The future of print journalism is social

Traditional print media's attempts to embrace an online presence has been lacklustre, and in fact has helped kill their brands.

Most print MSM have incorporated blogs as part of their delivery mechanism. They have made their existing, print-trained reporters produce content for a medium they are not familiar with. It's like having a trained print journalist produce television. There are differences. Traditional journalists who are already overworked due to company lay-offs have had varying degrees of ethics and purpose when producing content for their blogs. Most appear to not really know why they're doing it other than 'to show we're in that space'. And because of the time involved, the overall quality of everything they do can suffer.

When blogs are put up by traditional media, the masthead appears as the banner to the blog. Anything produced under that masthead reflects on the brand. For a media brand, if it's not journalism or well produced, that's damaging. MSM has treated the internet as though it's a massive printing press and anything and everything can run. At last, there's no restrictions of cost of paper, distribution, etc. Stories which perhaps shouldn't be written or run are given a second chance online.

Recognising the Web 2.0 social aspects, print media has incorporated Reader Comments sections in their online brands which allow all manner of diatribe, ill-informed opinion and complete drivel run for pages and pages - often longer than the stories themselves. Most of this 'reader comment' would never have seen the light of day if it were offered to print entities, but due to lack of staff, it runs away with itself unless flagged by another reader. I would suggest if it's not fit for print under your masthead then it's not fit for online publication under your masthead either - and as news organisations of many years' standing, you have a responsibility to control these comments before your readers - particularly on hard news. By making the reader comments section open slather, it's as if a peanut butter brand opened the lid and said "got anything you want to add? Sure thing, just chuck it in there."

Online should be giving print media the opportunity to give readers a more in-depth experience with the type of quality reporting often limited by cost of paper and distribution. It should be expanding their brands. All stories should be including internal links to sources, further information, etc that are well researched and allow the reader a complete experience.

Print media believes writing for the web means writing all the information in a shorter way and presenting it well. Often simply repurposing content. For example, J-schools train up and coming reporters in how the eye looks at a screen, and gets them to rewrite a print story for the web. That's kinda like getting a print reporter to rewrite their story for tv. It's garbage. Great print media, in adopting an online presence should be all about giving extra information through the links they provide. It's about being truly transparent. And in a Web 2.0 environment, it's about being social.

Being a social media entity does enable everyone to be part of your efforts. Web 2.0 is community. But when you add that masthead to the top of your online efforts, then you have a responsibility to the survival of your professional brand as a business as well.

If you want to use Web 2.0, you need to do so responsibly to help your medium survive. Recognise that you have a community of readers who regularly want to respond. Why not approach those people to see if they'd like to have their own blogs rather than sullying up every story you run? Only add reader comments if you can moderate them, and only to particular stories. Invite people to provide additional links rather than simply their opinion! Identify exactly what it is that is driving you to make your print journalists write blogs too, when you have a whole community of people out there? There are plenty of ways to be effective in Web 2.0. It's social. It's about people you don't employ. And they're a community who could add value and credibility to your brand when you control the infrastructure within which they contribute.

If your masthead isn't that important to you, then you deserve what's happening to you.

Climbing with Harry

This week we went indoor rock climbing with a friend of mine who took time out to show us how it's done (thanks!). While I stupidly forgot about my fear of heights (remembered when I looked down from about 8 feet up), and Charlie decided it hurt his hands and feet too much at just one foot up, Harry proved once again that he'll give almost anything a go. Here he is having a go at the 30 foot wall!

[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=btqhQjFVNQ4]

Has Rosemeadow forgotten Dean?

Once upon a time, there was a big lake that crossed two suburbs, Ambarvale and Rosemeadow. Surrounded by ticky-tacky public housing, the murky lake was home to eels and ducks that those local residents who couldn't afford the cost of movies for entertainment would feed with stale bread. The children of the areas would group up with friends and hang out around the lake, playing in the marshes and poking random things found floating in the reeds with sticks.

Until one day a few kids found a suitcase floating in the lake.

They dug it out, opened it and discovered what they thought was a dead pig - but it wasn't. As time and months of police investigation would reveal, the kids had found a child. A 2-year-old named Dean Shillingsworth who had been beaten to death by his own mother.

If truth is stranger than fiction, then this news story was. However, what makes any story like this even more shocking is when it happens close to home. On one level, that means it could happen to you, or someone you directly know. On another level, it means it could happen where you live. And this happened at our local big park in Rosemeadow and Ambarvale, NSW, really close to my own home, just one suburb away.

