The new rules

4/1/2008

Mark Glaser, the force behind PBS' MediaShift, delivered a strong speech last week to Arkansas State University on the changing nature of journalism. He posted much of his lecture yesterday and it's instructive reading.
I don't think Glaser makes any new points --- in fact he could have delivered this speech a year or two ago --- but he provides a good summary of the basics in this day of changing journalism.
Among them (with my asides): The audience knows more than the journalist (we find that out every day, it seems), people are in control of their media (much to our dismay at times), anyone can be a creator (usually with good effect), traditional media must evolve or die (yes, yes, we know), the story will get out despite censorship (thankfully true to date), amateurs and professionals should work together (we have to get past some emotional issues first), journalists need to be multiplatform (agreed), and this is a good time (indeed) to be in the craft. His message to graduates is one I share with students when I teach: learn your Web 2.0 and be ready to freelance. The one thing I'd add: In all of the excitement about new techniques, remember the importance of the old technique called writing. Without that, all the tech in the world will not help.

Maurice Cardinal link

4/3/2008 04:28:29 am

I'd like to add one more rule Kirk;

Mainstream news media have to figure out how to separate from the influence of advertisers.

Do that and all the other rules will fall into place.

Ignore it and you will continue to fight an uphill losing battle. Look to the music industry for proof.

Kirk LaPointe link

4/3/2008 09:02:23 am

What I think everyone wonders is what's the financial model for news if it's not advertising.

Today's MySpace deal indicates music companies are in fact going to lean on advertising revenue to support their content.

The subscription model is extremely challenging in a digital model, even if Wall Street Journal has opted to hang in with one. Journalism is expensive to produce and subscriber revenue alone won't pay for it.

Bill Doskoch link

4/5/2008 10:45:03 am

A few observations:

1. "The audience knows more than the journalist (we find that out every day, it seems)"

Some of the audience does, but most of it doesn't. Otherwise, who needs journalists? (don't answer that :) )

The point I've made in other forums is that when I was a court reporter, as one example, I'd spend my working life immersed in what was going on the courts. There was probably no other person not employed by the legal system in Regina who spent as much time around the courts talking to lawyers, judges, clerks, cops and criminals as I did. So on balance, who knew more?

When I used to do riding profiles (an excellent exercise for journalists, IMO), I used to find myself aghast at how little people knew about key issues.

At the the same time, I like the news-as-conversation model, where those in the community who have value to add have an opportunity to do so.

This could come through a good question as well as a snippet of knowledge or insight.

I don't know why more reporters don't answer genuine questions that arise in comments attached to their stories. The answers would benefit everyone.

Journalists could learn some lessons about tempering arrogance, but they shouldn't swing wildly in the direction of artificial modesty either.

2. "Anyone can be a creator."

It's true that anyone can produce crap. I can make a movie -- but I think you'd rather watch something by a Scorsese or Spielberg.

The statistics I've seen suggest that it's a relatively small part of the online world that creates YouTube mashups or edits Wikipedia entries.

The Huffington Post has gotten a fair bit of press lately (it's surpassed the Drudge Report in uniques). One part of it's operating philosophy is 'quality up front, crap in the rear'.

3. Journalists need to be multi-platform.

Uh, sure -- but what does that mean?

I've seen job descriptions calling for Flash skills for jobs in which I can't imagine a person doing much Flash.

Being a good Flash artist is as rarified a skill as being a good investigative reporter.

People get better at something by doing a lot of it. The reporter who does a lot of investigative work should be better at it than someone who doesn't.

Now, if that person is doing up a major project, I would personally prefer they know how to think about how a Flash presentation (as one example) could enhance the online version of the story and how they could work effectively with a Flash artist rather than trying to do the Flash themselves.

Multi-platform shouldn't mean a room full of journalists who have skill sets a mile wide and an inch deep. There will still be a need for specialists in this new order.

But in other ways, have journalists who can think and operate multi-dimensionally -- who can communicate in front of a camera as well as in print, who can moderate an online community, who can understand how to harness quantitative data -- should make for better journalism.

A good time to be in the craft? It's always a good time to be in the craft! :)

I would concur that while the new skills are exciting and clearly important, the nuts and bolts of journalism -- discovering that which is interesting and important; conveying the information in a way that is engaging yet accurate and fair -- should remain paramount.

4/6/2008 01:54:18 am

Amen to much of what you're saying, Bill.
A real challenge for journalism is to separate the amateurs from the amateurish. I think it's a great benefit to involve a greater breadth of experts and to have audience conversations --- that is, providing it doesn't take journalists off the scent of stories unduly.
But we assume too many people like to spend too much time searching and amassing information, and we take lightly the role of journalism in an age of information overload.

Comments are closed.

The new rules

Archives

Categories