5 ms·

I don't understand the obsession with journalism CMS. Articles about Vox Media never seem to fail to mention Chorus. As a news consumer, I don't give a crap ab

I don't understand the obsession with journalism CMS. Articles about Vox Media never seem to fail to mention Chorus. As a news consumer, I don't give a crap about how the sausage is made: I want accurate reporting. I find Vox Media, of all the new media groups, to have a most embarrassing level of sloppy and inaccurate reporting. I can't tolerate blatant and lazy errors. The focus on tools seems misplaced to me. They desperately need a quality system.

brown9-2 11y ago
Journalists focus on the tools because so much of the initial Vox PR was about their tools. It's become a part of the established lore, even if it really doesn't make all that much sense.
alexqgb 11y ago
Saying you don't understand journalism's obsession with CMS is like journalists saying they don't understand HN's obsession with programming languages. "But it's what you do that matters, not how you get it done!" Yeah, sure.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  It's more equivalent to caring about what language HN is written in.
- lambdaelite 11y ago
  That's accurate. I think the obsession with programming languages on HN is also misplaced. Choice of programming language is far from the most important aspect of the SDLC, as I see things. I'm admittedly an atypical HN reader.
  - gone35 11y ago
    For me it's worse: all I see are constant overheads between trivial prefix-free equivalents... But then I also love C and hate everything Python with a passion, so go figure.
- hueving 11y ago
  The CMS they use doesn't force them to use a different language. A better equivalent would be people arguing over emacs vs vim
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    Ah, but when every publisher has their own system, going from place to place can make for some pretty rough transitions. The question comes down to whether you work for the system or if the system works for you.
kramarao 11y ago
The focus on the tools in entirely justified. The reason is this: You really should not be looking at it as a CMS. It is a complete workflow system. In short, these are the systems that the business depends on to write stories, edit stories, publish stories, syndicate stories, promote stories, and so on. An advantage of a proper system is not merely 10% efficiency: 1. It can impose a process, where none existed before. Perhaps, this can be a quality check process. It can be user feedback process. It can be promotion of journalists process. A process can improve operations and the outcome. 2. It can automate a process. Even if process exists today, if it is not automated, it may not be enforced. We do not have measurement on how well the process is adhered to; who is using it and who is not; what the costs of not using the process are. 3. It can optimize a process. If we can automate and measure, then improvement is natural. In addition to all these process improvements, something like Chorus can even improve the way it is reaching the customers. For instance, the costs of pushing to different channels is negligible. Their cards based context education system is considered innovative in the industry. If you look at the existing publishing platforms, you will understand how CMS can change the game. See more about Chorus here: http://pfauth.com/publishing-platforms/vox-medias-chorus http://pfauth.com/publishing-platforms/vox-medias-chorus . If you want to see the competition that the rest use, see: http://www.ccieurope.com/solutions/NewsGate/ http://www.ccieurope.com/solutions/NewsGate/ (this is the new version-- think about the previous version and then you can understand the excitement about Chorus).
- lambdaelite 11y ago
  Thank you for a thoughtful response. I appreciate your argument that these new CMS systems are better thought of as improved "journalism life cycle" management systems, to borrow a more familiar jargon. Given that view, I would have to say that these tools are not good because the system output is not good. Every PLC system I've been a part of has a quality assurance component, and in the case of Vox Media, that quality component doesn't seem to be sufficiently engaged. More worrying to me is that when edits are made at vox.com (and I assume, perhaps in error, at other Vox Media sites), the changes tend to be as silent as possible. I can never be sure of the accuracy of the article I'm viewing. In addition, there are frankly immature actions of Vox Media staff (seems to be concentrated at The Verge) that signal to me that the company culture is problematic. I expect journalists to have an air of professionalism, like Walter Cronkite. I get the feeling that Vox Media is a bunch of bloggers acting as journalists, when the original concept (as I understood it) was that it was journalists that could respond with the speed and flexibility of bloggers, thanks to the Chorus system. Maybe I expect too much from internet journalism. If you'll excuse me, I think there's some kids on my lawn I need to chase away.

brown9-2 11y ago

Journalists focus on the tools because so much of the initial Vox PR was about their tools. It's become a part of the established lore, even if it really doesn't make all that much sense.

alexqgb 11y ago

Saying you don't understand journalism's obsession with CMS is like journalists saying they don't understand HN's obsession with programming languages. "But it's what you do that matters, not how you get it done!" Yeah, sure.

NeutronBoy 11y ago
It's more equivalent to caring about what language HN is written in.
lambdaelite 11y ago
That's accurate. I think the obsession with programming languages on HN is also misplaced. Choice of programming language is far from the most important aspect of the SDLC, as I see things. I'm admittedly an atypical HN reader.
- gone35 11y ago
  For me it's worse: all I see are constant overheads between trivial prefix-free equivalents... But then I also love C and hate everything Python with a passion, so go figure.
hueving 11y ago
The CMS they use doesn't force them to use a different language. A better equivalent would be people arguing over emacs vs vim
- alexqgb 11y ago
  Ah, but when every publisher has their own system, going from place to place can make for some pretty rough transitions. The question comes down to whether you work for the system or if the system works for you.

kramarao 11y ago

The focus on the tools in entirely justified. The reason is this: You really should not be looking at it as a CMS. It is a complete workflow system. In short, these are the systems that the business depends on to write stories, edit stories, publish stories, syndicate stories, promote stories, and so on. An advantage of a proper system is not merely 10% efficiency: 1. It can impose a process, where none existed before. Perhaps, this can be a quality check process. It can be user feedback process. It can be promotion of journalists process. A process can improve operations and the outcome. 2. It can automate a process. Even if process exists today, if it is not automated, it may not be enforced. We do not have measurement on how well the process is adhered to; who is using it and who is not; what the costs of not using the process are. 3. It can optimize a process. If we can automate and measure, then improvement is natural. In addition to all these process improvements, something like Chorus can even improve the way it is reaching the customers. For instance, the costs of pushing to different channels is negligible. Their cards based context education system is considered innovative in the industry. If you look at the existing publishing platforms, you will understand how CMS can change the game. See more about Chorus here: http://pfauth.com/publishing-platforms/vox-medias-chorus http://pfauth.com/publishing-platforms/vox-medias-chorus . If you want to see the competition that the rest use, see: http://www.ccieurope.com/solutions/NewsGate/ http://www.ccieurope.com/solutions/NewsGate/ (this is the new version-- think about the previous version and then you can understand the excitement about Chorus).

lambdaelite 11y ago
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I appreciate your argument that these new CMS systems are better thought of as improved "journalism life cycle" management systems, to borrow a more familiar jargon. Given that view, I would have to say that these tools are not good because the system output is not good. Every PLC system I've been a part of has a quality assurance component, and in the case of Vox Media, that quality component doesn't seem to be sufficiently engaged. More worrying to me is that when edits are made at vox.com (and I assume, perhaps in error, at other Vox Media sites), the changes tend to be as silent as possible. I can never be sure of the accuracy of the article I'm viewing. In addition, there are frankly immature actions of Vox Media staff (seems to be concentrated at The Verge) that signal to me that the company culture is problematic. I expect journalists to have an air of professionalism, like Walter Cronkite. I get the feeling that Vox Media is a bunch of bloggers acting as journalists, when the original concept (as I understood it) was that it was journalists that could respond with the speed and flexibility of bloggers, thanks to the Chorus system. Maybe I expect too much from internet journalism. If you'll excuse me, I think there's some kids on my lawn I need to chase away.