Zhopped offers free online photo editing, for fun only

ZhoppedDespite the abundant tools available for digital photo editing, none include the skills to use them.

Enter Zhopped.com, a Las Vegas-based website that offers to edit photos by request, whether that request is a simple crop or complex art. All the work is performed by a community of editors and artists who are off-site and use their own tools and time for free.

In time, Zhopped hopes to become a marketplace where the community’s members bid for services.

“Zhopped was created to be an easy, fun and visual way for people looking for photo or image editing help,” the site blog says. “It’s also for creative individuals of talents to show off their skills by helping others.”

Subscribers simply post a photo, write an open request for changes to the photo, and an editor steps in to do them. Comment fields under each photo let users issue instructions and criticism. Users and editors are allowed to register with alter egos.

The range of requests to date is broad. In one, for example, a subscriber requests a tighter crop on a house photo. But in several, the editors are asked to switch out backgrounds to put photo subjects in new locations.

So, what prevents photos like that from turning up in professional publications? Zhopped doesn’t say. The site’s usage policy stipulates opposition to the use of copyrighted work, as well as pornography, and its terms of service prohibits making something commercial out of something personal.

Zhopped will cancel any account found in violation of these rules. Beyond that though, the site accepts no responsibility for artwork once it leaves Zhopped’s platform.

Zhopped went public May 1, but stumbled recently due to a hacking issue.

“We lost about five weeks’ worth of data through a hacking exploit that compromised the server host, which also corrupted some of our backup data,” another blog post explains. “Sadly, some users may need to recreate their usernames.”

A request for comment from Zhopped’s operators has not been answered.

5 steps to S.M.A.R.T. social media use

S.M.A.R.T. iconTo most people, social media is mere fun and games ― a means of killing time and staying in constant contact whether they need that contact or not.

But social media is serious stuff in the workplace. Saying the wrong thing online, even one word, can harm your reputation and bruise your employer’s image.

That’s why employers are busy creating policy to protect themselves and their workers from assorted threats and intimidation. But policy is useless in thwarting ignorance.

People misuse social media mainly because they misunderstand it. They think social media is just technology. In fact, it’s a window others reach through to influence you, just as you influence others.

That’s because social media “sees” you. It does this by drawing a picture based on your willingness to tell everyone where you are, what you’re doing and what you’re thinking.

Thus, the more you interact with social media, the more it knows about you. And the more everyone else knows about you.

So, keep in mind, responsible social behavior isn’t a matter of policy. It’s a matter of maturity. The more mature you are, the less likely you will get yourself, and your employer, into trouble.

Think of it this way, because it’s true: The best guide to good social media policy stares at you in the mirror every morning.

Be S.M.A.R.T about social media by observing these 5 guidelines:

S= Separation ― Try to keep your professional media use separate from your personal media use. For example, connect to friends and family with your default Facebook page, but create a business page for work-related posts.

If the content calls for it, you can embed links between the two. But try to maintain a distinction, and try to maintain distinct Twitter, Pinterest profiles, too.

M= Meaning ― Make sure you say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don’t type and send right away. Type and stop, and wait for a total of 2 minutes. Re-read what you’ve written, think about how it’s written and whether it says what you want.

Remember, you are your own best editor.

A= Attitude ― Measure your mood because it will come through your writing. Don’t use social media when you’re:

  • Angry
  • Sleepy
  • Hungry
  • Drunk

These are the four behaviors when you’re most vulnerable.

R= Responsiveness ― Answer promptly, or don’t answer at all. If you can answer within a minute or an hour, great. Being prompt is a measure of respect and politeness. After 24 hours, however, others perceive the long delay as an insult, no matter your excuse.

T= Timing ― Be aware of what’s going on around you. Pay attention to office politics, current events, anything that shapes a public conversation. Then, be ready to respond ― or not respond ― to what’s happening in the proper context. Say the right thing at the right time.

Another “T” related to Timing is:

T= Taste ― Context is king; taste is queen. Minding the former helps assure the latter. And timing is crucial to both.

(Editor’s note: This was the central theme of a presentation I gave to the Community Service Public Relations Council of St. Louis on July 9.)