Rosemeadow has a large amount of public housing. Small 1970s townhomes and condos, all the same, bunched up together, populated with people who cannot afford to buy or rent in a competitive marketplace. It's choc-a-block. And what makes it even more garish is the fact that it is bordered by what is sold by local realtors as the best housing estate in the Macarthur region - Glen Alpine. The estate where the Labor party's champion couldabeen Prime Minister, Mark Latham lived while he was pitching for the land's top job. Glen Alpine has 1200 houses and a small community shopping centre with tennis courts for hire - all in great condition. Instead of the McDonalds of Rosemeadow, Glen Alpine features McMansions. And the only real thing separating the two areas is one road, Englorie Park Drive. Oh, and quite a few thousand dollars.

The discovery of this poor neglected child saw media reports that ran the story into the ground. The locals began to refer to him as The Lake Angel. Local clergy attempted to bring peace to the area, and saw this as an opportunity to get the people of Rosemeadow to hold those dear to them, and create a sense of community sadly lacking from an area where people were basically living on top of each other. There were candlelight vigils around the lake for the child, attended by over 1000 people. Stuffed toys, flowers, memorials that stayed for many months after the discovery reminded the community of the type of tragedy that can happen in our own backyard.

But within a few short months, media reported the local bus company declared it would not run buses through parts of Rosemeadow due to people throwing rocks at the drivers. There have been regular incidences of fights in the streets, and today the Sydney Morning Herald reports on another massive escalation of violence.

It is clear to me that if Australia had the same gun laws prized by America there would be many more dead people in Rosemeadow to date. Anger appears to run through the veins of people living in this suburb full of public housing.

But with the same breath I would assert that the type of sense of community I have seen in Boulder could do much to assuage this anger and pain. This Christmas, the amount of goodwill shown by the community of Boulder to those in need was remarkable. The collections for charity in retail stores were overflowing with goods donated by the general public - I saw them everywhere. And many retaillers added an extra dollar to your purchase which went directly to charity over the season. And everyone was happy for it to happen.

I am left wondering if only Australia could combine this sense of community, of general concern and caring for other people, with its admirable gun control laws.... perhaps there'd be less tears.

Breastfeeding in America

Recently many Twitterers (and their associates) contributed to my survey on American women's attitudes to breastfeeding and its representation in the media. I promised to share the outcomes of my research and the survey, which this post seeks to do. For those interested, the entire paper (30 pages plus 15 page complete survey result appendix) is available by emailing me or asking on Twitter and I'll get it to you straight away. If you'd like to see the summary of survey responses, this link takes you to the final Survey Monkey summary.

American Breastfeeding Rates

America has a dismal breastfeeding rate. The World Health Organization and the US's own CDC recommend babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives, and then breastfed with additional food until they are two years old and beyond. The American Government then worked with the CDC in 2000 to develop the Healthy People 2010 initiative. It includes breastfeeding goals which fall short of the WHO and CDC's own recommendations - that rates of breastfeeding be targeted to 75% initiating breastfeeding at birth, with 50% at six months and just 25% at one year.

Each year since 2000, American media has been fed press release diatribe on how successfully this plan is being implemented. And mainstream media have unquestioningly spurted it back at the general public. Headlines like "Breastfeeding rate soars" (USA Today 2002) and Reuters 2007 story headlined "US breastfeeding rates rise to record high" disguise the real issue - that even after 8 years of a government promotion to increase breastfeeding in America, 25% of women never even try. In 2005 only 11% of American women exclusively breastfed for 6 months (as opposed to the WHO recommendation of 100%) and in 2007 a quarter of women who initiate breastfeeding at birth have introduced formula within the first week of their child's life.

So what's the problem?

Media loves boobs - as long as they're shown in a sexual way. We're all familiar with advertising and other images of breasts. For example, this 1993 cover image of Janet Jackson on Rolling Stone won critical acclaim. The story focuses on Jackson and her embracing of her sexuality. The focal point is her breasts.

But a full 13 years later, BabyTalk magazine's cover created outrage. No less than 700 complaints were sent to the editor over a cover promoting breastfeeding. So getting it straight, a magazine committed to mothering and babies, getting flak over a cover which promoted - mothering and babies.



 

 

 

 

 

 

In my paper I explain how I believe this has occurred. The movement of women into the public sphere has seen them embrace their femininity in a new way. There's a whole "look, I'm in the boardroom and I have breasts" ferocity which has been associated with feminism. Women don't like being confronted with images which remind them of the roles their mothers had. Feminism's abject failure through the 1980s and 1990s was its devaluation and disempowerment of the importance of nursing.

Yes, I argue that the feminist movement has contributed to a sociey where even women more readily accept images of breasts that celebrate them on a sexual rather than a mothering level. This is reflected in media too. TV programs such as Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives and Ally McBeal feature women who embrace their sexuality and power as successful. Women who hold traditional mothering roles are less successful, frustrated, angry or just plain stupid.

And then to have the audacity to bring those breasts, feeding infants, into the general public? No wonder women in general lead the call for 'discretion' and 'hooter hiders'.

