BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for Media Engagement - ECPv6.15.17.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for Media Engagement
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://mediaengagement.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for Media Engagement
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Chicago
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20130310T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20131103T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20140309T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20141102T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20150308T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20151101T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20160313T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20161106T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20170312T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20171105T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20180311T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20181104T070000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170503T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170503T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T192000Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151753Z
UID:13210-1493798400-1493830800@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Rhetorics of the Good Life: Social Ontology\, Ethics\, and Communication
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Omedi Ochieng (Denison University) // May 3rd\, 2017 // 3:00pm-4:30pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nHow ought we to think of the meaning of “ethics” in light of global climate change\, resurgent white supremacy\, and the everyday cruelties of neoliberal capitalism? In this presentation\, I outline what I describe as a non-ideal social ontology as the background against which a robust understanding of ethics ought to be understood. In contrast to the dominant views of ethical interaction which list toward idealism\, moralism\, and parochialism\, a non-ideal social ontology allows for an expansive vision of the “ethical” as a way of life – and thereby invites wide-ranging inquiry into what constitutes good societies and good lives in the twenty-first century. Finally\, this presentation seeks to open up space on how we ought to participate in and engage with constitutive institutions such as mass and social media in an age when truth is increasingly seen as partisan\, justice is dismissed as utopian\, and freedom has been tribalized. \nFree and open to the public
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/rhetorics-of-the-good-life-social-ontology-ethics-and-communication/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20170425
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20170426
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20170425T145506Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200904T152050Z
UID:15014-1493078400-1493164799@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Engaging News about Congress: Report from a News Engagement Workshop
DESCRIPTION:On February 23-24\, 2017\, the Center for Media Engagement at The University of Texas at Austin and the Agora Journalism Center at the University of Oregon partnered to host a regional news engagement workshop focused on engagement and political coverage. The 11 digital news leaders and reporters who participated represented a variety of newsrooms based in the Pacific Northwest: Alaska Dispatch News\, Hillsboro Tribune\, KGW\, KUOW\, Montana Television Network\, The Olympian\, Oregon Public Broadcasting\, The Oregonian\, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting\, Statesman Journal\, and Willamette Week. During the two-day workshop\, participants shared their experiences and ideas for making news coverage of Congress and the issues covered by Congress more engaging. See the full report on what we found. \nImplications for Newsrooms\nThe purpose of this workshop was to convene news innovators involved in audience engagement and political reporting to share experiences about engagement and reporting on Congress. The result of the convening was\, in our mind\, a very productive series of sessions and some provocative new ideas about making Congressional coverage engaging. Over the course of 24 hours\, workshop participants provided unique insight into how they think about audience engagement and political coverage and came up with promising and creative ideas for how they can improve the relationship between the two. We are eager to see these ideas come into being and encourage you to reach out to the Center for Media Engagement if you are inspired to put any of these ideas into action. \nThe Workshop\nWhat is “Engagement”?\nWe kicked off the workshop by having participants discuss what the term “engagement” means to them and their news organizations. Several themes became clear throughout the conversation. \nWHAT COUNTS AS ENGAGEMENT AND HOW MUCH IT IS EMPHASIZED VARIES BY NEWSROOM\n\nI’d say engagement is a conversation with substance\, a conversation that brings meaning. It’s a conversation that’s mutually beneficial for the audience and the organization\, so it enhances the content\, the comments\, or the flow of back-and-forth. (Retsinas)\nThe way engagement manifests itself in my daily work is usually people calling or emailing me questions. People don’t always know what their government does\, or who the government is. So I try to point people in the right direction. And\, for better or for worse\, it’s about reading the comments and responding to legitimate questions. (Friedman)\nIf we’re doing our job well\, we’re engaging the community on every level. It’s a never-ending process of tending to the community or the audience\, whatever you’d like to call it. (Hulen)\nFor me\, I’m a little skeptical of the term “engagement\,” because it borders on marketing to readers\, figuring out what they want and giving them what they want. (Mesh)\nEngagement is not a term I’ve heard a lot in my newsroom. (Dennison)\nIt’s our job to find a way to make people care and to present the content in a way that people can understand. If we have a story that has 500 unique visitors\, but a minute and a half of engagement time\, we probably have a marketing issue. But if we have 5\,000 visitors spending 15 seconds and it’s a 40-inch story\, we know we have a writing issue. We can look at these numbers and ask if it’s a marketing issue\, if it’s a writing issue\, or if it’s a topic issue. (Miller)\n\nAN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ENGAGEMENT IS ENSURING THAT THE AUDIENCE’S INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED IN THE NEWS\n\nSo many people are engaging now\, whether it’s watching Facebook Live or commenting or getting a copy of the newspaper or turning on the TV. But I think part of what we as news organizations need to ask ourselves is who we have in the stories\, why we have those people in the stories\, and how that affects who not only reads the story but also how they share and interact with it. I think the average reader wants to stay up to date and know what this really has to do with people’s daily lives. (Friedman)\nFor us\, it’s underlining and enhancing editorial products. For a series we did on a homeless camp in Seattle\, we brought three homeless people to the Seattle Public Library to connect with a large audience of about 400 people. Engagement is about taking the editorial product and bringing it to the public in a different way. (Reynolds)\nWe have to find what’s driving our reporting and what’s missing. Is there something we didn’t see because we’re in our own echo chamber? (Retsinas)\nWhen we profile a different town for each episode of our program “Our Town\,” we’ll have ideas of people to talk to in the town\, but we let the community tell us what the story is going to be. We host a big community meeting that we record and we get stories out of that meeting. And we let the community members lead the discussion as opposed to us going in with preconceived notions. (Rothenfluch)\nThe engagement that tends to interest me the most and what I think is most productive happens in the story-finding process. To some degree\, the only reason why we have a comment section at all is that sometimes it leads to new story ideas. What we want is to have engagement in a way that has people telling you about the homeless camp in their neighborhood that they’ve decided to help. (Mesh)\n\nENGAGEMENT CAN INVOLVE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO TALK TO EACH OTHER\, AND GETTING COMMUNITIES TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEMSELVES\n\nWe’re experimenting with a different kind of community engagement\, and it’s getting the community to talk to itself. There are so many different sub-communities\, and a lot of them don’t talk to each other at all. Last year\, I thought\, “How many of us know Muslims who we are comfortable talking to about religion and politics?” So\, we arranged an “Ask a Muslim” session in February and it was so successful that we did another one in July. It was a discussion based on the concept of speed-dating\, where you talked to a Muslim for 6 minutes and then another Muslim for 6 minutes. You talked to about 12 Muslims by the end. Maybe you found out something about Muslims you didn’t realize BEFORE. (Reynolds)\nI’ve seen a lot of “burst your bubble” types of initiatives in different newsrooms now that try to connect people. We are that trusted source. We can be that neutral platform to bring people together and have a conversation. To me\, that’s what engagement is all about. (Goins)\n\nALTHOUGH ALL THE PARTICIPANTS WANTED TO DO MORE WITH ENGAGEMENT\, THEY ALSO ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE CHALLENGES\n\nAs I’m a solo reporter\, if I’m going to do anything\, I have to do it myself. It’s difficult to find the time. (Dennison)\nSometimes the louder voices tend to drown out other ones\, whether it’s on social media or the newsroom\, and you tend to get distracted a little by all the noise. There is a need in our newsroom to have the resources to filter out the better things in the conversations we want to have\, but we don’t have the resources to do that. (Retsinas)\nYou have to make engagement a priority to do it well. We have to commit the resources\, whether it’s time or people\, and by doing that\, we’re not going to do these five other things that our audience may be expecting us to do. Then you have to explain\, we’re not doing this because we’re working on something that’s bigger that will pay off down the line. (Miller)\nThere is a street protest in the city of Portland every single day of the week. We choose not to cover every single one of those protests. In fact\, we choose to cover very few of them and our readership lets us know every time we don’t cover those protests. We get asked\, “Why don’t you care about the future of our democracy?” and the answer to that question is because we’re working on a very different\, larger-scale story that might impact what you choose to protest next. (Mesh)\n\nMeasuring Success\nParticipants also discussed how their newsrooms measure success when thinking about engagement. \nNEWSROOM METRICS ARE USEFUL – TO A POINT\n\nWe know that not everybody reads everything because we have the numbers to prove it. We know they’re not reading every word of the things they are reading. If we’re wasting resources on things that people aren’t consuming then we’re not engaging because the numbers tell us they’re not. Then we’re not serving our