SEO, CMS and analytics may not mean anything to you right now, but after you read this I hope they will.

Recently, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism invited Megan Berry (@meganberry on twitter) to come and give a presentation about her company Klout. In a nutshell, they tell you how much impact and reach your twitter account has based on a wide variety of different factors such as how many times you’ve been retweeted, the “true reach” of your tweets, the people you should follow and who is following you, and a bunch of other stuff. This presentation came on the heels of my introduction to Google Analytics (I know, I know, I’m late. But then again, so are most journalists-hence the blog post).

Between my new knowledge of Analytics and my introduction to my new obsession with Klout, I’ve done some thinking and come to the conclusion that all journalists, no matter what type (print, broadcast, web, etc.) should have not just a basic understanding of metrics, but a sophisticated enough understanding to truly appreciate the impact of their personal websites and tweets.

As we all know, having a twitter account and a website are almost as essential to a journalist as having pin and paper. But what’s the point of having these things if you don’t even know how many people are looking at your content? I recently wrote a blogpost about WikiLeaks (see “Who’s afraid of the big bad WikiLeaks?“) and something interesting happened. As I always do, I posted a link to the new blogpost on Facebook and twitter. When I looked at my metrics, I saw that my friend Ahmed Al Omran had linked to my post from his well known Saudi Jeans blog and I was getting hits from North Africa, Russia, China, and South America as a result. I gained 30 twitter followers, and my Klout score went from a measly 39 to a respectable 43 (I’m currently sitting on a 46).

In just one day 200 people looked at my website. that may not seem like a lot to you, but considering that I was usually averaging about 20 or 30 a week, this was pretty big to me. I’ve seen my numbers consistently stay high after monitoring my metrics and I’m more engaging with my twitter followers because I’ve become aware of the fact that someone outside of my friends actually care about what I’m doing online.

I was somewhat aware that I should be monitoring my online presence, but actually being able to quantify it in a tangible number is really awakening. Think about all the tweets or blogposts you’ve posted. Do you know how many people have seen them? What impact did your online action have on your community?

If you happen to stumble across some major breaking news story and you want to reach people, how will you know how many people you actually impacted? Knowing your metrics is important. If you haven’t gotten around to it yet, you should start.

There’s been a lot of fuss lately over Mr. Julian Assange. For those who may have been living under a rock, he’s the person responsible for the creation of WikiLeaks.

Whatever your feelings may be towards him or his company, hear me out first. In my ethics class yesterday Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia’s J-School, came to speak and we had a very rousing discussion about what makes Mr. Assange any different than a major news organization. The immediate answer was that he has broken the law, violated national security, and has caused a deterioration of diplomatic relations. But has he really?

If you look at the situation a little differently, I think you may find yourself in the middle of the road. For starters, WikiLeaks is a nonprofit, meaning Assange has absolutely no financial incentives from releasing this information. He also has a very similar mission to that of most news organizations. Let’s analyze:

Abridged mission statement of The New York Times:

“The Company’s core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.”

Abridged mission statement of WikiLeaks:

“WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organization. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.”

Now are those two things so different?

You may argue that I am overgeneralizing here a bit, and I will admit that this is a very simplified point. But if you really think about it, Assange hasn’t broken any laws. Despite all the hoopla about the 250,000 “cables” that WikiLeaks has, Assange has released just a little over 1000 of them. So far nothing he has released has caused any significant damage, and none of the information was new. Spreading around an old e-mail or two (that’s really what they are, cables is just a retro reference to way back when) isn’t a reason for people on Fox News to call for the government to assassinate Assange.

Here’s another way of looking at it. I’m a journalist, meaning I’m basically open for business in terms of receiving and publishing confidential documents. That’s what journalists do, we expose things to make the world a better place. If someone sticks a flash drive or a stack of documents full of confidential government information, who am I to not use that info, especially when the story I write will expose wrongdoing and make government accountable? I don’t know any journalist who wouldn’t use those documents in one way or another. Obviously there would be fact-checking and vetting necessary but you can bet they would be used.

Assange has basically the same principle. When he founded WikiLeaks, he did so under the auspices of making government more open and holding people accountable. He operates under the logic that information should be free and open. Isn’t that what journalists do? I’m not calling him a journalist by any means, but think about it. What makes what Assange is doing so wrong? Think about what could have happened to journalism if the government shut down The New York Times’ website for publishing the Pentagon papers, or censored The Washington Post because of watergate, or any other expository journalism the way WikiLeaks has been attacked. I shudder to think.

And let’s not forget that while mainstream media is either condemning Assange or sitting on the fence, many of the big news orgs are using these “cables” to write stories. They are doing what journalists have done since the beginning of journalism: using a leak to break the story. It’s what we do.

As Anna Edgerton said in class; do I think we need to know every name that diplomats call each other behind closed doors? No. Do I think that people should know when the government is planning to assassinate people for unnecessary reasons? Yes.

Ahmed Al Omran, a fellow journalism friend,  was mentioned in one of the WikiLeaks, and the information is certainly not life threatening.

Government, by definition, is secretive. Journalists, therefore, are nosey and exposing. It’s just the way the world works. Assange may not be a “journalist” per say, but he’s certainly opened the discussion on the new digital world of journalism. I think things like WikiLeaks will only continue to pop up as technological advances continue to surface. Get used to it world, the Internet age is here and it’s not going anywhere.

As I glided off the AirTrain and into the check-in line at jetBlue’s gorgeous Terminal 5 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport last Monday, my iPhone 4 rang and it was a number I didn’t recognize. I usually don’t answer unknown numbers, but something made me pick up the call. I’m glad I did, it was Rob Hooker, Deputy Managing Editor of the prestigious St. Petersburg Times. Here I was about to face either an enhanced pat down or a full body scan and this man was telling me I was a finalist for the internship program.

No, I didn’t get the internship in case you’re wondering. I found out today. I’m not too upset about it really. But the point is that things can happen to reporters when we least expect them to. Kind of like how I accidentally deleted all of my old website content, and was forced to make a new one the other day (hence this new and improved version).

I had a sudden desire to redesign my website dextermullins.com over the last two days. I had been peddling around looking for a theme that I liked enough to want to customize, and finally settled on one at around 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Little did I know that my short venture would turn into a two day saga. 6 p.m. blended in 1 a.m., and domain hosts were swapped without content backup, much coffee was consumed. To make a long story short, I woke up on Wednesday realizing that I hadn’t saved any of my old content and just sat down to spend all of the day, night and early into today recoding. Hadn’t planned on doing that, but I think the end result outweighs the orginial frustration. I’ve come a long way from this:

to the current version. Look out young journalists! Things happen when you will be least prepared.