The survey

I hoped to get about 30 responses. The survey went viral and in three days I received 128 responses. More than a third of respondents added extra information to each of the basic four questions asked. Women have strong views. In my paper I relate this passion to religiosity. The religion of breastfeeding meets all the academic standards of definition. No longer is breastfeeding normal, usual practice. And I find that distressing.

While 95% of respondents did not believe media has any influence over their own ideas about breastfeeding, more than half believe media should show it more often. Clearly, women believe media has an influence over someone (if not themselves). One key response was along the lines of "media doesn't influence my ideas about breastfeeding because it's not shown in media." My assertion is that this absence has just as much influence as if it were shown.



Moving forward

So what does this mean for feminists who embraced the bottle as their key to freedom from the ugliness and backward past? It means that the general public can look at American women and say "hey, are you women so stupid that you need to be told to breastfeed? And after eight years, you still aren't getting the message?" It means that heck, if you're an educated woman you need to recognise everything about you that's powerful, not just breaking through the glass ceiling.

 



If media showed breastfeeding as part of normal life on television and other media. If it made it present and normal - not a focus of a storyline, but just part of the everyday life of families with babies on tv, then could we begin to see this overtly sexual obsession with breasts change? Could we begin to see women being more accepting of their breasts as being a special part of a relationship with their child, not just as part of the relationship with their sexuality? If, in a similar way to Hollywood reducing smoking in movies, we began to insert breastfeeding into them... what would happen? And what about the international impact this could have? Hollywood movies are seen worldwide.

Certainly our only hope can be to improve on dismal American breastfeeding rates - and who knows where it could end.

Our visit to Vail

Yesterday we took a road trip to Vail. It's just two hours away. I found a great sledding area in Vail courtesy of a website which lets you locate good sledding runs (free) in your neighbourhood. We entered the address in the GPS, and off we went!

The day cost us nothing apart from the car's petrol and wonderful pizza we ate for dinner. We've discovered the following:

a. I need snow pants. Now. Because when I have a frozen wet bum I get grumpy.

b. Charlie is a daredevil on the flexi-sled. He's worked out that he needs to keep his whole body off the ground and entirely on the sled for the best run and for speed. He flies and cares little about danger... or direction.

c. Harry seems to be a natural snowboarder. He doesn't even own a skateboard, but managed to stay upright for a long way on his new snowboard. His balance is amazing and he just loves it.

d. Vail is spectacular. We are definitely going back, and will probably make it at least an overnight trip. The whole place is like a gingerbread storybook land. You can see a little in my video![youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbvpgLfHMuY]

Hiking with Harry

Harry loves to hike through the Rocky Mountains. There are more trails around here than you can poke a ... hiking staff at. (Sorry.)

Harry's decided to do a series of Hiking with Harry videos, which will show everyone a little bit of what new things he's experiencing in hiking in a completely different environment. This is his first one, where he is seeing his first ever frozen lake. The quality of the video and editing limits this talented young man because it's done by his mum! But I'll get better, I promise! :)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoXjCFYMt-I]

A visit to the A pool

Following my previous post about unhappily swimming in the B Pool, I'm pleased to have been able to scramble my way through to a bit of a splash in the A pool. You know, that place where the cool kids are?  

My final paper for Media Ethics,  Twittering a Funeral: Social media's challenge to professional journalism received a final A grade. I think my professor was just as relieved and pleased about it as I am.

I'll be working on the paper further to prepare it for possible conference/journal submission, under the intuitive guidance of Professor Mike McDevitt. Without his assistance in structuring my paper all the stuff in my head would still be struggling for a voice.

Anyway, I'll happily send it along to anyone who'd like the long, academic version. Just email me or DM me on Twitter. But for those of you with lives not academically focused, here are the key points:

Statement of Purpose
This paper examines the impact on the professionalism of journalism as it integrates the social networking tool Twitter in traditional news reporting. The paper considers the use of Twitter by the Rocky Mountain News in which a child's funeral was "live blogged," as well as the ensuing outcry and response from the editor, John Temple. It identifies the particular characteristics of Twitter as a communication tool, and proposes an ethical model which supports the use of Twitter in professional journalism.

The paper then outlines the case study of the Rocky Mountain News' reporting of a child's funeral using Twitter, and identifies why this use was not only unethical but a case of unprofessional journalism. This is journalism which doesn't address the recommendations of the Hutchins Commission, and puts the autonomy of American journalists, as well as their credibility, in the firing line. There is a desperate need for reporters to be trained in the functionality of Twitter and fully understand it as well as the community (not audience) which supports it.

I recommend a model which outlines three ways Twitter should not be used, as well as three ways in which it supports professional journalism.
NO:

1. When the use of Twitter (either through implementing the tool or the result) is perceived as a possible invasion of privacy. 