audience and we’re not giving to them what’s important to them. (Miller)\nI don’t believe in the idea that if something isn’t popular\, if there is just no way to make someone want to eat this particular vegetable\, that we should take it off the menu. Some things you do because it’s your duty to do It’s our duty to write about things that matter to the future of our city\, our state\, and our nation\, regardless of how many clicks they get. (Mesh)\nAnalysis metrics are a useful tool\, but they don’t capture everything. Maybe one person read that story and was deeply affected by it and they went out and did something about it. How do you measure that? There are ways stories impact people that we have no way of calculating. (Reynolds)\nWe are the record of what’s happening. It may not be read today\, but I feel that we have a value in being that record as a collective industry. Even if my organization doesn’t do everything\, another one will. Metrics matter and I’m very much driven by metrics in my role\, but I also think about our institutional role and that’s part of the\, ‘So what?’ value. (Retsinas)\nEveryone likes the high numbers because you want those clicks. But I think we try to create something of value. If a reader engages you and is willing\, after reading what you wrote\, to write you a letter about what they thought\, even if they hated everything you wrote\, the fact that you’re able to get them to engage you on a story\, that has a ripple effect and value. That builds relationships and gets clicks for everything else you do. (Hobbs)\n\nCovering Congress\nWe asked participants to share how they and their news organizations cover Congress. Our hope was to learn more about their experiences and challenges of covering Congress before brainstorming ways to improve coverage. We included coverage of Congress as an institution\, coverage of individual Congressional representatives\, and coverage of issues relevant to Congress as part of the discussion. \nCOVERING CONGRESS IS CHALLENGING DUE TO DISTANCE AND ACCESS\n\nWe have bureau reporters in D.C.\, but they’re also correspondents for four or five other states. How much can they know about Oregon and Salem\, and what is important to our residents? They’ve never lived in Salem and haven’t spent a ton of time in Salem. For congressional material to be meaningful\, and then actionable locally\, it’s got to be written in a voice that our audience can understand\, and that’s a big disconnect. (Miller)\nMost of the information we get comes from our Congressional members. For us to cover them\, we have to rely on them to tell us what’s going on. We don’t really have any independent way of evaluating that\, and that’s made even more difficult when they’re thousands of miles away. (Dennison)\nWe do have a full-time reporter in D.C.\, and that has its advantages. But one of the challenges is just the general disconnect and gridlock in Washington. (Hulen)\nAnother barrier is access to information. We file multiple FOIA requests every single week. More and more\, we are being forced into an adversarial role to obtain basic information – facts to support something\, documentation\, correspondence\, the things that years ago\, when I was a government reporter in another life\, it wasn’t that hard to get. Now even just getting things that aren’t even confrontational require requests and time\, which then slows the process\, making the story often less relevant. (Retsinas)\nAs a watchdog newsroom\, you’re trying to figure out how the votes of your representatives affect day-to-day life in the city and state that you’re covering. That’s fairly easy to do with local officials at City Hall or state officials in the legislature\, but it becomes harder to do on a Congressional level. (Mesh)\nI think a self-imposed barrier for us is that we think\, “NPR is in Washington\, they have full-time Congressional correspondents\, this stuff is super complicated.” We can have a Congressman on for a call\, but I don’t know if we feel as though having someone take the time to understand the processes going on in Washington is a good investment versus covering the state legislature or going down to city hall. (Reynolds)\nUser interfaces on the federal and congressional websites are so clunky that half the time I can’t figure out how a vote went down\, or what the legislation was. It’s difficult. (Friedman)\n\nIT’S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE MATERIAL ABOUT CONGRESS INTERESTING AND APPLICABLE TO READERS\n\nI think what people want is: How does it impact them? They hear all of these national stories\, and you hear all of the decisions that are being made\, but what’s the on the ground? How does it affect my life? (Rothenfluch)\nI would say that giving people a basic understanding of the responsibilities of your Congressman versus your governor versus your legislator versus your mayor versus the courts versus your city councilor or your county council is 99% of people don’t understand. (Friedman)\nWe have access to all the wire stories on Congress\, but if we don’t cover the Alaska delegation\, and the overall impact for Alaska\, with everything from climate change to the military\, indigenous people and public land\, it isn’t as meaningful. For us\, there’s really no substitute for us doing it ourselves. (Hulen)\nPeople are really interested in characters and conflict\, and so I think you can’t tell the story of process unless you tell the story of process through people. Whether it’s the constituents at home or it’s the Congressional representatives themselves\, unless you have strong\, vivid characters\, people don’t read stories. Nobody reads books about processes\, they read books about characters. (Mesh)\n\nIdeas to Improve Engagement with Congressional Coverage\nAt the workshop\, we encouraged each participant to brainstorm ways to make reporting on Congress more engaging. Each participant was then given time\, both individually and in breakout groups\, to workshop their idea. The nine thought-provoking ideas that emerged are summarized below. \nIdea: Community Correspondents (Sarah Rothenfluch\, Oregon Public Broadcasting\, and Cole Goins\, Reveal)\n\nGet 8-12 people representative of a community; come up with methodology to select representative group (e.g. reflect state demographics) and interview people to select the right correspondents\nTreat them as community correspondents/ambassadors to the tell human effects of policy and challenges of civic engagement through their lens\nThese correspondents would check in with the newsroom regularly about what they’re feeling about what’s happening in Congress\n“Make them the faces of the real impact … tell their stories”\nAn engagement producer would help manage the group\, spark conversations\, and check in\n\nIdea: Federal Feud (Aaron Mesh\, Williamette Week)\n\nWould be an event set up like an actual game show\, held at theater or bar\nInvite representatives to guess what their constituents most want\nBefore the event\, news organization would conduct a poll to ask constituents about their priorities & political views (health care\, immigration\, )\nHeld during election cycle; incumbent challenger\n“Survey Says …” … “Are you Smarter than a Congressman”\n\nIdea: Ask Congressman to Participate in Townhall (Andy Hobbs\, The Olympian)\n\nThe newspaper would host a town hall event with their Congressional representative\nHost watch parties outside of the main cities to get more diverse voices\nThe newspaper would do a call for questions ahead of the event to ensure that it isn’t about bashing\nWould be an opportunity for reporters and editors to meet more readers\, get stories out of it\, establish credibility\, and build a relationship\nCould partner with sister paper to make it happen\n\nIdea: Road Across Wildlife Refuge (David Hulen\, Alaska Dispatch News)\n\nThe question posed to workshop participants: How to tell this specific story of a road being built in a wildlife refuge in a way that engages readers?\nIn addition to telling the story conventionally and reporting basic facts\, add drone/360 video\nIdentify stakeholders\, have them submit video or text to explain their side in their own words\nDo a live (video) event afterward allowing readers to ask questions … could then make a video about this and broadcast it on the newspaper’s website or local public television\n\nIdea: Health Care Reform Game (Ross Reynolds\, KUOW)\n\nVideo game about how aspects of health care reform will affect various outcomes (level of government responsibility à amount of taxes\, who is covered à number uninsured)\nPlay the game depending on what you want as the outcome (e.g. health care for all\, choice of health care\, )\nIncorporate stories into the game (someone talking or a written account of how it affects them personally)\nGet members of Congress to play the game\, create content based on their results\nAllow people to play & share their results on social media\nGoal: Show how factors work together on a complicated issue\n\nIdea: The Wall (Dann Miller\, Statesman Journal)\n\nAsk people to write issues or topics important to their daily lives on a public wall\nPut into database to look at topics that are consistent across geographic area\, then give these to Congressional representative\nSee the words that people use (e.g. my drive to work transportation); use this language in reporting\nReport on how Congress has voted on issue and amendments (dive deeper than just what happened with the final bill)\nDigital vs. in person (in person has benefits)\n\nIdea: Explain Why Solutions Aren’t Happening (Mike Dennison\, Montana Television Network)\n\nIdentify a problem and potential solutions\, and then report on why solutions are not happening and what it would take to make them happen\nCould increase reader engagement by telling people: here’s what you need to do to make a solution happen\nCould solicit ideas from viewers about what problem to tackle (but this would depend on newsroom)\n\nIdea: Your Q’s? The A’s (Greg Retsinas\, KGW)\n\nPeople ask questions about Congress and newsroom provides actual data as answers\nDecide what questions to respond to based on what users say (curated responses)\nStay non-partisan and focus on local issues\nSocial media conversation leads to more Q&A\n\nIdea: Improved Transparency (Gordon Friedman\, The Oregonian)\n\nIn a story\, have a side bar with phone numbers and email addresses of elected officials referenced (which can be difficult for readers to find all in one place)\nInclude footnotes to sources\nLabel the story as news / analysis / opinion / etc.\n\nYou can view the full report to see details about each participant.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/engaging-news-about-congress-report-from-a-news-engagement-workshop/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IMG_0222-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170410T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170410T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191922Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200317T174431Z
UID:13209-1491811200-1491843600@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Moral Psychology and Media Practice: Keys to Ethical Behavior in News\, Public Relations\, & Advertising
