"With a Shiver in My Bones Just Thinking about the Weather"*

Yesterday I couldn't go to work because my car keyholes were frozen. Yes, both the driver and the passenger door's. Like they say, bad weather can create a damp on anyone's day.

I guess I have never really been aware how weather can matter so much in our daily lives. I'm from a place where the temperature ranges from 90 F to 100 C. It has always been either hot or really hot.

Current temperatures (12/11). Don't let the numbers fool you..wind chill always makes it worse.

So, weather, weather, weather. On Tuesday I crafted my heavily weather-oriented newscast. Here's a brief look of what's in the rundown on that day. We lead the newscast on that day with what's the weather like at that time and then the forecast followed after that. We had two weathermen doing a team coverage for the viewers. And we had a story on how to prepare for snow. And we had two 'show and tell' live shots about the weather in different places in our viewing area.

I realized that one of the challenges of working for different newsrooms in different places is it takes time to understand each market. To immerse oneself in the culture and to know what the people actually care about. Before I got here, the two weather terms that I'm mostly familiar with were sunny and rainy. What wintry mix? What frozen car keyholes?

Current Mid-Missouri temperatures (12/11). KOMU 8 Live Doppler First Alert Weather.

Different markets have different needs and interests. But I'm sure in a place like Missouri, there's nothing else that people would be more interested in knowing than figuring out if the drive back home from work is going to be a hassle or not. That and how they should prepare themselves when the weather isn't exactly doing much to their favor.

Lessons learned:
#1: Understanding the market helps to serve the viewers better.
#2: To own a lock de-icer during winter months is a must.


*from Like the Weather lyrics by 10,000 Maniacs
Photo credit: KOMU

Quick, Who Are You? (in 160 characters)

It's 15° F here in Columbia, Missouri. I'm dreading to leave the apartment because getting to my car requires a 10 minute walk. Not to mention the frozen car keyhole problem. So I figured it might be better for me to stay at the apartment, sit by the heater while sipping a warm cup of roasted green tea, and blog for a while.

I've been wanting to talk about Twitter "followership". I've read online articles about how to gain more followers and such and such. But to be honest, I think the most effective weapon is your bio description. Indeed, to make your Twitter account become visible, you need to interact with other Twitter users and such. But once they click on your Twitter name, what makes them decide if they're going to follow you or not?

For me it'd be if the person is either: 1. someone I know, 2. someone I could learn from, 3. someone I share my interest with, or 4. someone famous.

And how do I find that out? Through their 160 character bio. Although I generally have the tendency to follow those who follow me.

I don't generally spend a lot of time scrolling through someone's Twitter page to find out more about that person when it comes to making a follow-him-or -not decision. That's just too much to do, isn't it? Of course if you're Conan O'Brien or Ashton Kutcher you don't need to explain that much about yourself. But if what you do defines who you are, that'd be nice if others could see that. For example if you're into marketing, social media, journalism, food, entertainment, or you actually have a job you'd like to brag about (or not really) such as cellular biologist (??) or writer for XYZ publication, etc.

But really, if you don't fall into any of the categories above, and your bio is filled with a cliche philosophy or how you're addicted to Twilight, you might want to do something about it.

Beyond the Front Yard

I was actually fascinated by a book that's required for one of my broadcast journalism class. In his book, We Interrupt this Newscast, Tom Rosenstiel argued that newscasts are preoccupied with crime, accidents, disasters, and soft news for the sake of gaining viewership or ratings. What I find to be really interesting about this book that it was actually able to present a five-year empirical evidence to back up its point. Is it necessary for a story to “bleed to lead?”. Is it more important to “hook and hold” an audience than to get a new one? Will the audience find stories with issues like politics, health and education attractive? Or do they crave for the sensational factor in each story?

He says it's only a myth that viewers only care about local news. I second that statement. Viewers don’t only care about local news. I've witnesses so many cases that proximity dictates what should go in the newscast. The more local it is, the more it will trigger viewers' interest. That's not entirely true. They would also like to see the windows to the outside world. They’d like to know what’s happening on the other side of the world. Or even just a national story that they can’t really see from their front yard. They’d like to explore issues that they don’t normally touch in their daily life. People like to learn new things.