Why we celebrate July 4, instead of July 2

July 4th IconEvery year, Americans set aside July 4 to wave flags, march in parades, shoot fireworks and cook meat, all ostensibly to celebrate the collective rancor of a few men in frocks and wigs deciding that we were finished being British.

The timing is due to documentation. Atop the Declaration of Independence are the large words, “In Congress. July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” As if that were the date this deed was done.

In fact, it wasn’t, according to many historians. For the sake of accuracy, they say, we should break out the party favors and barbecue sauce two days earlier.

Why? Because the document itself is not the declaration but an announcement ― a press release, if you will ― of the declaration made July 2, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve the Lee Resolution, a proposal for independence from the British Empire advanced in June by Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia statesman.

A month of arguing in Congress followed Lee’s proposition. Some among the 56 delegates thought it too soft. Some, however, argued for immediate reconciliation with Great Britain to minimize the likely economic and social punishments expected from Parliament for colonials being petulant enough to fire guns at the king’s soldiers. Whole colonies were ready to bolt the alliance at the mere prospect of independence.

On July 2, 1776, however, the last reluctant colony, South Carolina, agreed to go along with the declaration. (New York abstained, as it awaited permission from the colony’s legislature to review and approve the declaration ― approval it received a week later.) On that day, the Second Continental Congress voted in favor of the resolution for independence.

Over the next day, the delegates haggled over remaining details in the resolution’s wording. On July 4, author Thomas Jefferson presented the revised wording in a final copy, which was approved without reservations.

But the debate over our independence date doesn’t end there for some historians. Because although the delegates agreed to independence on July 2, and ratified on July 4 the document announcing it, the signing ceremony, as it were, occurred on Aug. 2, and not all delegates signed then either. Only John Hancock, the Massachusetts delegate who presided over the Congress and whose signature is the largest, is presumed to have signed on July 4.

So, why do we celebrate our independence on July 4, instead of July 2?

Paperwork.

The best birthday gift for my mother

Hospice careMy mother just had her 78th birthday. She doesn’t know it though.

If I or anyone told her, she still wouldn’t know it. She’s past the point of understanding or caring.

Earlier this year, Sandra Kay Sheets, ravaged by an untold number of strokes, entered hospice. Now, three nice nurses monitor her all day. They bathe her, change her bedding, administer pain medication and feed her three squares daily. Or try to; Mom loses interest in food after one spoonful.

In the evenings, she picks gingerly at the edges of her bed sheet and mumbles about distant memories, though from what I can interpret, those memories involve times when she was young and vibrant and happy.

She is among the estimated 1.7 million people nationwide who receive hospice care, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. However large that number sounds, it’s double from a decade ago as palliative care expanded beyond its original intent of serving terminal cancer sufferers to include patients diminished by other diseases.

My mother entered those statistics because she was in and out of hospitals and rehabilitation centers after her initial attacks, with varying success. Her health trended up and down, but never improved enough for her to regain a clear perception of the world around her. My uncle and I, who share legal responsibility for her care, began measuring her status by the number of moments we thought she knew who we were.

That number is down to the low single digits.

“Hospice care is designed to address the needs of the entire family,” writes Sheryl M. Ness, a nurse educator specializing in end-of-life care, in a blog for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The focus of hospice care isn’t to treat or cure the underlying disease, but to provide the highest quality of life for whatever time remains.”

Because of that, more dementia sufferers continue entering hospice. By 2011, cancer diagnoses constituted just 33.7 percent of all hospice admissions, with dementia topping the list of non-cancer diagnoses at almost 13 percent of the whole, according to NHPCO findings.

“As the average life span in the United States has increased, so has the number of individuals who die of chronic progressive diseases that require longer and more sustained care,” the NHPCO says in its 2012 analysis of hospice care nationwide.

At first, I resisted putting my mother in hospice, her health decline notwithstanding. For one thing, “hospice” is synonymous with “terminal” in our culture, and I wasn’t ready to ascribe that term to her condition.

For another, I, like most everyone, was inculcated to believe that “cure” and “care” were synonymous, too, and that both extended across the breadth and depth of modern medicine.

But then I witnessed the exhaustion among overworked doctors and nurses at hospitals and the relentless workload at understaffed rehabilitation facilities along each step of my mother’s treatment. I realized then that “cure” and “care” can be exclusive of one another where cost, time and patience force a choice.