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Patrick Lee Plaisance (Colorado State University) // April 10th\, 2017 // 1:30pm-3:00pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nMoral psychology theories and methodologies offer exciting opportunities for work that advances media ethics research in new ways. From brain scans to ‘life story’ interviews to survey data\, these opportunities are being explored with diverse populations in multiple disciplines. As empirical researchers increasingly interact with moral theorists\, moral psychology research is able to explore the relationships among psychological factors and organizational-level structures and influences\, and thereby illuminate the forces that help or hinder virtuous work. Similar lines of research with media workers is critical if media ethics theorizing is to continue to mature. \nDr. Patrick Lee Plaisance worked as a journalist at numerous American newspapers for nearly 15 years in Virginia\, New Jersey\, California\, and Florida before his career in academia. His research focuses on media ethics theory\, journalism values and media sociology\, and moral psychology. He is author of Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice (SAGE\, 2009; 2014) and Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News & Public Relations (Routledge\, 2014). He is editing the forthcoming volume\, Handbook of Communication Ethics (DeGruyter\, 2017). He is the current editor of the Journal of Media Ethics. Dr. Plaisance’s research has appeared in a number of scholarly journals\, including Communication Theory\, Journal of Communication\, Communication Research\, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly\, and Journalism Studies. \nFree and open to the UT community and general public \nSupported by the School of Journalism
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/moral-psychology-and-media-practice-keys-to-ethical-behavior-in-news-public-relations-advertising/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mei8.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170404T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170404T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191834Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151825Z
UID:13208-1491292800-1491325200@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Cosmopolitan Media Ethics and the Global Imaginary
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Clifford Christians (The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) // April 4th\, 2017 // 3:00pm-4:30pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nIn this research talk\, Clifford Christians explores how media ethics must change to meet the demands of new communication technologies. Today’s information era\, with upheavals across the globe\, requires a new theory of communication ethics. Our cosmopolitanism cannot be a neoliberal arc or homogenous technological network\, but a multicultural transnational imaginary. What is a media ethics of universal human solidarity\, philosophically and professionally? \nMedia ethics to be credible must be radically international. The technological revolution has created a networked globe\, so that the world mind is no longer for the elite\, but a possible imaginary for the public as a whole. For media ethics\, in theory and in institutions\, it means more than extending one’s individual autonomy to envision the globe. The nation-state boundaries and homogeneity of Habermas and Rawls is also inadequate. An ethical theory will be presented that originates in universal human solidarity and entails basic principles such as truth\, human dignity\, and nonviolence. The necessary concepts for this theory are Taylor’s multiculturalism\, Benhabib’s feminist universalism\, and Heidegger’s dwelling. \nDr. Clifford Christians is one of the leading voices in the study of media ethics. He is a research professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\, where he also served as the former director of the Institute of Communications Research. He has been a visiting scholar in philosophical ethics at Princeton University\, a research fellow in social ethics at the University of Chicago\, and a fellow in ethics at Oxford University. He has authored or co-authored many scholarly books\, including Good News: Social Ethics and the Press\, Communication Ethics and Universal Values\, Moral Engagement in Public Life\, Normative Theories of the Media\, and Key Concepts in Critical Cultural Studies. \nFree and open to the UT community and general public
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/cosmopolitan-media-ethics-and-the-global-imaginary/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170321T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170321T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191803Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200317T174520Z
UID:13207-1490083200-1490115600@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Ethical Issues in the Fight Against Revenge Porn
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Scott R. Stroud (The University of Texas at Austin) // March 21st\, 2017 // 3:00pm-4:00pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nThere has been an increasing legislative and academic dialogue over the growing online plague of revenge porn\, or the posting of nude images without a depicted subject’s consent. Most of the dialogue about this awful phenomenon assumes that it is a simple activity with straightforward ethical problems speaking for its total moral and legal condemnation. While most instances of revenge porn are harmful\, non-consensual\, and have no socially-redeeming worth\, the complexity of this phenomenon must be acknowledged. After detailing what revenge porn is\, some of the ethical issues it raises will be discussed. The challenges of balancing restrictions on harmful communication with the imperatives of free speech will be explored. Additionally\, ambiguity over issues of informal consent and the future use of shared digital content will be detailed. Much previous scholarship has overlooked these nuances in the race for legislative action\, but the present talk encourages us to resist simple narratives about this new problem in digital media ethics. \nDr. Scott Stroud is the Director of the Media Ethics Initiative and an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Texas at Austin. His research covers a range of topics in communication and philosophy. He is the author of John Dewey and the Artful Life (Pennsylvania State University Press\, 2011)\, Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric (Pennsylvania State University Press\, 2014)\, and A Practical Guide to Ethics: Living and Leading with Integrity (co-authored with Rita Manning\, Westview Press\, 2007). He has published work on a variety of topics in communication and media ethics\, including blogging ethics\, revenge porn\, and the online activism of Anonymous.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/ethical-issues-in-the-fight-against-revenge-porn/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170216T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170216T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191719Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151932Z
UID:13206-1487232000-1487264400@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:We're All Gatekeepers Now: Journalism Ethics for an Unfiltered Age
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Mary Bock (The University of Texas at Austin) // February 16th\, 2017 // 3:30pm-4:30pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nJournalistic ethics are no longer just for journalists. The digital media environment has flattened the information playing field\, giving long-standing news institutions the same access to an audience as extremist propaganda\, citizen bloggers and you: yes you. We’re all gatekeepers now\, whether or not we want the job. This presentation will propose and explore three rules for ethical participation in social media: First\, seek the best information. Secondly\, speak honestly. Third\, serve the larger good. Living without an information “middleman” is both liberating and fraught with responsibility. A better digital information environment starts with us. \nMary Bock is a former journalist turned academic with an interest in the sociology of photographic practice\, the rhetorical relationship between words and images\, and digital media. Her previous career was spent primarily in local television news. She has also worked as a newspaper reporter\, a radio journalist\, and public relations writer. Most recently\, Bock co-authored Visual Communication Theory and Research with Shahira Fahmy and Wayne Wanta. Her 2012 book\, Video Journalism: Beyond the One Man Band\, studied the relationship between solo multi-media practice and news narrative. She has published articles in Journalism Practice\, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly\, Journalism\, Visual Communication Quarterly\, The International Journal of Press and Politics\, and New Media and Society. \nFree and open to the public
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/were-all-gatekeepers-now-journalism-ethics-for-an-unfiltered-age/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170131T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170131T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191643Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151858Z
UID:13205-1485849600-1485882000@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:American Journalism’s Ideology: The Question of Bias in the Media
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Robert Jensen (The University of Texas at Austin) // January 31st\, 2017 // 2:00pm-3:00pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nThe routine assertion that mainstream journalism outlets are disproportionately staffed by liberals\, producing a liberal bias in mainstream news\, misses the more deeply embedded conservative nature of corporate commercial journalism. In this talk\, Professor Robert Jensen will provocatively argue that most journalists reproduce the dominant ideology of the contemporary United States—involving world affairs\, economics\, and ecology—which can be best understood as forms of fundamentalism and therefore dangerous to a meaningful conception of democracy. \nRobert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and a board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin and the national group Culture Reframed. He is the author of The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men (Spinifex Press\, 2017). Jensen’s other books include Plain Radical: Living\, Loving\, and Learning to Leave the Planet Gracefully (Counterpoint/Soft Skull\, 2015); Arguing for Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialogue (City Lights\, 2013); All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice\, (Soft Skull Press\, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press\, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race\, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights\, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights\, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang\, 2002). \nFree and open to the UT community and general public
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/american-journalisms-ideology-the-question-of-bias-in-the-media/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20170124T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20170124T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T191559Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200317T174628Z
UID:13204-1485244800-1485277200@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Who Speaks for Ambedkar? The Debate over Navayana's Edition of Annihilation of Caste and the Buddhist Teaching of Right Speech