2. When another journalistic tool would better serve the reporting need or the ability of the journalist.

3. When a journalist or media entity is unfamiliar with social media in its complete form, not just as a broadcast medium.

YES:

1. As a resource for newsgathering purposes, in preparing information for stories, getting leads, etc.

2. As a public journalism tool - where the journalist can attend an event and act as the mediator between the community and the event. Eg: a red carpet event, where the community can ask the journalist questions and she can filter them and respond accordingly (of course, this takes a different sort of journalistic training.)

3. For Amber Alerts (abducted children), especially when the child is suspected to have been abducted overseas; and for issues of imminent need or notice such as natural disasters, etc. The input would come from reliable sources, and media would then be able to aid in important efforts to communicate with the respectability of their professional branding adding weight to the message going out through the Twitter stream. 

I hope the A pool welcomes me back a few more times. It's really nice.

How much is the Aussie brand worth?

This is just one instance of an American company trying to cash in on the good name Australia and its people have within the US. And it sucks.

As an Australian, I'm really disgusted by Procter & Gamble's obvious attempt to mislead consumers by producing and promoting a range of haircare products as Australian.

[caption id="attachment_156" align="alignright" width="112" caption="What do you call an Aussie brand that's not Australian?"][/caption]

The brand is 'Aussie' - and you know what? It's not. You can see the associated website here (of course, it's using simply www.aussie.com).

You should know the following:

a. This brand does not exist in Australia.

b. This brand has no money going to Australia.

c. This brand, featuring the kangaroo on its logo, and the hyperbole saying it's part of "the latest wave from down under" actually has NOTHING to do with Australia.

d. This is NOT an Australian product.

This is intentionally misleading by Procter & Gamble. The ad, which you can see on their website, uses an Australian woman's voice-over to reinforce the message they have something to do with Australia.

It's a total rip-off of the Australian image and brand.

Now, whether or not the product is any good is not my concern. I believe it is obviously unethical to present a product or brand as being something it's not. In this case, the Australian brand and people are being used to sell a product which has nothing to do with them.

So I approached Procter & Gamble with my concerns. Here's the (cut and pasted) email response:

Thank you for contacting Aussie. Aussie® was founded in 1979 by Tom Redmond who had over twenty years experience in the professional salon industry. Tom visited Australia and was inspired to develop Australian 3 Minute Miracle, an intensive conditioner that produced real results in only three minutes. 3 Minute Miracle is now a top selling conditioner with more than 45 million bottles sold. This was followed by Sprunch Spray, Instant Freeze Hair Spray, and a complete line of hair care and styling products.

While Aussie products are not made in Australia, many of the beneficial ingredients come from Australia.

We hope we've been helpful. If we can assist you in the future, please let us know.

The Consumer Relations Team

013958415A/EGS

Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.

If you have additional comments about this issue, please click here:

http://www.econsumeraffairs.com/cla/contactusfollowup.htm?F1=013958415A

 

This is a company that really needs to learn a few lessons in social media and customer service. Not only is the response comprised mainly of PR crap that NOBODY would have wanted to read, and that wasn't relevant, it was deliberately vague and even said "mail to this address cannot be answered."  P&G is such a big company, it doesn't want to actually converse with anyone. Pfft. Oh, they're into Social Media - they have a Facebook Fan Page for Aussie. You can access it here. I'm going to leave a little message for them on it... I invite you to do the same. :)

But back to their response...I was obviously particularly interested in the claim that "many of the beneficial ingredients come from Australia." I looked on the bottles of Aussie products in the supermarket. Nothing is listed as being from Australia. The product is completely made and produced in the USA, according to the bottles.

So I sent them another email, asking them what ingredients come from Australia and that I wanted to get it right because I was going to be blogging about this. Two weeks later, I'm still waiting for a response.

Now, I'm not expecting my American friends to be too upset over this. After all, it's not your brand that's being used to sell something. But I wonder how a company can get away with this shameless lying  unethical behaviour?

I'm contacting the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about P&G's sham and will let you know what eventuates. 

Day of the Dinosaurs

Colorado is not just about snow (the lack of which in 2008 is duly noted). Colorado has some absolutely incredible dinosaur excavations, including stuff that's still being dug up to this day. That's something I didn't know until we went on a day-long excursion/adventure this week.

First stop was one of the sites about half an hour from where we are living, at Dinosaur Ridge. The dino footprints have been preserved and you can walk up and see them! While the Ridge is on the side of a roadway, the road has now been blocked off (except for the little tour bus), so you can safely walk up.

[caption id="attachment_146" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Looking at Dino tracksThe tracks have been coloured black and go right up the side of the cliff"][/caption]

The rock is shale, and the history of this part of Colorado is that it used to be a sea. After the landforms changed the sea disappeared, and the dinosaurs were preserved and fossilized within the shale. It was great stopping at this site first because we looked first-hand, and touched the shale in the mountain. The layers of the rock were really cool.