So, my mother reposes in a place devoted to her needs, such as they are. She can’t move, so the nurses move her to prevent bedsores. The nurses change the TV channels for her, brush her hair, talk to her, tuck in the stuffed gray kitten I bought because it resembled her own cat.

Her express respite care instructions, dictated by her when she was clear-minded and accepting of the likely course her condition would take, discourage much else.

When I visited her last, my mother looked through me to the reality she selected. At various times, I was her son, her brother, her uncle. One afternoon, she worried about the state of her wedding dress. Another afternoon, she worried about the cleanliness of an outfit I was supposed to wear in a parade.

It took me awhile to realize she was talking about a parade I was in at age 5.

I indulged her and said not to worry; the outfit was clean and ready. She said “OK,” then settled into sleep.

For this birthday, peace of mind was the best gift I could give.

__________

Update: Sandra Kay Sheets died Aug. 20 of complications from a series of strokes.

KMOV: Setting a bad example

KMOV logoFrom the first day of my course in basic journalism at Lindenwood University last semester, I hammered into my students’ heads the importance of accuracy in reporting.

It was an essential part of my lectures, my assignments and my grading system ― so much so that the students were ordered to supply me with contact information for the sources in each of their stories. Any detail they cited had to be referenced, and that reference had to have an email address or phone number attached for me to verify.

If doubt trumped veracity, their grades suffered. Heavily.

“Accuracy is at the core of your credibility,” I said and posted in a PowerPoint presentation. “Subtract that and you’re less of a journalist, less of a professional.”

I wonder now if I should extend a formal invitation to the reporting staff of KMOV-TV to take my course. Because recent events involving the CBS affiliate have put into question its appreciation of accuracy in reporting.

The first event, profiled here last month, involved former KMOV news anchor Larry Conners, who stirred protest and scuttled his job by alleging via Facebook that the Internal Revenue Service was harassing him because of an interview in April 2012 with President Barack Obama that Conners believed put the president on the defensive.

Conners admitted in the Facebook post he had no proof but neglected to mention that his issues with the IRS went back at least four years before the interview. The station soon fired Conners, accusing him of harboring bias and dragging KMOV’s name through his speculation.

Conners insists he was just doing his job. He’s busy now however leveling another accusation, having filed a discrimination suit against KMOV on a peripheral matter.

Event No. 2 blew through Twitter on Friday evening as tornadic winds bounded between St. Charles and St. Louis, followed by a flood of tweets saying KMOV had reported on television around 8:30 that a “mass casualty” event involved a storm-wrecked hotel in the storm’s path.

The phrase echoed ominously across social media as the Twitterverse awaited a citable source from KMOV confirming the destruction. No other news provider offered similar reports or alternate confirmation, and at least one wondered openly where KMOV was getting its information. Meanwhile, social media watchers said KMOV kept repeating the frightening words on the air.

KMOV began backing away from its initial televised report about 30 minutes later, but not before changing the location of destruction and leaving St. Louis County authorities and representatives of the hotels that were named to assuage fears via their own social media. By then, the storm seemed secondary on Twitter to KMOV’s own hasty, alarming damage assessment.

Twitterers continued hurling brickbats at the station well into the next day. Even social media maven Andy Carvin of National Public Radio weighed in.

“Yet another twitter rumor spread because of poor initial reporting by mainstream media,” he tweeted Saturday.

Though KMOV never explained itself, the initial report of mass storm casualties was thought to be inspired by a vague understanding of dialog emanating from a police scanner ― historically, an unreliable source for factual information. You would think KMOV already knew this.

“Police reporters depend on sources in the department and on their knowledge of police procedure for their stories,” wrote educator Melvin Mencher in his college text “News Reporting and Writing,” now in its 12th edition. He later added that, “Sins of omission occur when the journalist fails to act in situations in which revelation is required. … More often, the omission is the result of laziness or ignorance.”

A group effort by Fred Fedler, John R. Bender, Lucinda Davenport and Michael R. Drager titled “Reporting for the Media” reiterates this point.

“If reporters lack some information, they should consult their sources again,” the authors wrote. “Reporters should never guess or make assumptions about the facts. … Conscientious news organizations check their stories’ accuracy.”

