Archive for March, 2008

Using bogus methods to detect bias in the media

It is not uncommon for pundits to try and develop scientific ways of measuring bias in the media. These methods, of course, are usually rife with logical leaps and aren’t really scientific at all.

But today I stumbled upon an article published in a mainstream news source that used a particularly stupid methodology of detecting a media slant. John R. Lott, Jr, writing at FOXNews.com, offered this as proof that the media only reported on bad economic news when there was a Republican president in office:

A Google search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,610. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 50,763. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 7,310 news stories.

Now Lott gives us very little information on how these Google searches were conducted (the few links he provides to the supposed searches are complete gibberish), but anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the internet can immediately spot the inanity of such figures.

I mean, c’mon. He counted the number of news sources in 2000 and compared them to 2007? Do you have any idea how many blogs and websites are currently indexed in Google News?? Of course there are 50 times the number of “news stories” that use those keywords today; it’s because there are thousands more websites that exist today (it’s not very difficult to get a blog listed in Google News) that were non-existent in 2000.

Unless there is some way that he conducted his Google search that only examined the exact same news sources, FOXNews.com should publish a correction with that story, since it is using incredibly bogus numbers to prove a point.

UPDATE: I figured out exactly how his bogus Google searches were done because I was able to reproduce the figures above perfectly. Basically he ran those search terms through Google News and clicked on “past month” for one of the searches and then on the second search clicked on “other dates” and typed in 7/2000 and 9/2000. This means that the numbers he used are complete and utter BS. Fox News needs to run a correction.

Comments

Some Sunday links

I’ve been on a much-needed mini vacation for the last four days and this is my first time on the internet since Wednesday. If you’ve commented on one of my posts in that time period and the comment got eaten, I apologize. I moderate all comments and whenever I’m gone for an extended period of time I’m unable to gather the motivation to read through 800 spam comments to pick out a few legitimate ones.

Anyway, here are some media-related links

1. This is pretty scary. Someone placed a hoax craigslist ad announcing an everything-must-go giveaway at a house. The only problem? It wasn’t placed by the owner — and he returned to his house to find people literally looting it. And when he tried to stop them from taking his possessions, the people showed him print-outs from the craiglist ad and refused to give anything back. I smell a pending sociological experiment that could come out of this; something based on the effects of advertising and a level of entitlement that accompanies any sort of ad.

2. We’ve seen a number of incidents recently in which some brutal crime or tragedy occurred that involved a social networking site in some way. The most recent example is a teen male who killed his father because his Myspace account had been deleted.

3. The New Yorker has a long feature article about the demise of the print newspaper industry and what its online future may entail. Scarily enough, the reporter picked The Huffington Post as the example of the future of newspapers. Why is this scary? Because The Huffington Post doesn’t pay many of its star writers. I’m not talking about user-generated content, I’m talking about professional writers who write for the site for free while it soaks of millions in advertising dollars.

4. Ever wonder what bloggers who write for Gawker websites pull in for salaries? We’ve known for some time that they’re paid in part based on the number of page views they attract. Now we have some sense of the actual figures in their pay checks.

Comments (2)

Google truly is fickle

If you read any blog or website that focuses on search engine optimization, you consistently come across stories of websites that basked in Google’s sunlight only to wither and die when they were suddenly downgraded or shunned from its index.

As someone who has operated a website for years, I know first-hand how fickle Google can be. As I documented previously, Bloggasm was completely wiped off the web for several hours the other day because my account with my server had been suspended. They had been sending me emails to an address I never check telling me I was overusing my bandwidth and if I didn’t upgrade,they’d have to take down my site. Luckily, I was able to get hold of a sales representative fairly quickly and begrudgingly agreed to pay more in monthly fees to host my site.

My site went back online that same day, but I immediately noticed a huge drop in traffic, particularly traffic coming from Google. Well, today I decided to do some Google searches for some of my most popular articles, and as I expected, I found them to be harshly diminished within the Google index. To give you an idea of the severity — several of the websites that popped up first were blog posts that were linking to my blog post.