From there we took a drive for another hour and a half to the Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Resource Center (RMDMC) at Woodland Park. It features lots of exceptionally cool stuff for adults as well as kids on the Dinosaurs they've found, how they preserve them, and lots of those cool skeletons. You can even see the paleontologists at work preserving the fossils! It was great because they described the shale excavation and some of their discoveries came from exactly where we had just been.

  The RMDRC has interactive kid activities, free hourly tours of the centre, two movies running all the time, and full displays of how they create the casts, and preserve the remains. Everything is presented in such a great way, it kept every one of us enthralled. There was no whingeing at this one! This was a day trip well worth taking!

Flapdoodle's pumpkin diet

Halloween is officially over. The only candy left is the real crud that nobody will eat so I'm about to chuck it out. That's not bad for an entire month!

The other great thing was the jack-o-lanterns. We had heaps of fun carving them with our US friends and they decorated the outside of the house with their scariness for a while. And the kids even had a jack-o-lantern competition at school which was amusing. (Though why so many parents feel they have to do the jack-o-lantern for their kid like some work of art, and then put the kid's name on it when it was obviously done by the parent is beyond me. Some people need to get a life.)

Anyway, back to the real story here. The jack-o-lanterns, if carved, go 'off' in about a week, so the kids painted and googly eyed etc two pumpkins for school. When they brought them back home we put them on the front verandah... and Flapdoodle decided it was his buffet time.

We have been highly amused by Flapdoodle's obsession with our pumpkins. (Yes, we are that desperate for entertainment.) Finally he has eaten both of them. And they were quite large! Luckily for him, he left the googly eyes and pipe cleaners, and he's still running about so they didn't kill him.

[caption id="attachment_142" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Flapdoodle, king of pumpkin one"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_143" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Attacking pumpkin two"][/caption]

Vilification is not okay, even if it's accepted vernacular

During my final 12 months in Australia, a disturbing language fad happened in the youth I was teaching at college. It was also demonstrated across all youth, because I saw it in my own children.

The use of the word gay to describe something negative. Anything negative. Was gay. "That's so gay." "He's so gay." "That game's gay."

The real meaning was that gay was a reject. It was bad. It was unacceptable.

That's vilification. It's a representation of bigotry.

And even though most people saying it weren't intending to be supporting of any of those horrible, closed minded sentiments, they were still saying it. And as such, they were keeping the flame alive.

So I decided that even though it was a rampant part of the youth vernacular, I didn't have to accept it. So I outlawed this use of it in my classroom. And it had very real effect.

I told them all. Every class. If you use that term in that way, you're out of my classroom. And then I explained why.

It caused a little stir, but it worked. They found other ways to express themselves, and it brought to light the fact that we all have responsibility for the language we use, and even if we don't intend to offend... we can and often do. And that's problematic for all of us in a society.

So now I'm in the US and I'm finding the same situation exists with the word "retard". Just throw it in wherever gay was thrown in and you get the picture.

So I'm taking the same stance. I won't accept this. Not in my friends, my kids... even my Twitter friends. And I'm calling on you to join with me in this. Let's stamp this vilification out. Just as it's unacceptable to say the "N word" in the USA to refer to people, I'd love it to be the case to see it as unacceptable to use the "R word" to refer to anyone or anything at all.

Some of our community are intellectually disabled. That doesn't make them "R word" in the sense it's being used by the broader community - it just gives them extra challenges. If you decide to segment these people into a less important stereotype, then you will completely miss out on the fact that people with those challenges are admirable and often inspirational in the way they take on the world. Their stories will often bring you to earth with a crash.

So will you join me? Will you consciously stamp the "r word" out of your vocabulary? Will you commit to telling those around you not to use it in your presence? Let's join forces. No word is bigger than the people behind the vocabulary.

The massive difference between A and B

I am swimming in the B pool and I'm not happy. (Don't try telling me getting a B is okay. It's not.)

I have some kick-ass papers to write. I have a great brain and a wealth of experience. But I'm not getting the grades I want.

Graduate school is difficult. This week I had what I'd describe as a 'crash and burn 24 hours'. There were lots of reasons to just go back to work. Lots. But in talking with my husband and friends I realised these 'reasons' were things that could be changed if I wanted to find a way to make that happen.

So I've made a plan to fix things. A better approach. I will be far more efficient at note-taking, writing (so that includes drafting, revising and final drafts... not just one draft), and research. I will talk to people I respect, and tie myself to my professors. I am not going to study myself to death. I am not going to be so fearful of writing the wrong thing that I leave it and end up writing it without checking. I'm going to write it anyway, and then check it up and rewrite it instead.

All this seems obvious. And it is. Unless you're living it.

