German Google Street View concerns

Why it has taken me so long to review New York Times articles, I do not know.  My last post was the first time I had really looked into reviewing they way journalists from this reputable publisher constructed their articles and I wish that I had done it sooner.  Today I am reviewing an article by Kevin O'Brien that focuses on the German privacy concerns around Google Street view and the fact that reportedly hundreds of thousands of Germans have requested that their property not be shown in Google Street view.

The journalist very clearly and succinctly sets the story up in the first paragraph, clearly outlining the location of the story, who is involved, what the issue is and why it may be a problem.  A commonly-seen method is to begin the article with the location followed by the beginning of the story, as is done here:  "BERLIN - Google on Friday...."  I think this is very effective in setting up the beginning of an article in the simplest, most succinct manner.

The layout itself is very clean (as can be seen in the screenshot to the right) and the article is void of banner ads, which makes for an excellent user experience for the reader.  Share functionality is easily accessible, thus providing an easy opportunity to spread the story.

One element I did want to point out was the hyperlink in the first paragraph on the word "Google".  My initial thought when I first saw this was "why would you hyperlink this word?  Everyone knows who Google is.  Seems like a pointless exercise".  However, upon clicking the link, I was taken to another New York Times article within the business section of the paper giving a full history, description and related news items about Google.  I think this is a very clever example of internal linking within one's own site, which greatly assists SEO.  It helps Google (from a search point of view) to see the relevance of your content and is thus able to rank the page accordingly.  Such tactics would be much easier for a paper such as the New York Times, which is overflowing with rich and varied content, however would be much more difficult for a small local paper with limited content.

The journalist presents a very objective story, adequately gathering their information from a wide range of sources:
- Google spokes people in Germany
- Germany's consumer protection minister
- German state data protection supervisors.
These are all very authentic, authoritative sources that add credibility to the article.

I do also think this is a particularly relevant and newsworthy story due to the large amount of hype in the media lately about Street view.  There has been much public backlash as a result of Street View in Brazil showing some pretty horrendous street crime - child drug users and dead bodies among things.  Privacy on the internet is something that I've looked at a number of times during this assessment.  I think it's one of the greatest issues with the ever-expanding reach of social networking and online media and one that I think we will see discussed for many more years to come.

Twitter takes on the Advertising world

For the first time tonight, I decided to review an article from a major online news source that wasn't Australia-centric.  After viewing The New York Times, I came across this article discussing the announcement of advertising plans over the last few weeks by the microblogging platform, Twitter.

The first thing that struck me about this article was the length.  At over 1,100 words, it's nearly double the average online article length.  Secondly was the depth of reporting.  For an article covering a social media platform's use in advertising, the journalist had really provided a well rounded story.  Within the major Australian online news sites that I have reviewed so far, such an article would never have received such attention.  As can be seen from my review yesterday on the article by news.com.au, Digital Advertising and technology stories have been treated largely as overview articles.  Very little in-depth reporting with clearly a large amount of the story pulled from one official source.  I have usually had to go to blogs such as Mashable or Gizmodo to find detailed stories on digital technology.

Here, however, the journalists have gone to great lengths to provide a very objective story.  They have gained quotes from a number of reputable sources, citing several digital strategists from very well-known world-wide advertising agencies, such as BBDO, which really cements the credibility of this story.  It is very clear that these professional journalists working for such a reputable paper have considered the "Who, what, where, why, when" of journalism, thus resulting in a very readable article.

One may argue whether this article is really newsworthy or not.  "Advertising breaks it's way into another part of our lives".... just for something completely different.  However, I do believe it is very newsworthy; niche news, yes, but newsworthy none the less, particularly for the advertising industry in which I work.  It is quite controversial within the industry, as Twitter is definitely a "buzz" word for clients, most advertisers are unsure how to utilise Twitter effectively, and there is quite differing opinions as to whether it is even effective or not.  Additionally, they journalists have chosen a very current topic, therefore, through these items alone, the article presented is a very newsworthy one for the advertising industry.

Is there anything Google can't do?

Just when you thought Google would safely stick to the confusing realm of algorithms and metadata, it would appear that Google is on its way to creating self-driving cars.  Amazing, right?  Odd, perhaps.  Scary, a little bit.

This concept was fairly heavily discussed on the web yesterday and I thought I would take a look at how two different online sources reported this:  news.com.au,  a more traditional online news publisher, and Mashable, an aggregation of bloggers writing about all things social media.

The article by News, within its Technology vertical, was very much an overview of the story.  Very little detail was provided by the journalist and it merely stated the facts.  The headline was very straightforward ("Google tests self-driving cars"), which is to be expected.  Current SEO practices would point a journalist in this direction for headlines.  The layout is very clean, which allows for easy reading, however the story doesn't really provide the reader with any particular angle or new piece of knowledge.  It is merely stating the facts, which were clearly gained from Google's own blog announcement.  The journalist would have done well to have included other thoughts on the story or other expert opinions, other than Google's, for a more well-rounded story, particularly seeing as it was so heavily discussed online yesterday.

Mashable, on the otherhand, present a more in-depth discussion on the topic.  Again, their headline isn't particularly striking, however the author provides much more background information on the story.  They have obviously researched what others online are saying about the topic, referencing not only Google's blog, but the New York Times, TechCrunch, and other well-respected sources in the industry. As a result, the author presents not only the facts, but issues of concern to the public (such as safety), as well as possible pros and cons of the new technology.  They even discuss the cynical opinion that such technology merely provides the user / driver the opportunity to use and absorb Google products and advertising.

It is not surprising that a lengthier, more in-depth article is presented on Mashable, as it is a site that focuses on Social Media and online and web technology.  Such a site is always going to be more opinion led.

Facebook Places Launches in Australia

I wanted, this week, to take a look at how one of the major online newspapers treated the launch of Facebook Places in Australia.  This is a topic that I’ve covered before, when the application was first launched in the States, however I looked at how the story covered by a different major newspaper and a few well-known blogs. 

As I’ve mentioned before, Places has been launched as the Facebook equivalent to the very popular iphone application, FourSquare.  It’s essentially a location-based application used to “check in” at a particular location and find out information about a particular business or surrounds.  Whilst initially seen as a direct competitor to FourSquare, it would seem that both FourSquare and Gowalla are tieing their products in with Facebook Places.

The article in the Sydney Morning Herald last Thursday is largely a copy-based article, with little imagery.  It contains one image of screenshots of the application, but otherwise the layout is fairly content-heavy.  There are numerous links surrounding the article itself, as well as ads and other drivers to other content.  The advertising displayed on this article could be a little more relevant to the likely reader – A Woolworths ad may have been better places somewhere else on the site.

As for the content of the article itself, I think the journalist does a good job of objective reporting and discussing some important issues surrounding the application’s release.  The story focuses largely on the privacy concerns surrounding Places and other location-based applications.  Whilst this is not an entirely new angle (much talk already exists around Facebook and Privacy).  The Journalist uses relevant quotations from Places’ product manager, giving the article credibility and authenticity.  However, I do think some of the objectivity is lost by the use of the phrase "Stalkbook" in the headline.  I feel this is an unnecessary play on people's pre-existing privacy concerns and somewhat negates the level of objectivity achieved through the main article.