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Christopher Queen (Harvard University) // January 24th\, 2017 // 1:00pm-2:30pm // Belo Center for New Media (BMC) 5.208 \nFollowing the 2013 release of Navayana’s annotated critical edition of B. R. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste with an introductory essay by Arundhati Roy\, Dalit (ex-Untouchable) activists angrily charged that Roy and the publisher were unqualified to write on Ambedkar by virtue of their high-caste backgrounds. We examine this war of words in the context of Ambedkar’s career as the leading voice for Untouchable human rights and as principal draftsman of India’s Constitution. We compare the attack on Navayana’s Annihilation of Caste to the original attack on Ambedkar’s 1936 speech. \nGiven Ambedkar’s historic conversion to Buddhism\, along with millions of his followers\, we examine the teaching of Right Speech\, the fourth step on the Eightfold Path\, found in the early sayings of the Buddha. We learn that criteria for choosing speech or silence do not include the caste\, gender\, ethnicity\, or expertise of the speaker\, but rather the truth\, timeliness\, tone\, and benefit of the words. Whether the words need to be “gentle” or “harsh” depends on the situation\, according to the Buddha. \nSupported by: \nAmbedkarite Buddhist Association of Texas \nSouth Asia Institute (UT Austin) \nMoody College of Communication (UT Austin) \nFree and open to the UT community and general public
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/who-speaks-for-ambedkar-the-debate-over-navayanas-edition-of-annihilation-of-caste-and-the-buddhist-teaching-of-right-speech/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mei4.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20161214
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20161215
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20161214T160409Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200904T152213Z
UID:15019-1481673600-1481759999@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Social Media Summit
DESCRIPTION:In November\, the Center for Media Engagement and The University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism hosted their first Social Media Summit\, a day-long gathering of journalists\, academics\, and students to discuss experiences\, benefits\, and challenges of using social media. In this presentation\, we review the key takeaways from the day. \n  \n  \n 
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/social-media-summit/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/social-media-summit.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20161111T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20161111T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20200318T184745Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200318T184745Z
UID:14103-1478851200-1478883600@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:CME Social Media Summit
DESCRIPTION:November 11th\, 2016 // 11:00am-4:00pm // Belo Center for New Media (BMC) 2.106 \nThere’s no question that social media has forever changed the way news organizations connect with their audiences. But has that change helped or harmed news organizations? And what’s in it for social media companies to get involved with news organizations\, such as through Facebook’s Instant Articles or Snapchat Discover? With their first Social Media Summit\, the Engaging News Project and the UT School of Journalism hope to explore these issues\, as well as discuss how news organizations used social media during this year’s unprecedented presidential election. Speakers will share their experiences and takeaways from using social media to cover the election\, while attendees will come away with new ideas on how to use social media in their newsrooms. \nConfirmed speakers include Facebook\, Univision\, McClatchy\, the Austin American-Statesman\, GateHouse Media and social media scholars from the University of Texas at Austin\, the University of Kansas and Texas State University.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/cme-social-media-summit/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cmeevent.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20161102T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20161102T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T192114Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151913Z
UID:13212-1478073600-1478106000@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Trump\, Clinton\, and the Rhetorical Construction of Democracy in Campaign 2016
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Martin J. Medhurst (Baylor University) // November 2nd\, 2016 // 1:00pm-2:00pm // Jesse H. Jones Communication Center (CMA) 5.136 \nFrom their announcement speeches to the final debate\, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have rhetorically constructed portraits of American democracy in their campaign rhetoric. What do those portraits look like? How are they constructed? What assumptions lay behind them? And what implications for democracy going forward attend their acceptance or rejection? Through a close reading of their presidential nomination acceptance addresses\, I identify the kind of democracy called into being by each of the candidate’s speeches\, the ethical implications of endorsing such a portrait\, and the portents for democratic governance that each speech suggests. By focusing on rhetorical form\, we can shed light on political content. \nDr. Martin J. Medhurst is a Distinguished Professor of Communication and Professor of Political Science at Baylor University. He is the author or editor of thirteen books and a frequent contributor to communication journals. \nThis talk is free and open to all.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/trump-clinton-and-the-rhetorical-construction-of-democracy-in-campaign-2016/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20161013T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20161013T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20190429T192034Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306T151919Z
UID:13211-1476345600-1476378000@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:Habitus\, Doxa\, and Ethics: Insights from Advertising in Emerging Markets in the Middle East and North Africa
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Minette E. Drumwright (The University of Texas at Austin) // October 13th\, 2016 // 3:30pm-4:30pm // Belo Center for New Media (BMC) 5.102 \nHow do advertising practitioners in other cultures confront ethical issues? Building on research conducted with Sara Kamal\, Professor Drumwright employs Bourdieu’s theory of practice to examine how the perceptions\, practices\, and discourses of advertising practitioners in Middle East and North Africa influence the advertising field’s habitus and doxa. Through this investigation into culturally inflected media practices\, our understanding of the ethical problems of advertising is enhanced by examining them as macro\, meso\, and micro phenomena. Understanding how these three levels interrelate\, interact\, and reinforce one another is critical to understanding the habitus of advertising practitioners. Underlying biases that shape the doxa can be explained by ideas central to behavioral ethics. A better understanding of the forces that shape the habitus and doxa with respect to ethics is key to moving toward a culture that encourages ethical advertising practices. \nFree and open to the public.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/habitus-doxa-and-ethics-insights-from-advertising-in-emerging-markets-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/
LOCATION:TX
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20160619T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20160619T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20160609T151336Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200904T152643Z
UID:15023-1466323200-1466355600@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:News Tools Workshop
DESCRIPTION:In February 2016\, the Center for Media Engagement hosted its third news engagement workshop\, the first to focus on news tools. The 12 digital news leaders who participated represented a variety of newsrooms: Los Angeles Times\, The Boston Globe\, The Daily Beast\, WNYC/New York Public Radio\, Houston Chronicle\, KXAN (Austin NBC affiliate)\, Media General\, GateHouse Media\, NOLA.com\, The Texas Tribune\, The Dallas Morning News\, and the Knight Lab at Northwestern University. During the two-day workshop\, participants shared their ideas and experiences with using tools to improve engagement. \nWhen discussing how to define a “news tool\,” workshop participants came up with a shortlist: \n\nTools must be re-usable\nTools must meet a need of the news organization or the audience\nTools must allow for interactivity\nEngagement tools target a news audience; production tools are used within the newsroom\n\nWith that definition of “tools” in mind\, participants shared experiences and new ideas for using existing tools\, as well as brainstormed an array of tools that could be used to address pressing social issues. In this report\, we outline the topics that were discussed during the workshop\, including: \n\nWhat makes a tool successful? What makes a tool unsuccessful?\nWhat issues are ripe for tool creation?\nWhat tools could be created to combat political polarization?\nHow could news organizations get Millennials more involved in the news?\n\nSee the full reporton the workshop for more. \n\nThemes that emerged from the workshop include\n\nDigital Success and Analytics – How can analytics and engagement best be incorporated throughout the practice of making the news? What new metrics would you want?\nAudience Involvement – How can readers and staff engage?\nWebsite Design – What are best practices and new ideas for providing visitors with reasons to keep coming back?\nPolitical Polarization – What could newsrooms do to affect levels of polarization?\nQuestions Facing the Digital Newsroom – What do you wish you knew about metrics\, workflow\, mobile\, and keeping pace with technology?\n\n\nWorkshop participants\nWright Bryan\, NPR\nJennifer Carroll\, Gannett Digital\nMegan Chan\, Politico\nRachel Clarke\, CNN\nRyan Kellett\, The Washington Post\nEnrique Lavin\, NJ Advance Media\nAllison Lichter\, The Wall Street Journal\nTodd Olmstead\, The Wall Street Journal\nBarry Osborne\, The Denver Post\nAllison Rockey\, Vox\nBen Turk Tolub\, Philly.com
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/news-tools-workshop/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IMG_7419-e1465500815953.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20141215T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20141215T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20141215T163742Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200904T154056Z
UID:15026-1418630400-1418662800@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:News Engagement Workshop - Princeton
