point is that it's not enough to put the good information and the good news coverage out there. You need to change behaviors as well, probably concurrently as you put out the information that's part of a healthy information diet. A point that I'd like to make about this concept is that over-consumption can lead us to a point where we aren't filtering the information to come to a logical conclusion or to weigh various sides very well. It's much like choice overload, as the act of filtering information means that you are making choices about which information is most credible, most relevant, or even the most truthful. If you have too much choice, or too much information to go through, then it's easier not to choose or to settle on ideas that confirm your beliefs or affirm what you already know or think to be true. Or, even to choose not to read any information at all.

"We choose not to choose even when it goes against our best self interests," as Sheena Iyengar says in this speech below about why people chose, or don't choose, in the first place.

Commitment to Good News Coverage

As I get back into the news industry and assess trends, study what I'm doing, and watch what competitors are doing, I need to look for a way to contribute to the information buffet and to encourage a healthful information diet. I'm not one to do what everyone else is doing, so I need to figure out what's happening and then fill in what's missing. Curation and aggregation are hot right now, but I'm not much of a fan of either. Too easy to spread information that's just incorrect while creating a system where too few people are the actual news writers and creators. It also can lead to an echo chamber where something that's wrong is shared and repeated before it's corrected. Curation and aggregation involves sharing and repurposing what other people are doing. When there's too few people, certain topics will be missed simply because everything can't be covered. When there's an echo chamber, there's also an incentive to report things that do well in the echo chamber, versus topics that need to be said and covered. I wish I had the answer to everything now. Perhaps I'll have a few more once I finish re-reading the book and work in the industry a few more months or years.

Bullet Journal, New Gigs, and Getting Things Back Together

Been spending my time over the past few weeks working to get everything back together. I think much of it crumbled from under me because I wasn't spending enough time working, and because I didn't spend any time planning my branding. For my branding, I just threw something together, never really thought about, and so the mantra, positioning, and statement weren't as solidified and unique as they could of been. I don't think I would have gotten into trouble if I had planned those things because I would have had more concrete ideas about Stirring Media as a brand and business. I'm now spending time thinking about the business' brand as well as my own personal brand.

One Month of the Bullet Journal

I've given the Bullet Journal note-taking system for over a month now, and I like it very much. I actually find it to be a good complement to my inferno of productivity because it's two to-do lists instead of one, and also that the Bullet Journal can accommodate scheduling and longer lists. Longer lists can be lists that all have to do with one topic i.e. I have a list of the web pages I need to write for one client's project, but there also a tidy, safe place to keep my big-fat lists that come up from time to time. The big-fat list often contains many little things that I need to get done, most often things like updating my social media profiles or figuring out how to set up Google Authorship when you contribute to several blogs and publications. I would highly recommend the Bullet Journal for anyone who has never been particularly satisfied with the selection of planners and calendars that are currently available on the market.

Two New Gigs!

I"ve gotten two new news writing gigs, and I am very excited about both of them! One I started last weekend, and the other I'll be starting over the next few days. For the first gig (which needs to stay nameless because it hasn't yet launched), I essentially find news stories, read the story, write a 300-character summary, and upload the summary to the content management system. Kind of like a dream job for me, because I have to cover anything and everything, and the sooner I can summarize a breaking news story, the better. I work on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights, so the only downside is that Friday night is particularly slow. It's the weekend for the whole world, and not much is happening on a Friday night or Saturday morning. Saturday and Sunday are a bit better, primarily because all the sports games are finishing up during my shift, and I can easily write a few summaries by simply reporting on a college basketball or professional hockey game that just finished.

My second gig is with News Headquarters, where I"ll be doing some general news article writing for one of their sites (not sure which one yet). The work sounds similar to the articles I wrote for Technorati, although this time I'll be getting paid, where I find a story and then create something new using a variety of sources. On the surface, it sounds like article rewriting, or rehashing, as I like to call it. The job totally can be, and that's the easy way out to do the job in my opinion. However, I do think that this practice could be done in a way that doesn't involve selling out your soul, where the sources and story are used to offer a new perspective instead of just write another article saying what everyone else has said. It means you have to be more creative and try to present an angle that hasn't been presented yet. I think that's where you'll differentiate yourself while creating something that will actually generate buzz and properly newsjack a story. Perhaps I should just think of this gig as getting paid to piggyback on the news.