Nice piece in the Washington Post by Amy Gardner about entering the world of multimedia journalism. (My baptism into the brave new world of modern journalism)

She learned what broadcasters have known all along: You don’t have to film/tape everything. Or if you try, make sure you have either extra batteries or the ability to plug your recorder into an electrical outlet.

For a short while I did some freelance radio work for a Hong Kong station while in Washington. (I did even less work for a DC-based station as well.) One of the things I learned real fast is to find the hot box so I could get a clear recording of what was being said from the podium and — as noted earlier — to either bring lots of extra batteries or find the outlet right away.

And now with HD recording, the need to understand the difference between what a Flip HD and a Blackberry can generate is also important. (Not to mention HOW TO HOLD THE BLOODY THING!)

Gardner’s blog entry is a must read for any of the older ink-stained wretch generation who want to keep their jobs. (And then, make sure you get a little training in how to use the new equipment.)

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Interesting story in the Times magazine this weekend: Digital Diplomacy.

It got me thinking that just 10-15 years ago the State Department was at the absolute bottom of rankings in use of technology. The main State HQ in Washington and the embassies around the world still depended on WANG work stations as late as 1996 when the rest of the government was moving to PCs.

Shortly after that, State was focusing on moving some of its records to an electronic system accessed using only GOPHER while the rest of the world was uploading databases using FTP and linking to it with Mozilla (and later Navigator and Internet Explorer).

Eventually State caught on and is now using new technology to carry out its mandate. Even with the technology in place, the problem still remains with the suits who don’t get this Internet thing. (They get e-mail, but Twitter? For most, not really. And the bureaucratic mindset still doesn’t get it.)

To be sure that is changing. But the bureaucracy is tied to a paper and ink mentality. Just taking a look at many of the websites or Tweets offered by some of the embassies shows that the folks in charge of those postings see the Internet only as a means of transmitting press releases instead of actually engaging the public in the US or in the host countries.

The strength of new technology at the State Department is focused on the Public Diplomacy section and Consular Affairs. And that is how it should be. After all these are the two sections of State that have the most contact with the general public.

The U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia does get it. According to a report back in April, the embassy has 128,000 “friends” for its Facebook page. And this is out of 161,000 “friends” for ALL U.S. embassies.

Making diplomacy less “pinned-striped cookie pushers” and more relevant to the American people can only help. this means using technology to engage people in a discussion about foreign affairs instead of just pushing information out. The technology allows American diplomats to establish a dialogue with the American people and the people of host countries more easily but only if the diplomats understand how to use it. (And so we come back to Jared Cohen and Alec Ross, the focus of the NYT article.)

And let’s face it, the problem of demystifying diplomacy and international relations is not limited to the diplomatic corps. The news media also play an important role.

A role they often fail to fulfill.

Until the US media and diplomatic corps get the point that domestic and international issues are linked, there will be less understand and limited support for our international activities. And more confusion about what is going on in the world.

CNN reports today that the drug enforcement agencies from the US and Ecuador have seized a fully operational ocean-going submarine designed for drug smugglers. (Ecuador authorities seize drug-smuggling sub)

This is the first time a real submarine was captured. But in the past few years the issue of submersible vessels has been a big problem. (Coast Guard hunts drug-running semi-subs from 2008.)

Now would it have been so difficult to refer to the submersibles in the submarine story? Context is everything to good story telling. And when the issue is global in nature and deals with drug running, more information is always better than less.

First posted at Journalists, Journalism and the World

It is so nice to see the Poynter News University run a self-guided course on the very thing I (and a few others) have been harping on for so many years.

Local and global issues are linked. Editors and publishers who fail to see these links and who fail to allow reporters the leeway to report on those connections do readers/viewers/listeners a disservice.

No the News University is running a class to help established journalists see the links.

Reporting Global Issues Locally

I particularly like the second and third grafs of the class description:

Every day, reporters and editors in small- and medium-sized newsrooms miss opportunities for great stories because they don’t know how to take ownership of major international news.

Most big international stories have ripples that reach even the smallest of communities. “Reporting Global Issues Locally” will show you how to find the local angle in the broadest of international stories.

Again, this is the kind of stuff many of us have been saying is important to not only good local journalism, but also to the survival of local media outlets.

Cross posted with Journalism, Journalists and the World

The censorship squad in Beijing has got to be going crazy right now.

The European Community made the case earlier this year that censorship is a trade barrier. That means governments that engage in censorship of the Internet are in violation of trade agreements from simple bilateral accords to the whopper World Trade Organization.

Countries like China fought to get into the WTO to ease their sales into other trading countries. At the time, China said it was willing and ready to play by the rules of the rest of the world.

Of course, they only meant the “build cheap, sell expensive” and “Buy from me but I don’t have to buy form you” rules. Nobody mentioned anything about opening up access to information.

It was inevitable, however. Free and fair trade can only exist when there is also free exchange of information and data. The Chinese government understands that somewhat. They loosened some controls over foreign media access to China. More Western — non-Chinese government — publications are available to more Chinese people. And even some Chinese pubications are able to report more freely about economic and business issues. (But not social or political ones.)

But the Old Guard continues to hold enough power in the government to keep trying to control Internet access in China. But there has been push-back they never expected.

• The government failed to force all computers in China to install the stolen software Green Dam.
• Google refused to play ball by self-censoring information through its web site
• Hackers who provide ways around the Great Chinese Firewall are treated like rock stars by computer users.

And now trade, the lifeblood of economic well-being in China is under attack.

Basically the Europeans have told China: “Censor the Internet and we will file unfair trade practices against you.”

And now the U.S. has joined in. And Google is helping. (Google helps build trade case over Web censorship)

The usually boring trade issue stories now have GEEK APPEAL. It would be nice to see if some U.S. reporters — national and local — pick up on this technology and trade issue.

• How is censorship unfair trade?
• What does it mean for U.S. and local businesses?
• How has the Internet made getting cheaper goods easier? Harder?
• How has the Internet affected how people do business with suppliers from around the globe?

Just a few questions. Let’s see if anyone asks them.