I know, I know, local news is pivotal for the community. But I just want to stress that national/international news has a strong appeal too. Small market, big market, there are always viewers out there who would like to see things beyond their surroundings. We shouldn't underestimate them just like that. And I bet the concept of local news to Gen Y a.k.a the Millenials is as foreign as Twitter is to my grandma.

Monday and Friday are Retweetable Days

What does that mean?
It means on both days, retweeting activity is much more common than any other days of the week. Friday is the winner between those two, though. And Thursday is the winner of tweet day in general, where people tweet the most.

How do I know about all this?
Dan Zarrella and his miraculous finding about the science of retweeting.
Though it has a lot of charts and scientific-like explanation, I'd have to admit this is one of the research report that I would never fall asleep reading. It's just way too interesting to miss out on.

What about the best time to get the most retweets?
According to Zarrella's report, it's sometime in between 3pm to midnight. I know, I know, most tweeting activities happen during business days. But apparently it's a little different here when it comes to retweeting.

And of course, the more followers we have, the more retweets we get.

As for me, I normally retweet things that are newsworthy, funny, or just plain interesting. Things that are worth telling or can create some buzz. I think it's more interesting to tweet about what's going on in the world and telling others about it rather than just talking about myself and how my day goes. Although, when it comes to food, there has been some physical evidence that I've gained followers that way. I'll tell you more about my tweeting habit in the next post.

Social Media: A Relationship in Progress

I recently talked to Chip Mahaney, he works the web for E.W Scripps Company in Cincinnati, OH. My new media director, Jen Reeves, ask me to seek social media help from him for my capstone project. For the project, we focus on how social media can really benefit a newsroom in terms of news gathering and developing a relationship with viewers. This time we try to narrow it down more to a face-to-face interaction to see if such thing could generate stronger impact on our viewership.

In the next post I will talk more about my capstone project and upload some samples. Meanwhile, we go back to Chip and his perspective on social media.

Chip says social media is a tangible way for newsrooms to interact directly with the audience. He calls it a "one way stream" and a "feedback mechanism". After all, social media is where people spend a lot of their time on, from professionals to younger folks like college students.

Just like me, Chip is familiar with Tweetups and its role to create a relationship in between two parties. Not just through airwaves or online mediums. He does admit that his newsroom hasn't taken any advantage of it. He does realize that a face to face interaction could "build real community out of a bunch networking groups" and "bridge a connection from virtual world to shake to shake."

I asked Chip how much impact will social media bring when it comes to helping newsrooms gaining more viewers? He's positive that it won't save TV ratings by itself, as social networking is only one aspect of branding. More deciding factors lay on the on-air materials.

But one thing that social media has been known to benefit newsrooms from: news gathering.
He says it allows you to develop personal relationship with your viewers. In the future they'll have no doubt to come to you with story ideas or become your sources. They'll be add "flavors, opinions, and a nuance to your story"

Social media "won't replace anything but kinda adds to everything."

Photo: Tweetups.com

"The Longer and Harder We'll Work to Pull Back that Veil"

On Monday the RTDNA Chairman Stacey Woelfel a.k.a my news director wrote a memo to Tiger Woods related to the incident that happened over the weekend. I'm not sure if Tiger really got it. But the memo is posted in Stacey's RTDNA Chairman blog and is addressed to Tiger.

Basically Stacey thinks that it's best for Tiger to open up. Releasing a statement through his website does a "disservice" to his fans and to his reputation. His life isn't private anymore since he has chosen to live his life by "cultivating" his "superstar sports status".

Tiger should listen to Stacey, I think. But of course, I don't know if it's going to do his reputation a lot of good since I don't know what the real story is.