So what does this mean? It means that articles that I spent sometimes hours working on — articles that gathered dozens of links from other websites — barely rank at all on Google. Hell, even a search for my name doesn’t even put this website at the top. Because my website was down for less than 24 hours, I’m now looking at decreased traffic and decreased potential ad revenue.

It’s times like these that you wonder if the hours you put into a blog are really worth it. I can only hope that in the coming weeks those blog posts that collected so many links will slowly be re-indexed in such a way so that they actually get the page rank they deserve.

Comments (5)

Youeditor: Anthology Builder and the self-selected table of contents

An anthology of short fiction can often be an odd specimen.

When the book is put out by a large New York publisher, the anthology editor usually works with a small pool of solicited writers. After pitching an idea and getting the book approved, the editor approaches these writers with the theme and asks them to submit either original or reprint stories inspired by it.

The result is typically a mixed bag. While some of the writers use the theme as a springboard to compose brilliant stories that might not otherwise have been written, others inevitably dig themselves into a rut. The end result is a narrative that seems forced, dragging itself through the entire plot until it lies flat between the book’s covers. Without digressing too far into literary idealism, it’s easy to tell that the author wrote the story because it was solicited, not out of some bout of inspiration. This is partially why book reviewers often select a few gems out of the table of contents and then remark that the anthology is “hit and miss” — a collection of failures and duds, a few mediocre page-turners, and one or two brilliant pieces that will go on to be nominated for awards.

Whether the newly-launched site Anthology Builder is the cure to this trend is hard to say. Launched late last year, it’s the creation of Nancy Fulda, a 30-year-old stay-at-home mom and fiction writer who lives in Germany. With the cost of book production steadily decreasing through Print On Demand, the company allows the customer to compile his or her own table of contents and cover art online and have it shipped in print form.
anthology builder
Fulda, who is also an editor for Baen’s Universe (a short fiction ezine), said that Anthology Builder was born out of her own frustrations as a beginning writer; she wanted to sample stories from multiple publications to get a feel for an editor’s taste, but buying sample copies is expensive. There was no way to pluck out a single story for a quick read without purchasing an entire issue.

“Later, when I started publishing stories, I realized how ephemeral the lifespan of a short story really is,” she told me last month. ” A story would appear in this month’s issue of a magazine, and by next month, everyone had forgotten it. It was old news, and three or four years down the line, there really was no way for someone who liked my writing to track down that story, even if they were willing to go through the effort.”

A few months ago Fulda became frustrated because she had a list of stories she wanted to read but no easy outlet from which to purchase and read them — especially since she lives in Germany. So she wrote and published a post on her blog expressing her desire for a “do-it-yourself anthology website.” Initially, she hoped that someone else would create this site, but after a rush of positive feedback she decided to make it a project of her own.

Anthology Builder’s submission process is designed in such a way so that only reprint short stories are accepted. “We only take stories that have been previously published in a paying market, and even those, I sometimes filter based on whether I think they’ll be a good match for our customer profile,” Fulda said.

Melissa Mead, a 40-year-old writer living in New York, has 11 reprint stories available at Anthology Builder. When I asked her how she originally became involved with the site, she replied, “Actually, I just thought it sounded like fun. I saw some entries about it on LiveJournal, thought it would be a nice way to get some reprints out there being read again, and gave it a try.”

Her marketing of the reprints so far consists of “shamelessly plugging it on my LiveJournal and a few boards kind enough to put up with me.” Like others I spoke to for this article both on the record and on background, she said that she didn’t expect to make much money off the site in the near future. “I think it’s a fascinating idea with great potential that I’d like to help promote,” Mead said, “and because I’d rather have my reprints out being read than gathering metaphorical dust on my hard drive, whether I make money from it or not. I’d love to see it really take off.”

