Many new media students signed up for NYC24.com to work with Professor Duy and Carla Baranauckas on improving our video storytelling techniques. Few of us understood that the class was less video work and more multimedia production at the time. (Disclaimer: I missed a video technique class two weeks ago to report on a NYC|24 story.)

I’m not complaining, but readjusting. Instead of working on digging deeper into Final Cut and preparing better storyboards, the class has gradually gotten used to the idea that it appears to be that the professor’s intent is to throw us into the deep end of Final Cut, Flash, Dreamweaver, FTP management, design, editing and news writing all at once. Sink or swim.

The result, in my opinion, is messy. Students spend their precious time over several elements, rather than concentrating on one. In time, I suspect/hope that this grueling method will evolve into a streamlined, well-thought-out Web site, with a range of stories told using steely advanced new media techniques. But for now, it’s hard to see how close the shore is, when you’re choking on salt water. See some of our latest work.

Five major shortcomings of Pulitzer.org

1. Besides no article archive, there is no feature to discuss the winning articles online in the form of a BBS or comment stream. By adding a searchable archive and enabling comments, Pulitzer.org could quickly create a site that served as a resource for journalists around the world to discuss their profession and other important stories.
2. New media is being heralded as a future cornerstone of journalism, where is it? Pulitzer reportedly just inked a deal with YouTube and Sony to showcase excellence in journalism on YouTube. No mention of this on the site.
3. The site doesn’t utilize a blog to share what previous winners are working on or other important issues in journalism.
4. The design is rather unsophisticated. Made worse by the site trumpeting their latest 2008 design. This is the least of their worries, for now.
5. Pulitzer.org is missing RSS functionality and other straightforward web technology i.e. a newsletter that would help syndicate its news across the world.

It is an unnecessary blight on the field of journalism to have such a revered award so poorly portrayed online. There is no archive of winning or nominated articles to review or read on the site, nor hyperlinks to sponsoring institutions. It seems ridiculous that today, readers from around the world, should not be able to peruse or download material from the Pulitzer’s “library”. Good, dedicated and incredibly talented reporters work as judges and panelists on Pulitzer. They should demand and deserve better from themselves and the industry overall.

Pulitzer.org should represent the best of the industry, not serve as another stodgy reminder that the field of journalism is struggling to take advantage of the one power that ironically could save it, the Internet.

Take a look at these sites for inspiration Pulitzer:

• The Stevie Awards, a site that recognizes businesses and services that achieve excellence in their industries or communities. Readers can sign up for newsletters and interact with panelists.
• TED, a site once sealed off from public viewing, opened up to incredible fanfare and acclaim
• Interactive Narratives, a site that allows readers to enjoy the best of new media journalism and vote on what works or not.

P.S. I just wanted to read a copy of the article my professor in “Critical Issues in Journalism”, Peter Kann, won for his reporting on the Indo-Pakistan War in 1972, which I still can’t find.