And former newspaper editor Tim Harrower devotes a portion of his own popular textbook, “Inside Reporting: A Practical Guide to the Craft of Journalism,” to covering accidents and disasters. Intrinsic to this kind of journalism: confirming before reporting.

“No matter how useful the Internet may be, it’s no substitute for reality ― for real discussions with real human beings,” Harrower wrote.

All of these texts have been around at least 10 years and are staples of journalism education. It’s hard to imagine that anyone at KMOV who studied journalism hasn’t read one, or read one like them.

But if they haven’t, the Boston Marathon bombings offered a contemporary lesson as twitterers latched onto police scanner reports of the manhunt for the bombing suspects, and ensuing urban lockdown, and quoted like gospel every snatch of detail and garbled bit of dialog.

“Any reporter who was trained in an honest-to-goodness newsroom knows this much: The police scanner is a blunt instrument, not a source of solid facts,” wrote Curt Woodward in Cognoscenti, assessing the manhunt’s impact. “… The stuff being said over those airwaves is definitely real. But it isn’t necessarily true.

“Civilians can be forgiven for not knowing this. But professional journalists? Yikes,” he continued. “If you care about your audience, you don’t report what you hear coming over the scanner, without confirming it first.”

True, the proximity of Conners’ situation and KMOV’s storm reporting were too close to be anything but coincidence. Still, the dual social media failures imply a pattern of behavior, a misunderstanding about the importance, relevance and sensitivity of social media usage in news reporting.

So, I welcome staffers at KMOV to sit in on my classes next semester, particularly the one where we discuss how best to use tools such as Facebook and Twitter, and review how the station can start setting a better example. Or, I can lend them the textbooks; I have all three.

Or, maybe I’ll just have one of my students explain it to them.

Larry ignored me, and look what happened

Poor Larry. If only he had taken me up on my offer.

Larry Conners, courtesy of  the Post-DispatchThe Larry in question is Larry Conners, the once-ubiquitous, now erstwhile KMOV-TV news anchor. My offer was an invitation that he join the St. Louis Pro chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

I can’t help but think that if he had accepted the invitation, maybe, just maybe, Conners wouldn’t be in such a fix today.

Instead, he’s learning a lesson about the vagaries of celebrity and social media, and those lessons can to be harsh.

Al Roker knows this. So does Anthony Weiner, Ashton Kutcher, Kenneth Cole, and the former Chad Ochocinco: Posting or tweeting with indifference, ignorance or insensitivity can tarnish reputations, perhaps beyond polish.

The Web bristles with examples of questionable social networking behavior, to the extent that a top tip for job hunters is sweeping out offensive material from their networking sites before sending out résumés.

Yet the harsh lessons persist, with no learning evident or behaviors changed. Conners, 66, a 37-year veteran of St. Louis television, sets the latest example.

Conners took a face plant on Facebook last week when he hinted at personal intimidation from the Internal Revenue Service resulting from his televised interview of President Barack Obama in April 2012. During the interview, he issued criticism allegedly passed along from KMOV viewers about the president racking up frequent flyer vacation miles at taxpayer expense.

Conners spoke out only now because he says he was inspired by a recent IRS admission that the agency allowed tougher-than-usual scrutiny of records coming from conservative interest groups seeking tax-exempt status.

On Facebook, Conners, while not revealing his politics, suggested the interview with Obama alone might have brought down scrutiny on himself. He didn’t mention though that his own tax issues predate the Obama interview.

On air a day later, Conners backtracked a bit from his insinuations, but that clarification apparently wasn’t enough. His employer first suspended him, then cut him loose, saying the Facebook post undercut his journalistic credibility and that of the station.

Since then, Conners has defended his intentions on a rival station. His next defense may come in court; Conners has hired an attorney.

I shake my head in dismay.

Three years ago, I was the newly minted president of SPJ’s St. Louis chapter, and as a courtesy to all major media members in the area sent out invitations to either join or rejoin the 114-year-old national society, which among other ideals espouses a Code of Ethics considered to be the standard for behavior among journalists.