DESCRIPTION:In October\, the Center for Media Engagement hosted its second News Engagement Workshop\, bringing together 11 digital news innovators to discuss current practices and future possibilities. \nDuring the two-day workshop\, participants brainstormed an array of new ideas about digital news. Some of their ideas include: \nMetrics-based goal setting: Have journalists set goals for their stories and then evaluate whether they met the goal \nWas this helpful?: Provide a rating scale allowing readers to give feedback about whether news stories are helpful \nTailor article length: Create articles of different lengths to cater to different readers \nCitizen-focused reporting: Combat political polarization by giving citizens more voice in political stories \n  \nSee the full report on this event for more information. \n\nThemes that emerged from the workshop include\n\nDigital Success and Analytics – How can analytics and engagement best be incorporated throughout the practice of making the news? What new metrics would you want?\nAudience Involvement – How can readers and staff engage?\nWebsite Design – What are best practices and new ideas for providing visitors with reasons to keep coming back?\nPolitical Polarization – What could newsrooms do to affect levels of polarization?\nQuestions Facing the Digital Newsroom – What do you wish you knew about metrics\, workflow\, mobile\, and keeping pace with technology?\n\n\nWorkshop participants\nWright Bryan\, NPR\nJennifer Carroll\, Gannett Digital\nMegan Chan\, Politico\nRachel Clarke\, CNN\nRyan Kellett\, The Washington Post\nEnrique Lavin\, NJ Advance Media\nAllison Lichter\, The Wall Street Journal\nTodd Olmstead\, The Wall Street Journal\nBarry Osborne\, The Denver Post\nAllison Rockey\, Vox\nBen Turk Tolub\, Philly.com
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/news-engagement-workshop-princeton/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/edit_MG_2061-e1429219710228.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20140416T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20140416T170000
DTSTAMP:20260513T074341
CREATED:20140416T154403Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250626T225426Z
UID:15028-1397635200-1397667600@mediaengagement.org
SUMMARY:News Engagement Workshop - Austin
DESCRIPTION:The Brainstorm: What happens when digital news innovators gather to visit about opportunities and challenges facing the industry?\nIn February\, the Engaging News Project hosted its first News Engagement Workshop\, bringing together digital news thought leaders from across the country to discuss current practices and future possibilities. During the two-day workshop\, participants shared their ideas and experiences with digital innovation in their news organizations. \nThis report summarizes participants’ discussions on these topics: \n\nWhat constitutes success in digital news innovation?\nWhat role should news audiences have?\nAre fragmentation and personalization problems or opportunities?\nWhat opportunities and challenges are there in today’s digital news environment?\n\n  \nSee the full report for more. \nMeasuring Success\nThe Brainstorm: What is “success” in the online newsroom?\nParticipants recognized that defining “success” in the online newsroom is difficult because of the structure and organization of newsrooms\, the number of possible metrics\, and the data generated by the metrics. \nStructure and Organization of Newsrooms \nParticipants expressed a variety of perspectives on how the structure and organization of newsrooms affect how success is defined. \n\nThere are legacy issues. The structure of traditional outlets must be reorganized so that producers have specialties in how to “amp up” a story with online packaging\, story structure\, and engagement. (Mahtesian)\nThere is a push-and-pull between modes of thinking. A staffer may design a stand-alone infographic. Copy editors may wish to hold the infographic to run alongside a news story. That is print thinking. We are getting better at realizing that graphics can go up on the site at any time. (Keegan)\nOnline news personnel assist with how a traditional news story is packaged online. There is some pushback because not all legacy journalists want to change. Packaging changes the way the story is told and can change how traffic comes to a website. (Francescutti)\nThere is a vast business side that looks at the numbers and metrics differently than the newsroom. (Koren)\nDaily Beast staff meet monthly to discuss the overall metrics on their stories. Since instituting the practice three months ago\, monthly averages for referrals have increased by about 30 percent. (Dyer)\n\nThe Number of Metrics \nOnline newsrooms are often overwhelmed with the number of metrics that could be used to define success. \n\nIt is difficult to tell which metrics matter. Advertisers like impressions. Journalists like to report what is important\, but metrics may not follow. Mobile numbers are often a reverse of website metrics. Is there a magic statistic? Time on page? Engagement? (Francescutti)\nThere is little sophistication in how metrics are examined. Unique visitors and page views matter. Comparisons are made between the current month and the previous month. (Gibbs)\nThe focus is often on time on site and repeat visits. Newsrooms and journalists have an obligation to measure comprehension\, however. In other words\, can an individual understand what was just read in a news story? (Negrete)\nRelying on a subscription model\, The Arizona Republic tailors content in 16 community editions based on demographic metrics. Each demographic (Boomers\, Millennials\, Hispanics) gets a specific news product. (Nothaft)\nThe Daily Beast uses a Value-per-Visitor metric (VPV). This metric allows organizations to ask how they can take action and gets all staff members speaking the same language. The VPV looks at how site visitors do seven things: read\, comment\, tweet\, share\, email\, click a link\, and click an app. There is an economic and journalistic value to each of these actions. (Dyer)\n\nMetrics Data \nNumerous newsroom metrics lead to an abundance of data. The data\, however\, are difficult to comprehend without newsroom personnel trained in analysis. Seven represented outlets reported that they use data dashboards in the newsroom. \n\nThe Chartbeat dashboard is easiest to understand immediately and influences people in the newsroom the most. But we need a better metric than page views. The data do not give a sense of value to the quality of journalism in a story. A story about Donald Trump will get more page views than a news article would get. Where is the line for when a journalist is contributing to noise? (Carothers)\nThe New York Times has a small newsroom analytics team to assist journalists with examining how stories should be written and packaged to reach certain audiences. (Koren)\nData are bad for telling you what to write\, phenomenal for telling you how to package content. (Dyer)\nSome journalists and newsroom staff at The Texas Tribune are trained on what the data mean. (Gibbs)\n\nUseful Metrics \nThe wealth of available data\, while at times overwhelming for newsrooms\, nonetheless has led to innovations in how news stories are packaged and released to meet the public’s information needs. \n\nTraffic patterns are analyzed for when to release stories. For The Bee\, the release of fresh story content coincides with the workday at the state Capitol. (Negrete)\nTraffic patterns allow a news outlet to float story ideas or even hold stories back if they will not get enough eyes. (Mahtesian)\nCNN’s photo blog helps visual learners grasp the news and has had success based on unique views and video completion rates. (Krache)\nAt The Wall Street Journal\, metrics help to determine where infographics go to maximize views. (Keegan)\nAs a story is written\, an independent infographic is sometimes made to correspond with the content of the story. Both are released at the same time and we see which format performs better. Infographics do 300 percent better with social sharing across topics. Most newsrooms do not have the resources to produce stories in different ways. (Dyer)\n\nA/B Testing \nThe experiences of newsrooms are vastly different when it comes to A/B testing of online news content and features. \n\nPackaging matters to a story and is just as important as the content. The Dallas Morning News A/B tests 50 percent of headlines to determine which versions have better click through rates and drive more traffic. (Francescutti)\nThe Daily Beast has the ability to A/B test everything\, including site design\, headlines\, decks\, images\, and the size and color of social buttons. Headlines may be constructed as news headlines or social headlines. Everything is tested to determine what is most effective based on story or site performance indicators. (Dyer)\nA social team and a homepage team are in place to examine the headlines that work. Headlines are designed to have people share them as well as to drive traffic to the site. An in-house platform was built for social sharing. (Carothers)\nThe Texas Tribune is in the early stages of using A/B testing to test membership\, support\, and contribution rates. (Gibbs)\n\nIdeal Metrics \nWorkshop participants were divided into groups and asked to create the “ideal” metric for use in the online newsroom. The recommendations were as follows: \n\nNew metrics should be created based on the content of the article to find out if the reader is benefiting from the story.\nMetrics should capture fly-by versus valuable users.\nNewsrooms need to know more about which story model is the most successful – metanarratives\, specific\, infographic\, inverted pyramid\, etc.\nAny metric must be concerned with the return on investment (ROI). What resources went into the story and what is the outcome?\nMetrics should be concerned with impact outside the traditional set of indicators (i.e. page views\, time on page). Impact could be assessed with participation in town halls or voting.\n\nComment Sections\nThe Brainstorm: What role should news audiences have?\nParticipants were asked several questions related to comment sections\, including: \n\nWhat are the best practices – the do’s and do not’s – for comment sections?\nWhere do we have consensus and where don’t we about best practices?\nIf resources were not a constraint\, how would we improve comment sections (and maybe “comment section” isn’t even the right term — maybe we need to be talking about something besides a comment section)?\n\nWith these questions as discussion prompts\, participants responded with ideas that can be grouped into four categories: (1) dealing with uncivil commenters\, (2) letting commenters know someone is listening\, (3) leaving the comment section for the commenters\, and (4) re-imagining the comment section and engagement space. \nDealing with Uncivil Commenters \nMany participants shared how their newsrooms handled uncivil commenters. \n\nWe had discussions internally and with our users explaining that this is not your house\, this is our house\, and if you’re going to come in and start breaking windows and throwing over tables\, we are going to ask you to leave and you can’t come back until you behave. And people got angry. But our editorial guy has been very diligent in following up with people\, online and with phone calls\, and explaining this to them. Some commenters have been welcomed back into the fold; he’s renewed their accounts and unblocked them. It’s been great. First\, he’s been keeping a lid on the hostility\, and second\, he’s been bringing more people out of the woodwork to comment and share their thoughts. (Gibbs)\nOne technique that I’ve heard about is something referred to as “bozo” mode\, where if you have particular commenters who are clearly not adding much to the conversation\, you can enable their comments to make it look like they are being posted\, but they’re actually not.