So that's basically it. Oh, and the capstone is the kids and I have a deal. When I do pull myself out of the B pool, we are having a family party - complete with glow sticks from Dollar Tree, disco music and junk food.

It's time to kill Lynette, the post-feminist failure.

I was wondering which of the Desperate Housewives I am. I don't have a gardener, we're not rich, my kids are not dysfunctional, I'm not blonde in real estate and I'm not pretty and stupid. I guess some would say Lynette is the closest to me, because she has billions of children and was a great worker outside the home. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

I adore that I'm a mum of four children. Each of my kids is incredible and I've learned so much about myself and life's purpose with having each othem around. I've been a parent for 17 and a half years now. That's a really long time - nearly half my life. when I had my first child, I was about 10 years younger than any of the other mums in the parenting groups, and I was pretty much a fish out of water. But even though it was incredibly challenging, I did it, and did it really well.

I also worked outside the house. Because I wanted to. And that fantastic juggling act was about the most impressive thing I've ever done. It's not about being a 'superwoman', it's about being an individual. Someone who wants to try to do as much as possible and doesn't want to make "choices" that the women's movement and society says you should.

I gave birth to both my second child and my first magazine for ACP in the same year, without a nanny or cleaner or whatever. How did that work? I pitched a plan to my publisher, Nick Chan, that I would telecommute (the first ever at ACP) and guaranteed him that he would get the best editor for the job if he appointed me. Even though someone else wanted the job (who was also female, but not pregnant at the time), he gave it to me. Some would congratulate Nick for that - what a forward thinking guy he is. I find that pretty condescending and basically offensive to both Nick and me. I know Nick is an incredible professional and he appointed the person who was going to do the best job, all things considered. It was a business decision, not a 'socially courageous' one. He appointed me because I freaking well rock.

How did he know that?

I had put together an 8-page sample of what the magazine would look like, gathered a small team of potential staff, and done a budget. I made commitments to him about how the magazine would run and undertook my own market research with that team of potential staff. I approached it professionally.

And I followed through.

Far from the 'easy' road, it's had its challenges. My kids have grown up in a variety of different caregiving arrangements over the years, but never fulltime 8-6pm every day because that's never been what I wanted to have happen with them. I've paid more than I should have had to for childcare because I wanted a particular type, place, time. I have even taken time out from full-time employment a few times because I've wanted to take a bit of a break. But I've always ended up back in the workforce, in jobs I've loved.

I am the sort of person who looks for reasons how to make things work, not reasons why they can't. I don't care about social norms, about what's 'acceptable'. I'm not post-feminist. I'm not Lynette from Desperate Housewives. I'm not full of aching resentment and confusion about what my role is. I'm loving my life. I mix it up.

I'm sick of people wanting to do one of two things: first, make me some poster girl for women everywhere. While I appreciate you may admire my ability on some levels and I admire women too, I think it's about taking responsibility for yourself and making things happen for you. Don't point to me as an 'example'. You should do whatever you want, and feel empowered to do it. If you don't feel empowered, then get to the point where you do. It's YOUR responsibility to find your motivation. I don't look elsewhere for empowerment, but I do for affirmation. I find affirmation in women who are doing those little tough things that don't get recognised. I will never forget dropping my kids at daycare at 8am, meeting up with another mum doing the same; however she was actually a shift worker who had started work at 4am, and was on a break from work. She had picked her child up from one carer to take him to the other one at 8am. She was a woman who needed to do something, adored her family and did what it took to make it work.

In both our cases it wasn't going to last forever. It probably wasn't going to last even 12 months. Kids grow up, jobs change. But for a period of time you sit up and say this is how it needs to be, and I'm going to make it happen. Don't look to the spouse, the grandparents, whomever to 'help out'. If you want it to go a certain way, then you find a way to make it happen.

Secondly, I don't like people who look at what I do and then find either excuses as to why it is easier for me (oh you must have lots of help at home), or even evidence about why I'm not succeeding as well as I should be (oh you must be a bad mother, or you're cutting corners). None of that is true - my kids are not only fantastic, well adjusted people, they have the benefit of seeing their mum achieve some pretty amazing stuff while they're there to share it with me. The boys recognise that women can do anything, at any stage of their lives. And my daughter, at 17, is recognising that she can make choices that suit her in life, not some social norm.

Unlike the women's movement of the 80s, I don't tell my daughter she can have choices. I want to be a mum who lives her choices - just as any individual can, male or female. I want her to see that working inside the home is just as important as outside, and women can and should be empowered to feel fulfilled doing whatever it is they choose to do, in whatever mix. And that there is a balance that can be achieved, and that balance is different for everyone. And she has to be personally empowered to make a balance for herself. She doesn't have to thank anyone other than herself for taking it on and making it happen.