But at this point, I honestly don't think staying silent is the best option either. The public's fascination about him will just fuel more and more media coverage. As Stacey said, "the longer and harder we'll work to pull back that veil." As a journalist I don't really care about Tiger's personal life. And I don't think it's my responsibility to tell the public about it. It's not a part of the public service that I'm entitled to perform. It's nothing like the healthcare option that could affect million people's lives. But I also know that the public are craving for more information and they won't butt out just like that.

What I'm, as a journalist, chasing after is an explanation of what happened that night. I know the public's curiosity isn't going to stop at that point. But that's Us Weekly's job, not ours.

Photo credit: AP

The Vitality of Plan B

Yesterday, the unthinkable happened to my 5pm newscast. We couldn't get the live shot's audio to work properly. We could only hear statics. And I didn't have no-lives script going into the show. I had to craft it during the show.

No-lives script is a back-up script read entirely by the anchors, just in case anything happens with the live shot.

And something did happen with the live shot and I didn't have the script.

We couldn't get the story in until B block. That is, after three minutes of weather. The live shot story was supposed to be the lead story of all. We tried at the end of the A block, but there was a miscommunication which was simply another one of my wrongdoings.

The moral of the story, it's always better to have plan B. That would have minimized the amount of stress and yelling in the control room. Or to also have plan C, D, E, and F, like my director said. It doesn't hurt you if you do, but might hurt you if you don't.

The Culture of Fear: To Preserve or Not to Preserve?

I read this book called “False Alarm: The Truth of the Epidemic of Fear.” First of all, the book is worth talking about for a few interesting points it made. Marc Siegel, the author, talks about how news tends to make its viewer’s life shackled in fear due to the endless not-so-pleasant stories.

From a highway accident that happens right in your neighborhood to national story such as the captivation of U.S journalists in North Korea, every little thing can add a feeling of worry. There are always “what ifs” in our minds that if it could happen to that person, it could happen to anyone, including me.

Well, that is true. You never know what’s coming at you but there are things that you can do to prevent things from happening to you and still living the moment.

Anthrax, SARS, flu, and disasters are among the things that Siegel talks about in his book. All the media reports regarding those issues seemed to have created seasonal hype of fear.

The question is, “Do viewers need to know that much information?” Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t.

They do if they’re willing to equip themselves with all the information out there and if it’s in their intention to make a good use out of the information. They don’t need to; if they know in advance that exposing themselves to the information will only scare them. Different people also deal differently with fear. Not everyone shares the same kind of fear. One’s personality makes a difference and so does the environment that every person is brought up in. What scares some people might not scare the rest of the population. Some might find the information too disturbing, but some might find it useful and demand their rights to know as a member of the community.

It is the nature of the news business to compete in serving the most accurate news while fighting the time. A news outlet would like to be able to pass all the information for its loyal audience so that it can be the first to report the news. I refuse to see the media as a culprit of the “culture of fear”.

Is there a cure for fear? I have to say that I do agree with his very last point at the end of the book. “Realizing that we are conned into being afraid is the first step toward learning a new set of skills to assess risk. Fear must be reserved for real danger. Each step away from false worry is a step toward true health,” Siegel said. I honestly think it’s both the media responsibility and the viewer’s responsibility to take things just the way they are and not overreact, although the latter one would probably matter more. It’s true that media has the responsibility to seek the truth and not more than the truth. Sensationalism shouldn’t be in the dictionary but even the truth scares people. It’s each individual’s responsibility to pick the direction where his or her life is going. Smart decisions have to be made in timely manner. I never really believe that people’s life deteriorates just by watching TV news. Other things in life could strongly trigger all that stress.

Everyday in our newsroom there’s always a sigh of disappointment whenever H1N1 flu is among the list of story ideas of the day. We’re always worried that we’re making it bigger than it already is. I say the solution is simple. We talk about it if there’s something worth talking about it. We tell our viewers about it if there’s something worth telling about it. If there isn’t, then don’t.

In a nutshell, I don’t see culture of fear as a problem if fear can play a part in saving us from what’s coming at us. Fear can also mean awareness of the possibility of danger; it won’t hurt us if it triggers precautions instead of paranoia.