[1. The general consensus among participants\, even among those representing news organizations that use “bozo” mode\, was that it is not a good solution to dealing with poor commenting.] (Keegan)\nWe use active moderation. Although it is vastly resource intensive\, having a human make a space where readers are encouraged to contribute meaningful comments makes the comments more readable for other people. (Koren)\nDo you want people to discuss controversial topics on your site? Is there any hope to have a great\, positive\, intelligent conversation about these topics\, or do we just throw those types of topics completely out? (Francescutti)\n\nLetting Commenters Know Someone is Listening \nNot unrelated to the theme of dealing with uncivil comments was the idea that comments improved when commenters knew someone in the newsroom was listening. \n\nWhat I’ve noticed is that if the very first thing you do is take the time to thank viewers for giving you feedback\, it disarms them if they are combative and it takes the conversation to a civil level. (Krache)\nWhat if you covered your comment section as a distinct beat? What better way to show the value of commenters than if you built a beat around them? (Mahtesian)\nWe had editors going through and pointing out the “comment of the day\,” and that got a lot of really good response. (Negrete)\nWhen we actually talk to commenters about their bad behavior\, they usually apologize or calm down. The veil of leaving a comment digitally makes people a little freer to be extreme. There needs to be some way of mediating that – it seems that personal interaction works really well. (Koren)\nWe need to remind people that they are talking to other human beings instead of something out there in the ether. Someone will write a very angry thing to the newsroom\, and when someone in the newsroom actually responds\, they become really nice because they didn’t realize that a person would actually respond to it. (Carothers)\nWhen there is live interaction\, it can really diffuse incivility\, but it is super labor intensive. (Gibbs)\n\nLeaving the Comment Section for the Commenters \nSeveral participants suggested that comment sections are not always places where reporters are welcome or should participate. \n\nI would tell reporters not to engage with commenters at all because you could never win. The vast majority of comments had very little to do with what had been written about\, and it was very discouraging\, as a reporter\, to read the comments. (Mahtesian)\nWe experimented a little bit with columnists going in and responding to comments\, and the commenters didn’t like it. They said\, “You have a column\, you’ve had your say already\, this is our space. Get out of here.” (Negrete)\nI think whether a reporter engages or not depends on the subject matter. I could definitely see why in a heated political conversation in an election year\, engaging may not help. It may just lead to more vitriol. But there are plenty of places where a reporter’s involvement in some way is really beneficial to the report\, as well as to how the comment streams are going. (Koren)\n\nReimaging the Comment Section and Engagement Space \nRespondents shared their ideas about how to improve comment sections\, while some wondered if comment sections were even the ideal space to foster engagement with and among site visitors. Some of the improvement ideas included: Using an “agree to disagree” and similar buttons instead of the “like” button; giving the keys of forum moderation to “super-users”; requiring engagement with the article (for example\, a short knowledge quiz) before allowing commenting; and curating a community around topics and content. Other ideas that generated interest and discussion are highlighted in the quotations below. \n\nWe are moving to in-line commenting because\, in talking to publishers that already have in-line commenting\, one of the things they’ve found is that when the conversation and commenting was grounded in a much more specific context than “whatever it is you think this article is about\,” that is\, when the commenting is pegged more to a particular paragraph or this particular quote\, it really cuts down on the vitriol\, because most of the vitriol tends to be non-specific. From our looking around\, it seems like in-line commenting works. (Dyer)\nWe’ve built this thing that we call “spectrum commenting\,” which is actually a special feature\, not something that is at the bottom of the page. It is for specific news topics\, and it’s an interactive feature that is based on comments. You ask a specific question… and once we asked the people a specific question\, they gave really good responses. It was also moderated\, and only the good comments went in. We\, as a news organization\, learned a lot of things from the responses. But it takes a lot of time to produce that. It’s not something that can happen on every article page. (Carothers)\nMaybe there’s a way to give people a reward for their good commenting behavior that will help them be more inspired to participate. (Nothaft)\nOne thing that might help is if you go to the comment section and instead of this long legalese disclosure\, what if it was a video with the human faces of the editors who will actually be interacting with the comments? I wonder if that will affect commenting\, having a human saying\, look we actually read your comments and we will respond to them and here’s our policy for how we ingest your feedback. (Keegan)\nI’m not remotely convinced that commenting is the right way to get people to interact. I’m willing to say that the majority of us would say that the majority of comments on stories have no civic value\, and commenting overall has no business value. So the question is\, what do you replace it with? (Dyer)\nFrom a civic standpoint\, we ultimately don’t care if people interact on our site\, so long as they appropriate these things in their lives. Commenting is not the same as actually being involved in your community; it’s just commenting. The fundamental goal of what we’re doing is to get people to appropriate the information into their lives and take some sort of pro-social action. (Dyer)\n\nSegmentation and Personalization\nThe Brainstorm: How do personalization and segmentation work now? How could they work in the future?\nThere was great variability in how news organizations think about personalizing and segmenting news content. We identified seven different approaches\, as described below. \nBy Topic \n\nAbout two years ago\, we realized that across the McClatchy papers\, people were no longer going directly to the home page\, but were going to topic pages. We’ve been using semantic analysis to develop our topic pages\, which do pretty well in generating traffic. We’re also moving toward personalization because advertisers are demanding it\, but it is challenging to do across all of the McClatchy newspapers because they have different systems. (Negrete)\nIn focus groups\, people said that they wanted international coverage\, but then when unobtrusively watching them browse afterward\, they didn’t look at the international coverage. It’s becoming more important to look at the return on investment (ROI) for different beats. We have to ask whether we’re going to be the best at seven things\, or just OK at 25 things. (Francescutti)\nWe are changing the style of the content by the categories on the navigation bar – entertainment news\, for instance\, is more visual. In the politics section\, we have more blogs. (Krache)\nThe Texas Tribune does have some content segmentation. We partnered with an academic institution to produce a newsletter on water\, TribPlus Water. We now are working with academic partners to public twice-a-month newsletters for five additional topics. (Gibbs)\n\nBy Demographics \nThe Arizona Republic has become focused on audience segmentation. The print version is targeted toward Boomers. AZCentral is aimed at a Gen-X audience (30-49). We have been doing research on better reaching a Hispanic audience. We are working on building a new site all about firsts (car\, mortgage\, etc.) for Millennials. We are thinking about how much content needs to be changed for these different audiences. For example\, Boomers are interested in watchdog reporting\, but less interested in education. \n\nIn our research\, we learned that Millenials are more interested in education and that this group is interested in political fact-checks\, so we do these frequently online. (Nothaft)\nOne question is whether general news organizations need to change their content depending on demographic groups. (Francescutti)\nThe Wall Street Journal has been building out our foreign bureaus recently and so there’s an interest in translating our interactives into other languages. (Keegan)\n\nBy Past Site Behavior \n\nWe’ve been building a recommendation system called Trove that provides a list of recommendations based on previous visits. We are interested in tailoring the product depending on past behavior – if someone hasn’t read an article on Syria\, we can feature the explainer more prominently than for someone who has read lots of stories about Syria. (Carothers)\nThe New York Times has put a recommendation engine into place and will be developing it further based on site data. The problem is figuring out how to get people deeper into the site and develop some sort of loyalty\, instead of having them read one article and then leave. The drawback is if this gives people what is of interest at the expense of a more general report\, in the traditional sense\, of the news of the day\, which has been the central mission of the news media. (Koren)\nFor us\, anyone who comes on the site five or more times a month is our core audience; two to four is our halo audience. We track how these numbers are moving over time. (Dyer)\n\nBy How People Come to the Site \n\nWe use passive personalization. We don’t invest in a lot of tools that require authentication for personalization. We can tailor the experience depending on how you come to the site (e.g. Facebook versus Drudge Report). (Dyer)\n\nBy Platform \n\nWe’re also dealing with technological segmentation – the experience on mobile is different from tablet and desktop\, for instance. (Keegan)\nThe Arizona Republic has been looking at segmentation by platforms such as mobile. (Nothaft)\n\nBy Location \n\nThe first time people navigate to CNN.com\, they are asked which country version should be set. (Krache)\nAt the Post\, we use geolocation and if you’re coming from DC\, there are more local news stories. (Carothers)\n\nNo Segmentation \n\nI don’t worry about segmentation. My main concern is how to translate the story for our audience. (Mahtesian)\nWe don’t worry a lot about segmentation because our potential audience is anyone on the Internet. For us\, people chose a headline on social media and then arrived on the website. (Dyer)\n\nPolarization\nThe Brainstorm: If resources were not an issue\, what could your organization do to address political polarization?\nParticipants were given five minutes to brainstorm\, then share their ideas. We’ve categorized the ideas generated into five categories: (1) represent and humanize the other side\, (2) explore different ways of presenting the news to encourage exposure to diverse views\, (3) publicize efforts at bringing in diverse viewpoints\, (4) create new games and tools\, and (5) improve media and civic literacy. The group also had important insights about what the media can\, and should\, do to address polarization. \nWe first discussed the state of polarization\, using the following chart as an example.[2. Iyengar\, S.\, Sood\, G.\, & Lelkes\, Y. (2012). Affect\, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly\, 76(3)\, 405-431.] \nRepresenting and Humanizing the Other Side \nOne of the clearest themes across participants was finding ways to humanize representations of different political viewpoints in the news. \n\nSome televised presentations\, like the camera angle used\, can amplify polarization.[3. Research supports that camera angles can amplify polarization. See\, for example\, Scheufele\, D.A.