At the cost of $14.95 a book the customer gets to choose 350 pages worth of fiction. For every book sold, the authors get a split of $1.50, the money divided between them based on the word counts of the individual stories. “I had a choice between charging $30 per book and snagging a quick easy profit and charging $15 per book and giving the site a chance to become truly popular, to really become a place where readers come when they want short fiction,” Fulda said. “That’s my dream — to have Anthology Builder become like a mini-Amazon. When people read about a book online and they want to buy it, they go to Amazon, and they find it. I someday want to have enough fiction on the site that when people read about a short story online, the knee-jerk response is to go to Anthology Builder and add it to their next purchase.”

But how realistic is this goal? As I previously documented in a Bloggasm article, short fiction is becoming increasingly hard to market, and few profitable online models have emerged.

Samantha Henderson, a secretary from southern California who has stories available through the company, told me that she didn’t know if the site would become financially viable for authors. “I think it’s a very small niche because the genre is a small niche,” she said. “If they could expand it to other genres — say mystery — as well as mainstream they might sell a lot more product, but I don’t know how difficult it would be or if that is their intent.”

But even Fulda acknowledged that any profitability would come later rather than sooner, and that she has a significant hurdle in marketing the site. “The whole thing is kind of a gamble that way, and we won’t know whether it will pay off for another two or three years,” she said. “But in the meantime, I’m having fun, and I’m providing what I consider to be a truly valuable service to the writing community.”

Comments

Some Monday links

Here are some media-related links for your amusement:

1. This blog offers 10 tips to keep your journalism job while your daily paper is being hit with tons of layoffs.

2. Porn star Ron Jeremy says that he would allow his daughter to act in porn as long as she would be a porn star like Jenna Jameson. This revelation is slightly less shocking when you realize he’s talking about his hypothetical daughter, since he doesn’t actually have one.

3. The Columbia Journalism Review on the media’s reaction to the Obama/Wright controversy

4. Michael Arrington, the blogger for the popular site Tech Crunch, argues that blogs should team up to take on big media. I think it’s plausible in some niches, but nearly impossible for stories that significantly drain resources, like war reporting.

5. An interview with a long-time writer for the satirical The Onion.

6. First there were nerdy pick-up lines. Now there are Penguin pick-up lines.

Comments

Bloggasm down yesterday

Some of you may have noticed that Bloggasm was down for about six hours yesterday. As it turns out, because of large amounts of traffic over the last few months I’ve been exceeding my bandwidth for awhile. My server company has been sending me emails for a few weeks telling me to upgrade before my account gets suspended, but unfortunately it was to an email address I check maybe once every three months. So I didn’t think to check it until my site was suddenly non-existent.

So yesterday I reluctantly upgraded — I’m now paying $27 a month instead of $7 a month, making this website a much more expensive hobby. I have to be honest, there were a few moments when I really just considered letting it die. Other bloggers have talked about the guilt associated with not blogging regularly: You put in a lot of work to bring in a lot of links and traffic, and then you know that you have to maintain steady posting in order to make all the effort seem worth it. Some weeks, steady posting is easy. On others, the last thing you feel like doing after a long day of writing for other outlets is dragging yourself back to the computer to write.

But in the end, I decided to keep the website. It’s been around for over two years now and in that time I’ve published some high-quality online journalism. And something tells me that as the journalism industry continues to shift further and further online, this blog will serve as an asset to me for future career opportunities.

So onward. Keep your eyes out for a new feature article to be published next week. Hopefully I can get back into the groove here and start publishing more original content once more.

Comments (4)

A question about media coverage

I’m certainly not the first one to ask this question: If either Obama or Clinton had claimed — on four separate occasions — that Shiite-led Iran was taking in and training Sunni-led Al Qaeda, wouldn’t it be played out over and over on an endless loop in mainstream media outlets?

Yet when McCain does this, not only does the media barely cover it, the reporters start making excuses for him when they do mention it. This is absolutely sickening, especially as the press — who don’t even try to hide the fact that they’ve been courting McCain — paints him as a foreign policy expert.

Comments

« Previous entries ·