Take control. Make your own way. Stop finding excuses for whatever is on the backburner. Find reasons to cook it all up now. Empower yourself and be your own inspiration. Get rid of Lynette.

Kids reaction to our first snow in Boulder

Being true blue surf, sand and sea Aussies who have lived on the Eastern coast of Australia forever, our kids have never seen snow.

Australia definitely has it though. But it's about a 5 hour drive to the ski fields from where we lived, and the price to stay, ski or whatever was incredibly prohibitive, especially given we're a large family. And the snowy mountains only has snow for about 8 weeks of the year anyway.

So we never did it.

And now we've moved to Boulder, where it snows from October through to about April(?) This video captures Harry and Charlie's first reactions. Enjoy!

[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yWOcHWPUpEA]

Disclosures

Here I disclose absolutely everything that I consider could be deemed (by a reasonable person) to influence what I talk about or how I talk about it. I'm not seeking to monetize this site, but I recognise that my social equity is building and my branding has some value. I see the future of media is not in the vast number of clicks, but in the quality and resonance of the audience that interacts with me. I'm not looking to build my audience using any means possible - I really don't care that much for people visiting as an accident because they clicked through someone else first. I'd much rather have people actively seek *me* out for conversation, or to see what I've got. Advertisers are not caught up on that yet. So far, I've been offered a few free 'link to us and we'll link to you' deals that I'm not taking up. I will, of course, keep you posted. :)

Research, Papers and Presentations

My first ever public presentation was at PubCamp 2008. I undertook an unconference session in Sydney looking at the quality of media reporting of stories online as opposed to its traditional format. A few days later I delivered a more wide-ranging presentation at PubCamp in Melbourne, which was filmed and put here (if you watch it, please allow time for buffering so the slides begin with the speech). Of course, I think there are some great points in this presentation, but I believe I could do it so much better now. :)

I am currently undertaking my Masters in Mass Communication Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I'm working on research papers covering the following areas:

1. The mediation and mediatization of breastfeeding and its relationship to societal norms. On February 18, 2009 I presented a segment of my research at Ignite Boulder. Ignite is an awesome fun opportunity where presenters have 5 minutes and 20 slides that are on auto advance, with 15 seconds for each slide. You can watch the fun here.

2. The integration of Web 2.0 strategies with professional journalism and associated ethical issues.

3. My thesis is moving towards studying the strength of online communities formed using social media. My current semester's research is on the use of speech acts (hashtags, @ and retweets) and discourse/turn taking on Twitter.

I am going to endeavour to be as transparent as possible here on my blog, and post my outlines for relevant things I know associates who read my blog may be interested in. I would really appreciate feedback, contributions, questions, opportunities to present my work, and free coffees (not necessarily in that order).

Why you shouldn't read print

Since moving to Boulder I've actually started picking up the local free newspaper each day, but I'm over it. Why? I read it online and believe it's the cheapest, easiest way of helping the environment - even easier than all that other recycling we do.

In Australia to get a paper you need to visit a newsagent, or the train station - basically have a human interaction. But here in the US, there are a plethora of newsboxes (I dunno what they're actually called) all around the place - everywhere - carrying an assortment of daily newspapers, catalogues, classifieds. Almost anything! Many of them are free, and those that aren't are cheap to buy. The Daily Camera is only 50c (the Sunday edition is $1). You put the money in the slot and it lets you pull the handle open to grab your paper. While in Sydney we have about 4 generally available mass media newspapers, here there are at least twice that.



This seems great - it's so convenient, there's never a line for the paper, and it's so cheap it's easy to pick it up to read on the bus or whatever. And on a Sunday morning, you don't have to make conversation.

That's the big difference. The quality of news in these papers is shocking. The Colorado Daily is really crap. The writing is complete drivel. The topics are ridiculous. There is no real news. The best part is the comics. And even then, whomever is editing it sometimes runs the same comic two days or more straight. The Boulder Weekly, another free paper, is a bit better, but really - it's a good thing they're free. Nobody in their right mind would pay for this crap. The writing is grammatically incorrect, badly edited - it looks like a 4th grade paper. It's simply not professional in any sense of the word, let alone 'journalism'. Sort of like a cut down, free version of Sydney's Daily Telegraph.

But that gets me on to 'good quality' print - you know, the stuff you expect to pay for. The real journalism.

The Daily Camera and The Rocky Mountain News, which are like Sydney's Daily Telegraph in the 'real' sense, have been running subscription campaigns. Get it cheaper and you'll save! Big frigging deal. I can read both of them online... for free!

And there's nothing left of it when I'm done. No papers laying around to put in the recycling.

That's the biggest deal of all - the environmental cost. The New York Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, is also available online. Consider this: 314 acres of trees are cut down for every single edition of the Sunday New York Times.

314 acres. Gone. Because people like something tangible to hold with their coffee on Sundays; and then they chuck it out come Monday morning.