\, Kim\, E.\, & Brossard\, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential candidates. Communication Research\, 34(1). 3-24.] Getting people who are politically opposed on the same stage\, in front of a live audience\, can diffuse polarization. There might be a way to use video or Google Chat to humanize people with different perspectives. (Gibbs)\nLocal issues can bring people together\, even when national issues are more divisive. Also\, explaining why people hold certain views can humanize people with different perspectives. Events that bring people who hold different views\, but who are open to other perspectives\, together\, face-to-face\, may affect polarization. (Negrete)\nWe try to flag diverse views in the comment section. It also would be possible to use outreach to bring in other views if they aren’t represented. (Koren)\nReporting also can be used to humanize other views. (Koren)\nWe could have an explanatory series about the price of polarization – how it affects us in our daily lives. It could include Bill Bishop’s book and examine whether popular culture\, law making\, and where we live are different now than they were historically. (Mahtesian)\n\nChanging News Presentation \nSeveral workshop participants suggested that news formats could be changed to encourage people to look at other political viewpoints. \n\nWhat if we created a political style sheet? If we knew people’s political viewpoints\, we could tailor the news product. Photos\, headlines\, interactives\, and where items appear on a page could be tailored to include information challenging one’s point of view. (Keegan)\nThere are several cases where prominent political figures have friendships with people from another political party. The media could showcase cooperation and friendships across the political aisle. (Krache)\nIt may be possible to engage people via humor\, such as what Jon Stewart and Colbert do. Humor may be a route to discourage political polarization. (Nothaft)[4. At the Center for Media Engagement\, we had a similar idea – that humor may be a way to discourage polarization. We created a serious version and a humorous version of a news website and had people browse one of the sites in an experiment. Those browsing the humorous site were less tolerant of views unlike their own and were not more likely to look at counter-attitudinal views compared to those browsing the serious site. We looked at a satirical form of humor that was very one-sided (either favoring a right or a left political view)\, however. More research should evaluate whether different forms of humor may affect polarization. See Stroud\, N.J.\, & Muddiman\, A. (2013). Selective exposure\, tolerance\, and comedic news. International Journal of Public Opinion Research\, 25(3)\, 271-290.]\nAnother idea would be to create infographics showing views on multiple sides of an issue. (Koren)\nRight now\, intellectual political talk takes place primarily on Sunday morning. It would be great if it took place during another time\, and with other formats\, like documentaries and discussion groups. (Krache)\n\nPublicizing the News \nInsightful comments about how the news media market themselves led to another way in which organizations could address polarization. \n\nMedia aren’t marketing themselves well because they aren’t combating presumptions about partisanship. They should be showcasing cross-ideological views\, such as how many columnists with different viewpoints they have. (Francescutti)\nAre journalists sticking to reporting principles when they are on social media? Some out their political leanings – this may increase polarization. (Francescutti)\nNews organizations could be more transparent about their politics. If they are more liberal\, then they could say that they have to work harder. (Negrete)\n\nCreating New Games and Tools \nGames and tools also came up as a way to reduce polarization – although some made suggestions in the hopes that they could be improved upon. \n\nDo people with extreme views know that they are outliers? If they knew\, would it matter? Perhaps there’s a way to develop a tool that gives people information about the extremity of their views. (Mahtesian)\nWe could develop a tool showing what people “like you” and “not like you” are reading. (Mahtesian)\nThese are not good ideas\, but perhaps they’ll spark some new thinking. Gamification may be one way to address polarization. First\, one could create a “Capture the Flag Pull Quotes” system where the first commenter gets a featured pull If not enough people share the comment\, then a different political perspective could be featured. Second\, you could have a “Polarization Paywall.” If you read seven one-sided stories\, you don’t get more content until you read a story from the other side. (Dyer)\n\nMedia and Civic Literacy \nSeveral participants echoed that people\, youth in particular\, need more training in media and civic literacy. \n\nWe should teach youth that you can focus on issues without being adversarial and can have civil discourse. They need to know that it’s acceptable to “agree to disagree.” (Krache)\nPeople need to know what propaganda is and how fact-checking works. (Nothaft)\nPeople need to know the basic facts and how their understanding of the facts is sometimes imbalanced. (Koren)\n\nWhat Can\, and Should\, the Media Do? \nA robust discussion asked what role the media play\, and should play\, with respect to polarization. Opportunities do exist. Although research shows that people are drawn to like-minded media\, which can increase polarization\, mainstream news outlets still attract significant audiences.[5. Garrett\, R.K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication\, 59\, 676-699. Stroud\, N.J. (2011). Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.] \nAt the workshop\, some participants emphasized that the media have incentives to cultivate polarization and feature polarizing voices. Others noted that the media don’t always recognize that they affect polarization. Further\, it isn’t always clear what practices increase polarization. \n\nHow do news organizations amplify polarization? We need to better understand what contributes to polarization. It is possible that article content and online polls\, for instance\, affect polarization. Journalists aren’t routinely engaged with these issues\, but maybe they should be. Careless practices can have real- world effects. (Carothers)\nThe first step is acknowledging that we’re part of the problem. Media are part of the problem because they amplify more extreme voices instead of reporting on those with more moderate political ideas. (Negrete)\nThere are limits to what we can\, and should\, try to do on this front. After all\, extreme and polarizing figures can be monetized because they generate more clicks. The media do amplify polarization by giving these figures attention. (Mahtesian)\nThere are incentives for media to not address polarization. After all\, it generates page views and gets people excited. (Krache)\nNews organizations could directly confront the idea that people don’t trust the media and think about how to get people to their sites despite polarized views. Local television advertises that they’re “looking out for you” and uses stories that play to people’s emotions. Sports is a way to bring people to the site and then once they’re there\, they might actually learn something. (Francescutti)\n\nNarratives\nThe Brainstorm: What can digital innovators learn from one another?\nParticipants were invited to share an example of digital innovation used in their news organization. \nMark Francescutti admitted that one of his greatest fears as a journalist is not reaching his audience. To help resolve that fear\, The Dallas Morning News teamed up with a local sports talk radio station to create Sports Day Talk\, an app that features both the radio station’s broadcasts and the newspaper’s sports coverage. In its first six months\, the app had 77\,000 downloads and a usage rate between 50 and 90 percent. \nIn today’s changing digital world\, it can be difficult for a cable news program to last more than a few years. But with a willingness to adapt to its audience’s needs\, CNN Student News has been one of the network’s top rated programs since 1989. Donna Krache\, the show’s executive producer\, said that the program went exclusively digital this year to meet the needs of its audience\, which is primarily middle and high school teachers and students. \nWhen The Sacramento Bee was struggling\, Tom Negrete contacted an unlikely source: Stanford University’s Department of Computer Science. With their help\, the Bee built a “road map” to help improve their web presence. This has included using a Facebook login in the comment section to help the newsroom better understand their audience. The newspaper is always working on partnerships with other organizations to share news content\, with the goal of keeping readers on their website and off of search engines. \nKeira Nothaft shared the success The Arizona Republic has had with AZ\, a twice-a-week newsmag designed for tablets. The magazine features a variety of interesting content and interactive features. For its work\, The Arizona Republic received the 2013 Innovator of the Year Award from APME (Associated Press Managing Editors). \nMike Dyer of The Daily Beast said the majority of users read one article and then leave the website. To keep them on the site\, The Daily Beast created the “Read This List.” Every time a user clicks on an article\, four other articles appear underneath it. Each article still has its own web address\, allowing the site to capture page views. With the addition of the “Read This List\,” The Daily Beast’s page views jumped by 40 percent and the average visit time tripled. \nWhen The Texas Tribune started live streaming coverage of the Texas Legislature\, audience interest was low. But\, Rodney Gibbs said\, that changed in June 2013\, when the Tribune was the only media outlet covering Wendy Davis’ filibuster. Since then\, the Tribune has begun live streaming a variety of events\, such as a press conference for Senator Ted Cruz and a fundraising dinner for Davis. Gibbs said each live-streamed event averages 2\,000 to 10\,000 viewers. \nWhen Charles Mahtesian worked at Politico\, the site’s biggest innovation was simple: reengineer the traditional story model. Mathesian\, now at NPR\, encouraged his reporters to get away from what they used to think was a story. Instead\, he told them to think about what people actually want to know about\, and then break it down in a readable way. \nSara Carothers told workshop participants that the idea behind The Washington Post’s Truth Teller app came from a fairly simple question: How do people in a crowd know if politicians are telling the truth? Truth Teller features a database of facts. The feature provides fact checking as close to real time as possible\, so it can be used during speeches or interviews. \nJonathan Keegan likes to have a deep connection with reporters. This allows reporters to come to him early with ideas for graphics and interactive features– like The Wall Street Journal’s Health Care Explorer. The Explorer allows users to compare health plans offered through healthcare.gov. Users also can share their findings with others through Twitter. \nTo put readers’ comments more in perspective\, The New York Times started asking for a little more information. Sasha Koren said that when users leave a comment\, they are asked additional questions\, such as demographic information. This information is used to put comments into columns corresponding to their different characteristics. Not only does this help reporters understand the comments more\, but it can also lead to possible sources; Koren said that a Times columnist went through a story’s comments so extensively that she ended up with three more column ideas – and she used the commenters as her sources. \nOpportunities and Challenges\nThe Brainstorm: What do you wish you knew about digital news?