The society not only posts this Code online, it has printed copies that the St. Louis chapter offers at most of its monthly meetings. High up in the Code’s wording, it exhorts journalists to “exercise care to avoid inadvertent error,” and to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

Given Conners’ lengthy tenure in television news, one might think he wouldn’t need a reminder. But that’s why SPJ posts the Code and prints the cards; we all need reminding.

Today, journalists toe a thin line between objectivity and subjectivity. The former underpins their credibility; the latter seeps through because media companies urge their talent to blog, post and tweet for the sake of higher readership and ratings.

Undeniably, social media has become a tool for news gathering, but it’s also a window into a person’s thinking.

And there’s another problem. Social media lets users believe they’re staring at a screen instead of a potential audience numbering in the millions. The impersonal nature of digital networking masks a deeper truth: We’re actually staring at each other, face to face.

That’s why Conners might be forgiven for his statements against the IRS, and his transgression dismissed, on a claim of social media ignorance. But he went a step further by concluding his Facebook accusation with the line, “Can I prove it? At this time, no.”

Those perhaps were the worst words he could have written. Proof forms the foundation of journalistic credibility and integrity. Absent proof, Conners’ words amounted to a rant. SPJ’s Code of Ethics is clear on this.

So, I wish Larry had taken me up on my offer to join SPJ awhile back. Then he might have had the Code on a card somewhere within view while he was Facebooking.

I’ll probably send him one anyway. He can still learn something from it.

4 tips on freelancing for newspapers

Freelance Writing TipsThanks to the economy, the market for freelance writers and editors has ballooned.

That’s because America’s slow crawl back toward fiscal stability gives daily and weekly print publications hope for revitalization via digital alter egos that prefer original content to aggregation — the hand-me-down stories culled from outside sources. These publications are limited, however, because when media corporations’ stock prices fell, staffs were cut.

The result: too many news operations with too few people to gather news. One estimate puts newspaper journalism’s total staff losses in the United States since 2007 above 40,000.

Enter the freelancer, perhaps now more valuable than ever to news organizations.

Freelancers operate on a per-story or per-project basis; they possess distinct talents and knowledge a news operation may lack; and, best of all — in the news operation’s mind but not necessarily the freelancer’s — their contracts need not include health benefits and retirement plans, the two biggest costs attached to full-time staff apart from salary.

So, while looking around for new clients, freelancers might consider calling the local newspaper to ask if it’s willing to farm out one or two or more writing assignments. But before calling or writing an editor, freelancers should be aware of a few things:

Expect to start small — Any aspirations of uncovering another Watergate-size scandal should stay in a drawer; rarely do first-time newspaper contributors receive a big investigative project to start, regardless of experience. The early assignments will be small — low-level government meetings, high school sporting events, etc. — to help editors gauge a freelancer’s dependability, writing skill and ability to accept criticism. Not even seasoned journalists shine in all of these areas, so being amenable helps land more assignments.

Expect the pay to be small — Typical compensation ranges between $25 and $50 per story, with three-digit sums possible for feature pieces only after a freelancer has a body of work under the newspaper’s masthead. Sometimes, however, newspapers will propose first-time assignments without compensation but dangle a contract if they are impressed with the results. Of course, the assignments may not be frequent enough to yield a steady income.

Know the value of deadlines — Newspaper and online journalism are fast-paced, get-it-done-now businesses that abhor lateness. If an editor says a story has to be completed and in hand by a certain time, freelancers should submit it well before that time, if possible. Otherwise, freelancers should be upfront with editors, ready to explain difficulties and ask for guidance; editors understand that plans can change and circumstances can be nettlesome. But missing a deadline — just one, even — without advance warning or rational cause undermines a freelancer’s credibility.

Read the newspaper — This may sound like a no-brainer, but in fact newspapers often hear from hopeful writers pitching ideas that lack a local angle, ideas that already were printed in some form, or ideas that amount to writers talking about themselves instead of talking to other people. Freelancers first must read either the print or online version of the newspaper (preferably both) and study several editions. Newspapers, like magazines, have writing styles and subjects of particular interest to their audiences; knowing these allows for intelligent conversations with assigning editors.

(Writer’s note: The post is a revised version of one I wrote in 2010 for The Independent Journalist, the freelancing blog of the Society of Professional Journalists, and for my former blog on Posterous.)