For a world of people who are becoming more aware of global warming and all the associated issues of environmental catastrophes, surely we owe ourselves and our kids those 314 acres.

Join me. Demand great journalism from your traditional mastheads, but demand it online. Leave the paper on the trees where it belongs.

It's the little things

Living in the USA is really similar to living in Australia. You know, there are schools, public transport, etc. But some things, little things, can make it seem really freaky. And that's really fun.

For example, the mail. In Australia you have a home letterbox where mail is delivered to monday to friday. If you want to send snail mail, you go to the post office. Rarely do you get stamps anywhere else. There are postboxes in the streets, etc, and when you've stamped your letter (it's 50 cents to anywhere in Australia for standard mail) then it's good to go. It takes about a day or two to get wherever you send it to. Unless you've put money in it, then it might never arrive.

In Boulder you can buy stamps at the supermarket, and heaps of other places. There are nowhere near the plethora of post offices, but there are quite a number of shipping places that specialise in packages.



The really great part is that when you have a standard letter to post, you simply put it in your own letterbox and the mail carrier (the US version of the mail man) picks it up when they drop off your mail. All you need to do is raise the little red flag next to your letterbox.

Super cool. I'm pretty convinced this is why NetFlix, the movie rental service that works by sending the movies out to you via mail, has taken off in a big way here. It's all so simple.

MSM journalism and Twitter

Moving online has caused Mainstream Media (MSM) quite a few headaches. I explored this a little during my Pubcamp presentation earlier this year.

Unlike many, I believe there is still life in MSM yet - they just have to learn to adapt to the new environment and, staying true to their code of ethics, make the most of new media in a way which better serves the audience.

Too many MSM consider they are making use of new media by simply having an online space. Quality of MSM journalism has taken a nose-dive as the stress of creating content (repurposed or not) on a continuing cycle for the online entities has reduced the time available for researching and fact checking. The seemingly limitless amounts of space online, and the audience demand for updated news combines with the advertisers' demand for minute-by-minute hit ratios.

Any ethical news organisation would reasonably buckle under that pressure. And many have.

It's time for MSM to look beyond coming up with new 'stories that aren't' and flimsy angles on old agendas in order to maintain their readership. It's time to revisit your mission, reconsider who you serve, and then integrate new media to that end.

The whole reader comment thing is really iffy for MSM. I believe in brands. Whether online or in print, MSM is professional and has a branding that reflects their years of commitment. A stamp of professionalism if you like. When you run a slurry of reader comments online under news stories you invite commentary that is neither professional nor reflects your branding. We are seeing stories that are 300 words long but which have 2000 words of reader comments, most of which is simply diatribe - or worse, just plain offensive bigotry.

Who does that serve?

Additionally, you have your reporters running their own blogs which are nothing more than a bit of fluff that nobody, not even your MSM journo's themselves, take seriously. Honestly, you're getting it wrong. If it's not fit to print then why do you believe it's fit for the web?

No wonder your sales continue to slide.

The Rocky Mountain News (RMN) and a few other organisations are to be congratulated for looking further into new media. The RMN is trying to use Twitter. But so far MSM hasn't got its head around the possibilities of social networking tools, and it's falling a bit short.

So if you're listening, here's what you need to do.

Train your journalists in social media and focus on the social aspect. Twitter can be used as a broadcast tool, sure, but that's not its limitation. In fact, why not tell your audience that you'll be at a certain event, and ask them to get online and use the journalist as their eyes and ears at that event? Yes, Twitter goes two ways!

I can see a really great potential here for MSM to make a mark using social media, and for the professionalism and integrity of journalism to get a real kick back on track. MSM can offer its very wide audience the opportunity to be part of the democratic, authentic, balanced journalism the public seeks. Sure you can use Twitter as an advertisement link to other news stories, but that's simply advertising. Why not integrate the tool in your reporting and at the same time bond with your audience?

Now that's something I'd love to see. That's something that will get people believing in you again.

Breastfed is best fed. The End.

Yes, I breastfed all four of my children.

Yes, I did for at least three years for every one of them.

And no, I make no apologies for it.

If you're uncomfortable with my headline, then as the Queen of Spain says, #suckit. (Yes, I do finally get that.)

I've spouted for a long time that breast fed is best fed. I think it's a great line and it describes my feelings well. All four of my kids deserved the best, and still do. I have sacrificed a lot for my kids.

After walking the talk for 18 years on natural birthing and breastfeeding, I am very familiar with the reasons why people don't do one or both of the above.

Some are valid reasons - and I recognise that. But the World Health Organisation's statistics are not possibly wrong. How can Western Nations suddenly need vast numbers of c-sections and women worldwide continue to *choose* to formula feed over breastfeeding for reasons that are non-medical?

Doesn't your child deserve the best?