\nWhat do newsrooms wish they knew more about (a) packaging and distribution\, (b) platforms\, (c) content\, and (d) interactive features? \nPackaging and Distribution \n\nDoes “recommended” content work for attracting readers?\nIs less packaging more?\nHow might individuals read differently based on the packaging of a news story (skim vs. reading all of story)?\nHow do demographic groups respond differently to webpage templates and news segments?\nWhich news segments are more effective at particular points in the day?\nHow does the tone of the headline influence click-through rates and other metrics?\n\nPlatforms \n\nWhat is the next platform after mobile? Wearables?\nHow does the platform influence consumption? Should content be different for mobile-friendly platforms?\nWho is the audience for Facebook/social news content?\nHow do individuals respond to organization by topic as opposed to by platform?\nHow might an individual’s reaction to a site differ based on whether they have to sign in?\nWhat does the loss of television (especially cable) revenue mean for the online side of television news outlets?\nHow does interaction differ by platform (tablet vs. mobile)?\nIn the digital age\, what is the role of print journalism?\n\nContent \n\nHow do individuals comprehend visuals\, text\, and statistics/data packaged with a story?\nWhich headline types (e.g. curiosity gap headlines) go best with which types of story content?\nHow do individuals respond to news story types (metanarratives\, infographics\, etc.)?\nHow might individuals respond to information portrayed in infographic forms versus a bar chart/other content visualization feature?\nWhat content should be shared and what does shared content mean for journalists?\nHow can we make text special?\n\nInteractive Features \n\nCould slider images convey information in a different manner compared to traditional pictures or text?\nHow might “Buzzfeed-type” buttons influence interaction on a site?\nDo bad experiences with interactive features inhibit future site use?\nHow do you scale interactives to wider/global audiences?\nCould we create a crowdsourced rating system\, like a Consumer Reports\, of different programs and tools for creating interactives?\n\nWorkshop Participants\nSara Carothers (News Project Producer\, The Washington Post)\nSara Carothers is a News Projects Producer for The Washington Post\, where she shepherds cutting-edge digital projects into the newsroom. She’s a proponent of embracing technology that can take journalism to places never before possible. As product owner of things like Truth Teller\, an app that fact-checks political speech\, she works closely with editors\, developers and engineers to make journalistic dreams a reality. Sara was a national politics producer at the Post during the 2012 campaign and election season. Before that\, she produced online coverage for NPR’s foreign\, business\, and technology desks\, giving radio journalism a lively existence on the web as well. \nMike Dyer (Chief Digital Officer\, The Daily Beast)\nMike Dyer is currently Chief Digital Officer at The Daily Beast\, where he is responsible for providing the overall company vision for digital products and brand strategy\, and leading the cross-functional teams responsible for their execution. He is also responsible for defining and expanding new capabilities and revenue strategies\, and attracting and leading high-performance teams. Beyond his current role\, Mike is a proven creative leader with a track record of taking an outsider’s view of industries’ complex business challenges\, and developing and sustaining innovative\, effective solutions. In addition to publishing/journalism\, he has taken this approach to create new\, original work and new ways of working in other industries\, including marketing/advertising\, global philanthropy\, politics\, and entertainment. He is also an international award-winning screenwriter and director for film and stage. Mike’s work has won numerous awards\, including Cannes Lions\, Effies\, Webbys\, MITX\, MIXX\, OMMAs and CASE awards. His work has been featured in Creativity\, Communications Arts\, The New York Times\, RIFF\, Los Angeles Film Festival\, Forbes\, Mashable\, Fast Company\, SHOOT\, and ESPN. \nMark Francescutti (Digital Editor for Sports\, Entertainment and Lifestyles\, The Dallas Morning News)\nMark Francescutti is the Digital Editor for Sports\, Entertainment and Lifestyles at The Dallas Morning News. \nRodney Gibbs (Chief Innovation Officer\, The Texas Tribune)\nRodney Gibbs ensures The Texas Tribune leverages technology wisely and creatively across all aspects of the organization. He has started two digital media companies. The first\, Fizz Factor\, developed handheld games for Nintendo and Sony platforms. The second\, Ricochet Labs\, created social-mobile games for news and entertainment brands\, including the BBC\, Lollapalooza\, and The Texas Tribune. Active in the digital media community\, Rodney serves on the boards of KUT\, Austin’s NPR affiliate; the Austin Film Society; and KLRU\, Austin’s PBS affiliate. He has a bachelor’s degree in sociology from Rice University and a MFA from the University of Texas. \nJonathan Keegan (Director of Interactive Graphics\, The Wall Street Journal)\nJon Keegan is Director of Interactive Graphics at The Wall Street Journal. He has been leading the interactive news graphics team since summer 2013. Before that\, he worked as an interactive designer and developer\, and has been at The Journal for 15 years. Jon is a big fan of news apps that can clearly highlight the story within the data and give the reader access to the same tools used for analysis. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and sons Blake and Cole. \nSasha Koren (Deputy Editor of Interactive News Desk\, The New York Times)\nSasha Koren is a Deputy Editor of the Interactive News desk at The New York Times\, a group made up of editors and technologists with diverse backgrounds in reporting\, editing\, programming and data science\, among other skills. She and the social media and community teams she oversees are responsible for creating broad opportunities for readers to engage with Times journalism in all its forms. Earlier she was an editor on The Times’s features desks and within its Opinion department\, focused on digital initiatives\, as well as a product manager. Prior to joining The Times she was an editor on an array of projects including an arts foundation journal\, an annotated database of music and books\, a corporate intranet\, an AIDS-prevention training manual and a holocaust memoir. She lives in upper Manhattan. \nDonna Krache (Executive Producer of CNN Student News\, CNN)\nDonna Krache is the Executive Producer for CNN Student News and the creator of CNN’s “Schools of Thought” education site. Based in CNN’s Atlanta headquarters\, Krache oversees the CNN Student News staff and serves as the content manager for the CNN Student News program and Web site\, www.cnnstudentnews.com. Additionally\, Krache contributes to numerous in-house projects as a writer/editor. Krache has been with CNN Student News since 1992\, first as an educational consultant and curriculum writer. Krache contributed to the teacher’s guide for the movie Gettysburg and for “Sept. 11\, 2001: A Turning Point in History – The First 30 Days” video and education guide. She won an Association of Educational Publishers Golden Lamp Award for those materials. In 2007\, Krache was awarded the DeWitt Carter Reddick Award from the University of Texas School of Communication for outstanding achievement in the field of communication. She has led teams that have won Peabody Awards for their contributions to coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 presidential elections. Prior to joining CNN\, Krache had been both a middle school and high school teacher of subjects including U.S. history\, world history\, government\, business and economics\, as well as a media relations director and a speechwriter. Krache holds a bachelor’s degree in government from the College of William and Mary and a master’s degree in education from the University of New Orleans. \nCharles Mahtesian (Politics Editor for Digital News\, NPR)\nCharles Mahtesian is NPR’s Politics Editor for Digital News\, responsible for directing online coverage of Washington and national politics and providing on-air political analysis. Prior to coming to NPR\, Mahtesian spent five years as Politico’s national politics editor\, where he directed its political and campaign coverage and authored a blog on the American political landscape. He joined Politico after five years as the editor of the National Journal’s Almanac of American Politics\, the biennial book often referred to as “the bible of American politics.” Before that\, he was a national correspondent for Governing magazine\, where he covered state legislatures\, governors and urban politics. He began his career reporting on elections and congressional redistricting for Congressional Quarterly\, where he was also a contributing writer to the books “Politics in America” and “Congressional Districts in the 1990s.” Prior to coming to NPR in his current role\, Mahtesian had served as an election night analyst for NPR and was a frequent guest on NPR’s “All Things Considered” and “Talk of the Nation\,” MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews\,” and on FOX News\, C-SPAN\, CNN and the BBC. He earned his bachelor’s degree in politics from Catholic University in Washington\, D.C.\, and his law degree from American University. \nTom Negrete (Director of Innovation and News Operations\, The Sacramento Bee)\nTom Negrete is Director of Innovation and News Operations for The Sacramento Bee\, a new role for The Bee and Tom. In that role\, which began in January 2013\, Tom has reached out to launch projects focused on data research with Stanford University\, the University of California\, Davis\, and California State University\, Chico\, and Sacramento. Prior to that\, Tom served in a number of roles since joining The Bee in 1994\, including managing editor for digital (2007-2013)\, and assistant managing editor for sports and business (2001 to 2007). Prior to joining The Bee\, Tom worked on the national copy desk at The New York Times. He is a graduate of UC Berkeley and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. \nKeira Nothaft (Senior Director of News Content and Production Development\, The Arizona Republic)\nKeira Nothaft is Senior Director/News Content and Product Development at The Arizona Republic in Phoenix. In this newly created position\, Keira is directing cross-departmental efforts toward the development of new products\, product improvement\, audience segmentation and technology solutions. Prior to this role\, she spent almost a decade as the director responsible for the teams writing and editing for the front page\, the local section\, azcentral.com’s home and news pages\, the copy desk\, the library and the tablet team. She has also been the Republic’s design director\, deputy features editor\, sports designer and a copy clerk.
URL:https://mediaengagement.org/event/news-engagement-workshop-austin/
LOCATION:TX
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/conference1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR