In our citizen journalism class the other day, Professor Bentley mentioned that the blogosphere as it is currently structured would most likely collapse– or at least change dramatically– if The Associated Press decided to make its content available only to traditional media outlets. Every political, sports and even fashion blog needs to start somewhere, and, at least for now, that somewhere is still, almost without exception, us – the traditional journalists. Anybody can have an opinion, after all, but without a framework of hard facts propping it up, that opinion isn’t worth much more than the air (or hard drive space) with which it is delivered. That’s why, whenever a blogger feels compelled to give an opinion, he or she usually links to a traditional news story to provide background and context. Many of the blogosphere’s most publicized triumphs have, in fact, revolved around traditional media (Dan Rather’s falsified documents being the most well-known example), and that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
That said, newspapers are going to be in trouble if they continue along exactly the same path. They are perceived as slow, boring and inconvenient. One solution we mentioned in class was to make the way we deliver the news more convenient and technologically compatible (like EmPrint). But reversing the statistics we talked about in class won’t be as simple as just altering the medium, because newspapers are not like other businesses. Let me try to give an admittedly oversimplified explanation.
Every industry in the United States is dealing with technological advances right now that are making business easier in many ways, but that will, in other ways, force us to change our ways of life– and perhaps not in a positive way. Wal-Mart, for example, has cornered the market on retail shopping and is putting smaller companies out of business all across America. There are a lot of positives to Wal-Mart (it forces prices down, it’s convenient, etc...), but there are also negatives (low paying jobs, little choice, poor quality).
At the turn of the 20th century, America faced a similar problem. The United States, which had been a nation of farmers, was quickly transforming into an industrial country. Hundreds of thousands of farmers were forced to live off subsidies or move to the cities where they adopted new, urban lifestyles. At the time, the death of the American farmer was seen as a big problem. But people adapted. They learned new skills and got new jobs, and the country is probably better off for it now. Today, as Wal-Mart homogenizes the retail industry and the old automotive giants face steady decline in the face of overseas competition, Americans face a similar problem: We must adapt or face the consequences. I think that in this area we’ll adapt, as we have in the past, and things will turn out okay.
The same kind of thing happened in the newspaper industry. Cities that once had several daily newspapers were eventually left with one or two. Like we talked about in class, newspapers that had at one time printed slanted, partisan stories started putting out unbiased news in an effort to appeal to a larger readership. The industry evolved in order to turn a profit, and it’s ironic that we now think of these principles as our ethical, not monetary, responsibility to uphold. But that’s where newspapers differ from automobiles. Our only purpose is not to make money.
In “The News About the News,” the authors talk about a shift in journalism away from information and toward entertainment, and they warn that this sort of change will undermine our highest responsibility to the public. That’s why we can’t do what other industries do and simply adapt to the market (which is craving glossed over entertainment over hard news at the moment), because that would undermine our real purpose altogether.
My favorite chapter in the book is Chapter Four: Newspapers: Where the News (Mostly) Comes From. That’s because it lets us know that the situation is not quite as dire as all those statistics make it out to be. Even though people say their trust of media outlets is at an all-time low, there isn’t anybody they’d rather turn to than us when they need news most. The authors write that while Sept. 11, 2001, was a day of television for most Americans, “September 12 belonged to newspapers, and reminded us why, even now, decades into the electronic era, newspapers remain so important” because “already on that first day the better newspapers had discovered new facts about” the attacks that were not mentioned in the television coverage, and most major newspapers sold more copies than they ever had before.
This is only one case, and it’s an extreme one, too. But it does give us an idea about how we can get out of this hole. It won’t be through new media or more entertainment news or greater homogenization of the market– it will be through tough, thorough reporting, which is still better in newspapers than it is anywhere else. That’s why the relationship between blogs and newspapers is more symbiotic than competitive. They need us to give them the information upon which they form their opinions, and we need them to keep us on edge. Even in fashion reporting.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Redefining the docket
I like Vanity Fair magazine. I’m not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing to admit as journalist, but nonetheless it is one of the three magazines to which I subscribe. So you can imagine my pleasant surprise and delight when the latest issue of Columbia Journalism Review published “Vanity Fire,” an article by Bree Nordenson about how Graydon Carter, VF’s editor, has changed the content of the magazine to feature more political and in-depth jouralism.
The CJR article focuses on the question of whether Carter will continue publishing political content, but I’m more interested in the fact that he publishes it at all. Vanity Fair has found a unique and successful balance between celebrity coverage and in-depth journalistic articles, and the fact that this balance doesn’t have to be magazine specific. Newspapers could adopt some of the same strategies, publishing a mix of what people want to – and will – read and what we the journalists believe they should read. They’d just have to take a new approach to the newspaper journalist’s agenda setting role.
Agenda setting should not just be about what journalists believe to be important; the agenda should also include what the readers believe is important. The daily newspaper, the daily agenda, should be a compromise between the writer’s and the reader’s interests. This is where Vanity Fair is successful. It covers what people want – and, unlike many other publications, proudly. “There’s practically no magazine or newspaper that does not trade in celebrity coverage,” Jack Shafer said in the CJR article. “Rather than downplaying its celebrity coverage, which you’ll find in the Times Magazine, and you’ll find in The New Yorker, Vanity Fair puts a great big bow on its celebrity coverage and puts it on the cover.”
Altering the agenda to make it, let’s be honest, more interesting for the average reader could have a more significant impact than simply getting people to read and buy the newspaper. By including the not-so-newsy stories that people want to know about, the newspaper would become a more universal and convenient medium. Readers would only have to go to one location for all the information they want to know, rather than picking up another publication, switching to a specific channel or surfing to a different website. It would finally give the daily newspaper a leg-up other news mediums and hopefully safe the paper from extinction.
Granted, changing the content of newspaper likely would be painful for most publishers, editors and reporters. Perhaps journalists would feel they are compromising their integrity as a watchdog or information gatherer. However, Nordenson accurately notes that “readers shouldn’t be bothered by Vanity Fair’s celebrity coverage because they don’t have to read it,” even though many people do. This theory would apply to newspaper coverage, too. Readers already make choices about what pictures to look at, which headlines to skim and which articles they actually will read. Simply adding a new news genre to the daily mix of stories would not diminish the value of other articles.
In exchange for their concession, publishers, editors and reporters may receive from their readers a renewed trust or faith in their product. Printing information that is applicable and interesting to readers is a sign of respect for the audience and its culture. It’s an interpretation of the Golden Rule for the media business.
Graydon Carter is on to something at Vanity Fair, something that newspapers need to tap into in order to save themselves.
The CJR article focuses on the question of whether Carter will continue publishing political content, but I’m more interested in the fact that he publishes it at all. Vanity Fair has found a unique and successful balance between celebrity coverage and in-depth journalistic articles, and the fact that this balance doesn’t have to be magazine specific. Newspapers could adopt some of the same strategies, publishing a mix of what people want to – and will – read and what we the journalists believe they should read. They’d just have to take a new approach to the newspaper journalist’s agenda setting role.
Agenda setting should not just be about what journalists believe to be important; the agenda should also include what the readers believe is important. The daily newspaper, the daily agenda, should be a compromise between the writer’s and the reader’s interests. This is where Vanity Fair is successful. It covers what people want – and, unlike many other publications, proudly. “There’s practically no magazine or newspaper that does not trade in celebrity coverage,” Jack Shafer said in the CJR article. “Rather than downplaying its celebrity coverage, which you’ll find in the Times Magazine, and you’ll find in The New Yorker, Vanity Fair puts a great big bow on its celebrity coverage and puts it on the cover.”
Altering the agenda to make it, let’s be honest, more interesting for the average reader could have a more significant impact than simply getting people to read and buy the newspaper. By including the not-so-newsy stories that people want to know about, the newspaper would become a more universal and convenient medium. Readers would only have to go to one location for all the information they want to know, rather than picking up another publication, switching to a specific channel or surfing to a different website. It would finally give the daily newspaper a leg-up other news mediums and hopefully safe the paper from extinction.
Granted, changing the content of newspaper likely would be painful for most publishers, editors and reporters. Perhaps journalists would feel they are compromising their integrity as a watchdog or information gatherer. However, Nordenson accurately notes that “readers shouldn’t be bothered by Vanity Fair’s celebrity coverage because they don’t have to read it,” even though many people do. This theory would apply to newspaper coverage, too. Readers already make choices about what pictures to look at, which headlines to skim and which articles they actually will read. Simply adding a new news genre to the daily mix of stories would not diminish the value of other articles.
In exchange for their concession, publishers, editors and reporters may receive from their readers a renewed trust or faith in their product. Printing information that is applicable and interesting to readers is a sign of respect for the audience and its culture. It’s an interpretation of the Golden Rule for the media business.
Graydon Carter is on to something at Vanity Fair, something that newspapers need to tap into in order to save themselves.
Journalists of the world unite!
It struck me while reading The News about the News by Leonard Downie and Robert Kaiser that the time has come for a revolution. Well, maybe not a revolution, but definitely a social movement. We need a movement powerful enough to derail journalism from its current path.
Let us delve into our repertoire of effective means to bring about the end we are seeking. Marches, sit-ins and bus rides worked during the civil rights movement, but our cause isn’t likely to draw media attention (ironic isn’t it). Barricades and burning cars have worked for the French since antiquity, but Americans don’t look fondly upon prison time. A petition would be very democratic, however, a little less like an uprising.
But a strike, now there is a tried and true means of bringing about change. I’m always a fan of labor unions working together against powerful corporations. Print journalists could create a union and our creed could be “journalists for the democratic dream."
The beauty of a strike is that it would affect the large conglomerations that are dictating how print journalism functions today - poorly. It would affect the government that turns to newspapers as guides for their campaigns (we could target the 2008 election). It would affect consumers, who would wake up not only to an empty doorstep, but also to recycled broadcast news and stale online content.
As Downie put it so eloquently, “the world of news without newspapers would be something like a sleek convertible without an engine” (64). Imagine Americans waking up to find their Hondas won’t start: that would bring the news cameras (besides, they would have little else to report).
I’m getting ahead of myself.
First, we must decide what our end, aim and goal should be. Every journalist in America probably has a list a mile long of problems with the media. Targeting the source problems is the key.
Many breakdowns in print media can be traced back to inept ownership, which is increasingly synonymous with corporate-profit-driven-ownership. A trend that has produced “homogenized ‘reader friendly’ pap, which [I] find deplorable” (91). This beautiful description by Downie of print’s downward spiral leads to the justification of our revolt.
This “pap” is incapable of sustaining a functioning representative democracy. Something that is a primary role of journalism, although today, fewer people seem to believe in the fourth estate or to even know what it is.
Few could argue, however, with Herbert Gans’ statement in Democracy and the News that “the democratic process can only be truly meaningful if these citizens are informed” (1). This statement requires the stipulation that being informed of how election campaigns are running is not substantive to a starving country, nor are the marital indiscretions of politicians. What society needs from us is spinach and lots of it.
Citizens need the information that occurs between elections: how American foreign policy is being shaped, how the government is managing or mismanaging the budget, why there are such drastic social inequalities, what is America’s role in the global economy, where is our free market headed? These are just a few examples, but America needs less surface reporting and more depth to avoid societal malnourishment.
A strike would force corporate owners to listen to our terms. As journalists for the democratic dream we would demand more resources to pursue the Iran-contra affairs of the world, more autonomy for our editors, a reestablishment of the wall between marketing and reporting, investment in technologies to improve print and online capabilities and most importantly, a commitment to democratic journalism.
Before we bring out the picket signs, there is a catch. With more resources and less restraint on expenditure, newspapers could fold in two or three years. A complete turn from market awareness would be the downfall of print. I am the first to admit that the health of a newspaper’s profits is important to me, as it will be my only source of income.
Here is where the beauty of my scheme shines through. Those disgruntled individuals trapped at home with motor-less cars, would suddenly realize what a necessity newspapers are to their lives. In a swirl of guilt at having taken such a resource for granted, papers will be avidly consumed. The American public will eat spinach and enjoy every last spoonful of it. Readers will be more likely to pay for online access to the paper, and the profits will roll in.
For those who believe a strike is unfeasible or that it would become a battle for higher salaries, I leave you with Downie’s comments on journalists: “their willingness to work for relatively modest wages is not evidence of their meekness. On the contrary, the news business attracts ornery, independent, ego-driven individuals who, though they come in many shapes and flavors, often share a crusading sensibility” (73). Our crusade: save print journalism to save America.
Let us delve into our repertoire of effective means to bring about the end we are seeking. Marches, sit-ins and bus rides worked during the civil rights movement, but our cause isn’t likely to draw media attention (ironic isn’t it). Barricades and burning cars have worked for the French since antiquity, but Americans don’t look fondly upon prison time. A petition would be very democratic, however, a little less like an uprising.
But a strike, now there is a tried and true means of bringing about change. I’m always a fan of labor unions working together against powerful corporations. Print journalists could create a union and our creed could be “journalists for the democratic dream."
The beauty of a strike is that it would affect the large conglomerations that are dictating how print journalism functions today - poorly. It would affect the government that turns to newspapers as guides for their campaigns (we could target the 2008 election). It would affect consumers, who would wake up not only to an empty doorstep, but also to recycled broadcast news and stale online content.
As Downie put it so eloquently, “the world of news without newspapers would be something like a sleek convertible without an engine” (64). Imagine Americans waking up to find their Hondas won’t start: that would bring the news cameras (besides, they would have little else to report).
I’m getting ahead of myself.
First, we must decide what our end, aim and goal should be. Every journalist in America probably has a list a mile long of problems with the media. Targeting the source problems is the key.
Many breakdowns in print media can be traced back to inept ownership, which is increasingly synonymous with corporate-profit-driven-ownership. A trend that has produced “homogenized ‘reader friendly’ pap, which [I] find deplorable” (91). This beautiful description by Downie of print’s downward spiral leads to the justification of our revolt.
This “pap” is incapable of sustaining a functioning representative democracy. Something that is a primary role of journalism, although today, fewer people seem to believe in the fourth estate or to even know what it is.
Few could argue, however, with Herbert Gans’ statement in Democracy and the News that “the democratic process can only be truly meaningful if these citizens are informed” (1). This statement requires the stipulation that being informed of how election campaigns are running is not substantive to a starving country, nor are the marital indiscretions of politicians. What society needs from us is spinach and lots of it.
Citizens need the information that occurs between elections: how American foreign policy is being shaped, how the government is managing or mismanaging the budget, why there are such drastic social inequalities, what is America’s role in the global economy, where is our free market headed? These are just a few examples, but America needs less surface reporting and more depth to avoid societal malnourishment.
A strike would force corporate owners to listen to our terms. As journalists for the democratic dream we would demand more resources to pursue the Iran-contra affairs of the world, more autonomy for our editors, a reestablishment of the wall between marketing and reporting, investment in technologies to improve print and online capabilities and most importantly, a commitment to democratic journalism.
Before we bring out the picket signs, there is a catch. With more resources and less restraint on expenditure, newspapers could fold in two or three years. A complete turn from market awareness would be the downfall of print. I am the first to admit that the health of a newspaper’s profits is important to me, as it will be my only source of income.
Here is where the beauty of my scheme shines through. Those disgruntled individuals trapped at home with motor-less cars, would suddenly realize what a necessity newspapers are to their lives. In a swirl of guilt at having taken such a resource for granted, papers will be avidly consumed. The American public will eat spinach and enjoy every last spoonful of it. Readers will be more likely to pay for online access to the paper, and the profits will roll in.
For those who believe a strike is unfeasible or that it would become a battle for higher salaries, I leave you with Downie’s comments on journalists: “their willingness to work for relatively modest wages is not evidence of their meekness. On the contrary, the news business attracts ornery, independent, ego-driven individuals who, though they come in many shapes and flavors, often share a crusading sensibility” (73). Our crusade: save print journalism to save America.
Love me or hate me, just read me
Lawyers. Politicians. Dentists. Journalists.
All fall under the umbrella category of “Most Hated Professionals.” As a professional journalist, I’d like to thank the Academy.
The public hates us. Is it because of mistaken identity? Do our audiences not understand that Journalist 1 is not Journalist 2? I certainly don’t see myself as the "conspiring, lying, no-good journalist.” My job as a copy editor is to make sure all those nasty stereotypes about journalists aren’t made into (more of) a reality.
There are valid reasons for the public to distrust the media. We’ve provided that ammo. And it’s been proved, time and time again, that the public remembers when we’ve messed up, far more frequently than they remember when we’ve done well.I find myself defending journalism in my gen-ed classes. “No, we do not sit in the newsroom and conspire!” “Yes, papers are a business, but we don’t talk to the business side!” “No, I don’t think coining ‘Benifer’ was beneficial for the American public!”
A friend told me just yesterday that he doesn’t know when the news is truth or not - that he’d almost rather not get any news at all. This perspective contributes to dismantling our “culture of accountability” (Downie and Kaiser, 7); it also makes a good argument for transparency. Perhaps the public’s mistrust has a lot to do with their ignorance of journalism and its practices.
I started working for my high school paper because it was exciting. I liked talking to people. I liked writing. But that’s not why journalists should be journalists. You need a thirst for knowledge, an undying curiosity, a skeptical eye. And a belief in the principles of the craft. I think the public hates us because they don’t understand or believe that good journalists - the kind I’ve grown to be - do what they do because they believe it’s a civic duty.
Journalism got the First Amendment. Not the Sixth. Not the Twentieth. The First. Freedom of the press is essential to society, to inform people and citizens. Unfortunately, most readers and viewers choose to be one or the other. The public has a love/hate relationship with the media.
They say: Inform me, but don’t give away too much. Be there for me when I want you there. Don’t crowd me. Read my mind - tell me what I want to know, and no more. Don’t bore me. Keep it snappy.
I'm optimistic about the future of journalism because people want information now more than ever. But we need to do a better job of providing that information. Downie and Kaiser say “a good paper explains big events and puts them in context. Beyond that, a newspaper keeps watch on the powerful people in its immediate neighborhood …” (67). We need to remind people of that. Readers want context, or they feel lost. But they want context in easily digestible forms.
Too often, news content is more entertainment or sensationalized briefs than information presented to audiences as something they should be concerned about. Gans says many journalists have been “seduced by sensationalism” (30). We’ve allowed ourselves to water down the news, assuming the worst about our readers and viewers. We allow our audiences to dictate so much of what we report because of profit quotas. “Americans would rather be entertained than informed” (Downie and Kaiser, 11) and we deliver.
Our audiences have lost sight of our role as their gatekeepers. Journalists help keep the wolves out, especially in regards to politics, public safety and health. “Even so, and perhaps because of America’s faith in self-reliance, too few people realize how much they depend on government for their everyday lives” (Gant, 19). We are a “me” society, rather than a “we” society, so focused on ourselves with little or no interest in other people or events, especially ones that don’t appear to affect us. Downie and Kaiser say that in the era following WWII and the Cold War, “millions of American consumers turned their backs on civic life to focus on personal development, enrichment and pleasure” (26). I think this description of Americans’ attitudes then is apt for explaining our audiences today. They’re lazy. They’re spoiled.
My goal as a journalist is to help people learn more about the world around them. I want to ensure accuracy. I want to encourage creativity. I want to demand truthfulness. I want the public to give a damn. If this means providing them that spoonful of entertainment's sugar in order to make the medicine of life's reality go down easier, I'll do it.
So where is journalism headed? How can we cater to apathetic audiences without forsaking the ideals that we hold as journalists? I’m not sure that the Internet is the solution to all our problems. As we discussed in lecture, story placement and bringing advertisers on board present difficulties. Most of all, we don’t trust audiences to have such a free range of choice. They need guidance. But if we can find a way to lead audiences in the right direction (with a hierarchy of story placement, make information easily accessible with links, utilize interactive items or video to make information more entertaining) then the Internet as the next realm of good journalism isn’t such a bad thing. At least people would be consuming more news and less celebrity gossip, becoming more of a citizen interested in their own and others’ well being.
Thoughts on new media
I was working on a story this week and it brought up a large issue for me in terms of where we as journalists are heading. The blogosphere (surely someone could have that of a better term than 'blogosphere') is growing to immense degrees at a staggering pace and "news outlets" havebecome innumerable. John Stewart is probably one of the leading sources among the most desirable demographic. And here we are learning this formulaic objective-model journalism.
Is this really where we should be headed?
Let me clarify: Blogs are often skewed, as are the major broadcast news outlets, as is the Daily Show. And no one seems to care! In fact, people love it. They can't get enough. Is it responsible? I doubt it. Does John Stewart understand his role as educator in this modern world? Maybe, but even if he does, the network will probably reign him in.
All of these outlets are biased, opinionated, and generally not nearly as well-informed or civic-minded as we try to be.
So then I got to thinking; In other countries it seems that, to an extent, journalists are understood to be among the most well-read and knowledgable people on a subject, maybe even as much so as their subjects. Anyone who's covered city politics, planning and zoning, even business I imagine, gains enough knowledge to start to judge events on their own. And I think in other countries people don't mind a bit of analysis, so long as it's done professionally and without much bias.
Analysis without bias, you say? What's that?
I believe it's possible. I also believe it could become important.
I was working on a story this week, and it came into play. The story was "Protection vs. Privacy" (1-31) and it concerned the state's ability to require DNA of convicts and their desire to be able to take DNA from arrestees prior to conviction. After researching I relaized that all the law would effectively do is remove the step at which police have to convince a judge to give them a warrant.
Well excuse me, but isn't that quite a large and important step, put in place to protect one's individual rights, to protect the defendant?
So I presented the facts, I got both sides to weigh in, I did everything we're taught to do here, and then I slid in a couple of things to really draw attention to the fact that these safeguards are put into the legal system for a very real reason and we cannot just hand them over. And my editor agreed with me. Hell, she got pissed when the copy desk lifted bits of them out.
It was minor, as it's all we're allowed in this setting. But it's a small example of what I think we could become.
The people are bored by straight news, apparently. They want opinion, but are drawn to uniformed and lazy pundit opinion. Talking heads.
But what if we offered them intelligent opinion news?
I'm not sure what form this would ultimately take. Could be intelligent blogs linked to our newspapers' website and linked to the pertaining straight-news story. Could be that for every story a reporter links his own blog about it. Would that undermine the principle of unbiased reporting, or would it add to transparency?
Is this really where we should be headed?
Let me clarify: Blogs are often skewed, as are the major broadcast news outlets, as is the Daily Show. And no one seems to care! In fact, people love it. They can't get enough. Is it responsible? I doubt it. Does John Stewart understand his role as educator in this modern world? Maybe, but even if he does, the network will probably reign him in.
All of these outlets are biased, opinionated, and generally not nearly as well-informed or civic-minded as we try to be.
So then I got to thinking; In other countries it seems that, to an extent, journalists are understood to be among the most well-read and knowledgable people on a subject, maybe even as much so as their subjects. Anyone who's covered city politics, planning and zoning, even business I imagine, gains enough knowledge to start to judge events on their own. And I think in other countries people don't mind a bit of analysis, so long as it's done professionally and without much bias.
Analysis without bias, you say? What's that?
I believe it's possible. I also believe it could become important.
I was working on a story this week, and it came into play. The story was "Protection vs. Privacy" (1-31) and it concerned the state's ability to require DNA of convicts and their desire to be able to take DNA from arrestees prior to conviction. After researching I relaized that all the law would effectively do is remove the step at which police have to convince a judge to give them a warrant.
Well excuse me, but isn't that quite a large and important step, put in place to protect one's individual rights, to protect the defendant?
So I presented the facts, I got both sides to weigh in, I did everything we're taught to do here, and then I slid in a couple of things to really draw attention to the fact that these safeguards are put into the legal system for a very real reason and we cannot just hand them over. And my editor agreed with me. Hell, she got pissed when the copy desk lifted bits of them out.
It was minor, as it's all we're allowed in this setting. But it's a small example of what I think we could become.
The people are bored by straight news, apparently. They want opinion, but are drawn to uniformed and lazy pundit opinion. Talking heads.
But what if we offered them intelligent opinion news?
I'm not sure what form this would ultimately take. Could be intelligent blogs linked to our newspapers' website and linked to the pertaining straight-news story. Could be that for every story a reporter links his own blog about it. Would that undermine the principle of unbiased reporting, or would it add to transparency?
Adaptation
Bill Gates had a busy week. With the launching of Microsoft Vista, he toured the news syndicate, and had a lot to say about the future of media as we know it.
“Because TV is moving into being delivered over the Internet—and some of the big phone companies are building up the infrastructure for that—you’re going to have that experience all together,” he told the World Economic forum this week.
Gates explained to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Tuesday that within the next five years, TV will be completely revolutionized. He said that TV will be more “interactive”—viewers will soon be able to select what they want to watch, much like an RSS feed for the boob tube.
If you want to just watch the sports segment of a news broadcast, why sit through nation and world news? Just skip ahead to the Australian Open results, he said.
As someone who cares very much about news, this was a little scary to hear. Mostly because I know how I think.
I don’t like to watch TV dramas. CSI: Miami and Law & Order are completely lost on me. I think this is mostly because, at the end of a long day of classes or work, the last thing I want to do is watch people being murdered. I just want to relax, tune out, watch a little Everybody Loves Raymond, and laugh.
So at the end of the day, who is actively going to choose to watch the crime report? Or a feature on famine in Africa? I don’t think I would. It’s such a downer.
The reason why I do watch or read about these kinds of heartbreaking events now is because I can’t avoid them. When I pick up a paper, I automatically see the front page. When I look at a newspaper’s Web site, I can’t avoid the homepage. And when I watch the news on television, I have to watch the A-block before the sports segment. Because now, journalists still get to dictate what news is most important.
With the rise of Tivo and the Internet, audiences have more control over the news than ever before, but they can’t avoid certain stories completely. If Bill Gates gets his way though, journalists will lose one of their vital roles in society. We will no longer be able to set the agenda. Instead, consumers will dictate what news is heard and when—and it might not be the news that we deem to be the most important. Can we trust audiences to make the right choices? Is Bill Gates’ dream the end of news as we know it?
I don’t think so.
I’m an anthropology minor, so I’ve studied evolution for longer than I’d like to admit. And I know that when an environment changes, for the most part, species don’t die out. They evolve. They change in whatever way nature commands, and oftentimes, they’re more successful for it.
Jill Abramson, the managing editor for the New York Times, told the Yale Herald last week that “the Internet has made us more creative and more competitive in many ways.” She’s optimistic about the future of news. She doesn’t think new technology is the end of news, but the beginning. And I agree with her.
I really believe that as long as people talk, they’ll need information. (Otherwise, what will they have to talk about?) And as long as they need information, they’ll need the news.
News may come in different shapes and forms, but that’s what’s so exciting about it. Instead of cringing and the thought of new media and the fear of smaller audiences, maybe we should embrace it, look at it as a challenge and dive in. We should evolve.
Our role, plain and simple, will always be to deliver information. We’ll just have to change the way it gets to our audiences. I’m not sure how we’ll do it, but that’s the beauty of evolution: Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
“Because TV is moving into being delivered over the Internet—and some of the big phone companies are building up the infrastructure for that—you’re going to have that experience all together,” he told the World Economic forum this week.
Gates explained to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Tuesday that within the next five years, TV will be completely revolutionized. He said that TV will be more “interactive”—viewers will soon be able to select what they want to watch, much like an RSS feed for the boob tube.
If you want to just watch the sports segment of a news broadcast, why sit through nation and world news? Just skip ahead to the Australian Open results, he said.
As someone who cares very much about news, this was a little scary to hear. Mostly because I know how I think.
I don’t like to watch TV dramas. CSI: Miami and Law & Order are completely lost on me. I think this is mostly because, at the end of a long day of classes or work, the last thing I want to do is watch people being murdered. I just want to relax, tune out, watch a little Everybody Loves Raymond, and laugh.
So at the end of the day, who is actively going to choose to watch the crime report? Or a feature on famine in Africa? I don’t think I would. It’s such a downer.
The reason why I do watch or read about these kinds of heartbreaking events now is because I can’t avoid them. When I pick up a paper, I automatically see the front page. When I look at a newspaper’s Web site, I can’t avoid the homepage. And when I watch the news on television, I have to watch the A-block before the sports segment. Because now, journalists still get to dictate what news is most important.
With the rise of Tivo and the Internet, audiences have more control over the news than ever before, but they can’t avoid certain stories completely. If Bill Gates gets his way though, journalists will lose one of their vital roles in society. We will no longer be able to set the agenda. Instead, consumers will dictate what news is heard and when—and it might not be the news that we deem to be the most important. Can we trust audiences to make the right choices? Is Bill Gates’ dream the end of news as we know it?
I don’t think so.
I’m an anthropology minor, so I’ve studied evolution for longer than I’d like to admit. And I know that when an environment changes, for the most part, species don’t die out. They evolve. They change in whatever way nature commands, and oftentimes, they’re more successful for it.
Jill Abramson, the managing editor for the New York Times, told the Yale Herald last week that “the Internet has made us more creative and more competitive in many ways.” She’s optimistic about the future of news. She doesn’t think new technology is the end of news, but the beginning. And I agree with her.
I really believe that as long as people talk, they’ll need information. (Otherwise, what will they have to talk about?) And as long as they need information, they’ll need the news.
News may come in different shapes and forms, but that’s what’s so exciting about it. Instead of cringing and the thought of new media and the fear of smaller audiences, maybe we should embrace it, look at it as a challenge and dive in. We should evolve.
Our role, plain and simple, will always be to deliver information. We’ll just have to change the way it gets to our audiences. I’m not sure how we’ll do it, but that’s the beauty of evolution: Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Where are we going?
Where is journalism headed? How are those of us with the least experience but the most energy going to determine the future of this business?
What should our goals be? In our reading, Downie and Kaiser said, "We have three goals: to explain why good journalism is so important, to increase the knowledge of consumers of news about how the news business works and to encourage public support for the best journalism" (12).
I think those are all admirable goals, and ones we should be striving for each and every single day. I'm a sports guy, though, and the last few days I've been pondering the death of former Orlando Sentinel sports editor Van McKenzie.
Just reading the testimonials to his life and how he changed a mediocre sports section into one of the best sections in all of newspapers, not just sports. I think he had even better goals than those that were suggested in our reading. Here is just a sample of his letter to the Sentinel staff when he took over:
Words to live by: "Never Assume Anything."
Words to die by: "That’s not the way we do things around here."
Every inch of the sports section will be reevaluated. Some former features will be eliminated, making room for new coverage and ideas.
Emphasis will be placed on breaking news. Not just Orlando stories, but national stories too. Reporters will be expected to never be beaten on a local news story. Woe to the reporter who has to cover a press conference to get news.
The best writers I know are also the best reporters I know.
The best reporters work the telephone daily and have personal home numbers for every player in the league they cover.
There will be a premium on ideas that will establish the Sentinel sports section as a unique product with a "personality" all its own.
He and his staff not only accomplished those goals, but exceeded them beyond all expectations. But I think if his words and actions are heeded, journalism is headed in the right direction. We will educate. We will inform. We will entertain. And we will do it all with a personality all our own.
But we have to strive to make a difference. And I'd like to think that's where we're heading. All we have heard for the past few years is how bad the industry is. I personally have been told (half-jokingly) by a few editors across the country "so I guess it's too late to convince you to leave journalism." I think that attitude doesn't help the future of the business.
Journalists have to continue to make an impact on society and raise awareness about big issues. NBC's Dateline has certainly done that with child predators. Newspapers have to continually make similar splashes to remain relevant.
Downie and Kaiser mention the "watchdog failing to bark" and cite an example of the Washington Post in 1986, when it failed to report on "arguably the most egregious abuse of U.S. government power since Watergate" (51). A spectacular failure like that only gives people an excuse not to pay attention to serious journalism when something significant is uncovered.
Quite simply, we have to continually do our jobs at a higher level than ever (mostly because of the increased scrutiny, and the number of options for people to get their news like blogs, internet sites, cable TV etc.)
That's where the young journalists of this country come in. That's where we shape the future of the industry. We have to do our jobs better than anyone else in order to survive. That's where I think we're heading, too. We are churning out a lot of quality journalists. If we're given the chance, we can shape the future of the business for the better.
Journalists will educate the public. They'll inform them quickly and accurately so that the public understands the issue. Journalists will untangle the web of complicated spin so people can make an informed decision on an issue. They'll entertain. They'll provoke discussion.
The site of discussion has moved from the local park bench to a message board underneath the article. But journalists are adapting to the rapid changes. Those of us just graduating can help significantly given the chance.
What should our goals be? In our reading, Downie and Kaiser said, "We have three goals: to explain why good journalism is so important, to increase the knowledge of consumers of news about how the news business works and to encourage public support for the best journalism" (12).
I think those are all admirable goals, and ones we should be striving for each and every single day. I'm a sports guy, though, and the last few days I've been pondering the death of former Orlando Sentinel sports editor Van McKenzie.
Just reading the testimonials to his life and how he changed a mediocre sports section into one of the best sections in all of newspapers, not just sports. I think he had even better goals than those that were suggested in our reading. Here is just a sample of his letter to the Sentinel staff when he took over:
Words to live by: "Never Assume Anything."
Words to die by: "That’s not the way we do things around here."
Every inch of the sports section will be reevaluated. Some former features will be eliminated, making room for new coverage and ideas.
Emphasis will be placed on breaking news. Not just Orlando stories, but national stories too. Reporters will be expected to never be beaten on a local news story. Woe to the reporter who has to cover a press conference to get news.
The best writers I know are also the best reporters I know.
The best reporters work the telephone daily and have personal home numbers for every player in the league they cover.
There will be a premium on ideas that will establish the Sentinel sports section as a unique product with a "personality" all its own.
He and his staff not only accomplished those goals, but exceeded them beyond all expectations. But I think if his words and actions are heeded, journalism is headed in the right direction. We will educate. We will inform. We will entertain. And we will do it all with a personality all our own.
But we have to strive to make a difference. And I'd like to think that's where we're heading. All we have heard for the past few years is how bad the industry is. I personally have been told (half-jokingly) by a few editors across the country "so I guess it's too late to convince you to leave journalism." I think that attitude doesn't help the future of the business.
Journalists have to continue to make an impact on society and raise awareness about big issues. NBC's Dateline has certainly done that with child predators. Newspapers have to continually make similar splashes to remain relevant.
Downie and Kaiser mention the "watchdog failing to bark" and cite an example of the Washington Post in 1986, when it failed to report on "arguably the most egregious abuse of U.S. government power since Watergate" (51). A spectacular failure like that only gives people an excuse not to pay attention to serious journalism when something significant is uncovered.
Quite simply, we have to continually do our jobs at a higher level than ever (mostly because of the increased scrutiny, and the number of options for people to get their news like blogs, internet sites, cable TV etc.)
That's where the young journalists of this country come in. That's where we shape the future of the industry. We have to do our jobs better than anyone else in order to survive. That's where I think we're heading, too. We are churning out a lot of quality journalists. If we're given the chance, we can shape the future of the business for the better.
Journalists will educate the public. They'll inform them quickly and accurately so that the public understands the issue. Journalists will untangle the web of complicated spin so people can make an informed decision on an issue. They'll entertain. They'll provoke discussion.
The site of discussion has moved from the local park bench to a message board underneath the article. But journalists are adapting to the rapid changes. Those of us just graduating can help significantly given the chance.
State of the News address
Polls show that the number of Americans who think of news organizations as “highly professional” has declined significantly. Similar polls show that newspapers are considered less trustworthy, up-to-date, useful, informational and entertaining than Internet and cable, national and local TV news. And, if those numbers aren’t worrisome enough for a budding journalist like myself, polls show that people of all ages see a decreased role for traditional news.
So where does that leave me? Where does that leave our class, our school and the hundreds of thousands of journalists and journalists-to-be in the world? The optimistic side of me likes to think there will always be a place for traditional news journalism in our world — that no matter how big the blogosphere gets, that no matter how fast people can get updated news on their computers, phones and watches there will still be millions of people who sit down in the morning with a cup of coffee and a bowl of Lucky Charms to read the newspaper. But that’s all a little bit too “Leave it to Beaver” — the more rational part of me realizes that journalism is, and will be, changing in the face of new media forms.
This is not the first time that news has faced changes, however. As Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert Kaiser write in “The News About the News,” newspaper’s role has changed significantly throughout history. Following the Revolutionary War, newspapers were politically aligned and reported on regional news — geography and technology limited the amount of national news covered. As the country expanded, and as the demand for more reliable and objective news grew, the “penny press” erupted in popularity. The “penny press” brought more news to more people with more reporters and a cheap price. As Downie and Kaiser point out, the “penny press” created the foundation for today’s newspapers — they targeted a larger audience, were funded primarily by advertisers and reported on a wide variety of topics. In a quote from historian Michael Schudson, “for the first time, the newspaper reflected not just commerce or politics but social life.” Newspapers adapted to “the growth of cities, the spread of public education and literacy and improved printing technology.”
We now face the issue of adapting again. With wider dissemination of the news now possible with the Internet and higher connectivity across our society, newspapers have to face the prospect of not being the go-to-source with breaking news. We’ve simply become too slow. However, this is not to say our role must diminish; our role must simply be altered.
One advantage newspapers will always hold over blogs, chat rooms or the nightly news broadcast is depth of reporting. As Downie and Kaiser write, newspaper sales were through the roof on September 12, 2001. Even though people across the country had been glued to their televisions and computer screens looking for the newest updates on Sept. 11, newspapers across the country sold record amount of copies the following day. When people are searching for the most complete and accurate news, they still turn to newspapers. As long as people continue to be curious or interested in getting the whole story on important news topics, newspapers will hold an important place in society’s news diet.
In addition to providing more extensive coverage to citizens, newspapers also have the privilege of gaining access to government, sports teams, politicians, celebrities and everyone else in between. While the blogosphere has blown up, the common blogger doesn’t have access to President Bush. The common blogger isn’t admitted into the clubhouse to witness the Super Bowl victory celebration. The common blogger isn’t issued a press pass by the Internet to witness a lot of the things a newspaper reporter gets to. This will always give newspapers the ability to access more stories at more angles than other news media.
While there is a lot of pessimism expressed for the future of newspapers, I simply can’t envision a world without daily newspapers. Internet is faster and more expansive. Television news provides around-the-clock coverage, as does radio. Everyone can now be a “citizen journalist” through blogs and chat rooms and outlets like MyMissourian.com that litter the Web. However, newspapers still maintain a foothold in society that I think will ultimately be protected. Newspaper Web sites need to be improved (both in accessibility and presentation), news coverage may need to shift to provide more analysis and clarification (as opposed to simply reporting), but too strong of a niche has been carved for the newspaper to die off.
So where does that leave me? Where does that leave our class, our school and the hundreds of thousands of journalists and journalists-to-be in the world? The optimistic side of me likes to think there will always be a place for traditional news journalism in our world — that no matter how big the blogosphere gets, that no matter how fast people can get updated news on their computers, phones and watches there will still be millions of people who sit down in the morning with a cup of coffee and a bowl of Lucky Charms to read the newspaper. But that’s all a little bit too “Leave it to Beaver” — the more rational part of me realizes that journalism is, and will be, changing in the face of new media forms.
This is not the first time that news has faced changes, however. As Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert Kaiser write in “The News About the News,” newspaper’s role has changed significantly throughout history. Following the Revolutionary War, newspapers were politically aligned and reported on regional news — geography and technology limited the amount of national news covered. As the country expanded, and as the demand for more reliable and objective news grew, the “penny press” erupted in popularity. The “penny press” brought more news to more people with more reporters and a cheap price. As Downie and Kaiser point out, the “penny press” created the foundation for today’s newspapers — they targeted a larger audience, were funded primarily by advertisers and reported on a wide variety of topics. In a quote from historian Michael Schudson, “for the first time, the newspaper reflected not just commerce or politics but social life.” Newspapers adapted to “the growth of cities, the spread of public education and literacy and improved printing technology.”
We now face the issue of adapting again. With wider dissemination of the news now possible with the Internet and higher connectivity across our society, newspapers have to face the prospect of not being the go-to-source with breaking news. We’ve simply become too slow. However, this is not to say our role must diminish; our role must simply be altered.
One advantage newspapers will always hold over blogs, chat rooms or the nightly news broadcast is depth of reporting. As Downie and Kaiser write, newspaper sales were through the roof on September 12, 2001. Even though people across the country had been glued to their televisions and computer screens looking for the newest updates on Sept. 11, newspapers across the country sold record amount of copies the following day. When people are searching for the most complete and accurate news, they still turn to newspapers. As long as people continue to be curious or interested in getting the whole story on important news topics, newspapers will hold an important place in society’s news diet.
In addition to providing more extensive coverage to citizens, newspapers also have the privilege of gaining access to government, sports teams, politicians, celebrities and everyone else in between. While the blogosphere has blown up, the common blogger doesn’t have access to President Bush. The common blogger isn’t admitted into the clubhouse to witness the Super Bowl victory celebration. The common blogger isn’t issued a press pass by the Internet to witness a lot of the things a newspaper reporter gets to. This will always give newspapers the ability to access more stories at more angles than other news media.
While there is a lot of pessimism expressed for the future of newspapers, I simply can’t envision a world without daily newspapers. Internet is faster and more expansive. Television news provides around-the-clock coverage, as does radio. Everyone can now be a “citizen journalist” through blogs and chat rooms and outlets like MyMissourian.com that litter the Web. However, newspapers still maintain a foothold in society that I think will ultimately be protected. Newspaper Web sites need to be improved (both in accessibility and presentation), news coverage may need to shift to provide more analysis and clarification (as opposed to simply reporting), but too strong of a niche has been carved for the newspaper to die off.
Returning to the foundation
A journalist has to be dynamic. Every day bring new events, changes, atrocities and scandals. Also with the passage of time comes the power of innovation, technology and the ever-increasing connectedness of the human race. The consequences of these events and connections are not limited to the public that reads about them. Journalism, like everything else, is just as susceptible to the whims of change and cultural movement.
The industry is rapidly changing. Blogs, mp3s, iPods, and all the millions of “dot com’s” will have, and are having, a huge influence on the way news is gathered. With this comes “an inevitable clash of values between a newspaper, which has a journalistic reputation and brand name to protect, and a swiftly changing medium that has grown in power and prestige precisely because it has flouted many of journalism’s traditional rules.”
Accompanying this clash is something potentially more sinister. Renowned scholar Neil Postman wrote about this in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. “When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”
Postman wrote his book in 1985, but his predictions are ringing frighteningly true in this generation. Society is becoming more “connected” yes, this was shown in our lecture with the staggering graph of home media capacity. But this connection is creating another type of separateness and isolation. Though we may seem to be more connected, it is all through wires, screens and electronic emissions that this connection happens. This creates a great lack of personal feelings and human emotion. Studies have shown the attention span of each generation is getting shorter. This means that the journalist, once again, must become dynamic.
The Internet has saturated the world with information. It has such a vast expanse of knowledge contained in it that the possibilities of this technology seem almost limitless. Journalists bemoan the fact that anyone can be a published writer with the Internet. This seems rather silly; because this is essentially the way it was when journalism started. Everyone wrote what he or she could about what they knew. But it was the talented, those select individuals that could assimilate all the information and help make sense of it, that became journalists.
Marshall MacLuhan, one of the primary figureheads on media discourse, said, “The medium is the message.” Keeping this in mind, we, as journalists, must question what messages can be conveyed on our new mediums. As the trained proprietors of information, we have the ability and the responsibility to find out how best to employ a specific medium to effectively communicate our message.
But as the medium has changed, so too must our message. In a Columbia Journalism Review article titled “Beyond News,” some good suggestions are offered as to what journalists can do to keep their profession alive, and still be “professional.” “The extra value our quality news organizations can and must regularly add is analysis: thoughtful, incisive attempts to divine the significance of events — insights, not just information.” This is why real journalists are trained. They are taught to analyze, to think past the facts and to make sense of them. Yes, information can be obtained sometimes moments after it happens, but information is of little value without context. If our profession is to stay credible, reliable and relevant we must return to the basic journalistic values and give that context, give the information meaning.
Regardless of where people read their news, journalists must remain dedicated to offering it to the public. A free press is what holds democracy together. If the news stopped for a day, dictators would be left to do as they please, crime would go unnoticed, and chaos would ensue. Rather than lament the slow passing of the printed page, journalists must start using the new technologies.
Millions of people are writing about anything and everything. But journalists need to stay focused on what is important, even necessary, for the public to know. A journalist’s role in the new age of connectivity is going to be the same as it was when journalism began. A modern journalist has to be in tune with the desires of the public, but temper that input with discerning judgment. Give the big picture, give the public meaning, and they in turn will give us their attention.
Sources:
1. American Journalism Review. Dec. 2006/Jan. 2007 Pg. 63
2. Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death Pgs. 155-156
3. Columbia Journalism Review. Jan/Feb. 2007 Pg. 35
4. Class lecture on changing media
The industry is rapidly changing. Blogs, mp3s, iPods, and all the millions of “dot com’s” will have, and are having, a huge influence on the way news is gathered. With this comes “an inevitable clash of values between a newspaper, which has a journalistic reputation and brand name to protect, and a swiftly changing medium that has grown in power and prestige precisely because it has flouted many of journalism’s traditional rules.”
Accompanying this clash is something potentially more sinister. Renowned scholar Neil Postman wrote about this in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. “When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”
Postman wrote his book in 1985, but his predictions are ringing frighteningly true in this generation. Society is becoming more “connected” yes, this was shown in our lecture with the staggering graph of home media capacity. But this connection is creating another type of separateness and isolation. Though we may seem to be more connected, it is all through wires, screens and electronic emissions that this connection happens. This creates a great lack of personal feelings and human emotion. Studies have shown the attention span of each generation is getting shorter. This means that the journalist, once again, must become dynamic.
The Internet has saturated the world with information. It has such a vast expanse of knowledge contained in it that the possibilities of this technology seem almost limitless. Journalists bemoan the fact that anyone can be a published writer with the Internet. This seems rather silly; because this is essentially the way it was when journalism started. Everyone wrote what he or she could about what they knew. But it was the talented, those select individuals that could assimilate all the information and help make sense of it, that became journalists.
Marshall MacLuhan, one of the primary figureheads on media discourse, said, “The medium is the message.” Keeping this in mind, we, as journalists, must question what messages can be conveyed on our new mediums. As the trained proprietors of information, we have the ability and the responsibility to find out how best to employ a specific medium to effectively communicate our message.
But as the medium has changed, so too must our message. In a Columbia Journalism Review article titled “Beyond News,” some good suggestions are offered as to what journalists can do to keep their profession alive, and still be “professional.” “The extra value our quality news organizations can and must regularly add is analysis: thoughtful, incisive attempts to divine the significance of events — insights, not just information.” This is why real journalists are trained. They are taught to analyze, to think past the facts and to make sense of them. Yes, information can be obtained sometimes moments after it happens, but information is of little value without context. If our profession is to stay credible, reliable and relevant we must return to the basic journalistic values and give that context, give the information meaning.
Regardless of where people read their news, journalists must remain dedicated to offering it to the public. A free press is what holds democracy together. If the news stopped for a day, dictators would be left to do as they please, crime would go unnoticed, and chaos would ensue. Rather than lament the slow passing of the printed page, journalists must start using the new technologies.
Millions of people are writing about anything and everything. But journalists need to stay focused on what is important, even necessary, for the public to know. A journalist’s role in the new age of connectivity is going to be the same as it was when journalism began. A modern journalist has to be in tune with the desires of the public, but temper that input with discerning judgment. Give the big picture, give the public meaning, and they in turn will give us their attention.
Sources:
1. American Journalism Review. Dec. 2006/Jan. 2007 Pg. 63
2. Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death Pgs. 155-156
3. Columbia Journalism Review. Jan/Feb. 2007 Pg. 35
4. Class lecture on changing media
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Old riddle, same answer?
What's black and white and read all over?
I remember when I first heard that riddle. I was at my grandparents house, a small farm in southwest Illinois. It was a farm in every way imaginable. There was a small white house, a big red barn, a chicken coop, a silo, oh-so-many fields, even an old farmer. That old farmer was my grandfather. He would get up every morning before sunrise to make breakfast (eggs sunny-side-up) and read the local newspaper.
On that farm 15 years ago, that riddle made sense. Newspapers were still a pretty text-heavy reliable medium for the day's news. So newspapers were primarily black and white, especially in Hoyleton, Illinois. They were also read all over. Sure television and radio had made some inroads, but newspapers stood strong, offering more breadth and depth of content than 30 minutes of television that included commercials.
Now, my grandfather still gets up every morning to read the paper, but he's a rarity some 15 years later. Just across the street from my grandfather, my uncle (who now runs the farm) and his children log onto e-mail accounts, flip on the television, surf the Web, make calls via cell phones, all usual interactions in today's interconnected society.
Sure, everyone knows about the Internet, just another challenge to the newspaper industry. But the Internet doesn't offer just one challenge; it threatens newspapers in several ways. First, the obvious speed factor. News sites can publish news in minutes, much quicker than the 12 to 24 hours someone waits for his or her newspaper. This speed relates to the way audiences live as well. Who has time to sit down and read an entire news section? or even flip through one to find the most interesting topic?
Secondly, the Internet opens up news sources. Not only are news sites a threat, but the common citizen blogger. I won't delve into this too much since we've already covered it.
If the Internet in itself isn't enough evidence, look at the recent development of the newspapers themselves. Black and white? Not so much. Designers talk about making newspapers "accessible" to their audiences, and I should know because I'm one of them. After Sept. 11, "increasingly, Americans got their news in bits and bytes." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 27) Photos, graphics and short blurbs cover yesterday's text-heavy pages. Blurbs and alternative story formats are used to keep readers' interest. But if newspapers are going to bounce back from the Web attack, they need to be looking at content.
"Today's finest reporters are better educated and more professional than their forbears; many are recognized experts in their fields." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 9) Newspapers, and the rest of the old media for that matter, need to better utilize their best resource - their reporters. New media has evidenced that audiences do not require degrees or expertise to give them the straight facts. Facts are easy and easily available.
Journalists often talk about giving audiences the facts so the citizens can draw conclusions for themselves. Unfortunately, today's audience wants more information beyond the facts. Trained journalists are just the people to give it to them.
In "Beyond News," Mitchell Stephens tells the story of a Wall Street Journal reporter in Iraq whose private e-mail was posted on the Web. The e-mail, though more opinionated and controversial, was more interesting to the audiences. Stephens ends the story, "Outside the strictures of mainstream journalism, Fassihi ... did not have to attempt the magic trick American reporters have been attempting for a hundred years now: making themselves and their conclusions disappear." (CJR, p. 36)
These strictures are what must be reexamined. Trained journalists, or experts, should be allowed to deduce conclusions based on their gathered facts. This may not be traditionally objective, but when the facts are so readily available, the conclusions are what newspapers have to offer.
Now, I will pause here to make a distinction. I do not support the blurring of serious journalism by allowing pundits whose qualifications include interruption and vanity to make conclusions via newspaper. I do support logical fact-based conclusions by expert journalists who have garnered access to issue-oriented information and who are open to all sides of that information.
"Free news on the Internet is already competing with newstand sales and paid subscriptions for magazines and newspapers." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 11) It is clear that the currently provided content isn't making the cut for audiences' attention. There must be an added value; there must be something more. Old media, with their star journalists and educated staffs, have the resources. They just need to take the news forward.
So, will newspapers ever be black and white and read all over again? Probably not black and white, but I believe they can continue to be read all over.
Sources:
Downie Jr., Leonard and Kaiser, Robert G. The News about the News. NY: Random House, 2002.
Stephens, Mitchell. Beyond News. Columbia Journalism Review: Jan./Feb. 2007.
I remember when I first heard that riddle. I was at my grandparents house, a small farm in southwest Illinois. It was a farm in every way imaginable. There was a small white house, a big red barn, a chicken coop, a silo, oh-so-many fields, even an old farmer. That old farmer was my grandfather. He would get up every morning before sunrise to make breakfast (eggs sunny-side-up) and read the local newspaper.
On that farm 15 years ago, that riddle made sense. Newspapers were still a pretty text-heavy reliable medium for the day's news. So newspapers were primarily black and white, especially in Hoyleton, Illinois. They were also read all over. Sure television and radio had made some inroads, but newspapers stood strong, offering more breadth and depth of content than 30 minutes of television that included commercials.
Now, my grandfather still gets up every morning to read the paper, but he's a rarity some 15 years later. Just across the street from my grandfather, my uncle (who now runs the farm) and his children log onto e-mail accounts, flip on the television, surf the Web, make calls via cell phones, all usual interactions in today's interconnected society.
Sure, everyone knows about the Internet, just another challenge to the newspaper industry. But the Internet doesn't offer just one challenge; it threatens newspapers in several ways. First, the obvious speed factor. News sites can publish news in minutes, much quicker than the 12 to 24 hours someone waits for his or her newspaper. This speed relates to the way audiences live as well. Who has time to sit down and read an entire news section? or even flip through one to find the most interesting topic?
Secondly, the Internet opens up news sources. Not only are news sites a threat, but the common citizen blogger. I won't delve into this too much since we've already covered it.
If the Internet in itself isn't enough evidence, look at the recent development of the newspapers themselves. Black and white? Not so much. Designers talk about making newspapers "accessible" to their audiences, and I should know because I'm one of them. After Sept. 11, "increasingly, Americans got their news in bits and bytes." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 27) Photos, graphics and short blurbs cover yesterday's text-heavy pages. Blurbs and alternative story formats are used to keep readers' interest. But if newspapers are going to bounce back from the Web attack, they need to be looking at content.
"Today's finest reporters are better educated and more professional than their forbears; many are recognized experts in their fields." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 9) Newspapers, and the rest of the old media for that matter, need to better utilize their best resource - their reporters. New media has evidenced that audiences do not require degrees or expertise to give them the straight facts. Facts are easy and easily available.
Journalists often talk about giving audiences the facts so the citizens can draw conclusions for themselves. Unfortunately, today's audience wants more information beyond the facts. Trained journalists are just the people to give it to them.
In "Beyond News," Mitchell Stephens tells the story of a Wall Street Journal reporter in Iraq whose private e-mail was posted on the Web. The e-mail, though more opinionated and controversial, was more interesting to the audiences. Stephens ends the story, "Outside the strictures of mainstream journalism, Fassihi ... did not have to attempt the magic trick American reporters have been attempting for a hundred years now: making themselves and their conclusions disappear." (CJR, p. 36)
These strictures are what must be reexamined. Trained journalists, or experts, should be allowed to deduce conclusions based on their gathered facts. This may not be traditionally objective, but when the facts are so readily available, the conclusions are what newspapers have to offer.
Now, I will pause here to make a distinction. I do not support the blurring of serious journalism by allowing pundits whose qualifications include interruption and vanity to make conclusions via newspaper. I do support logical fact-based conclusions by expert journalists who have garnered access to issue-oriented information and who are open to all sides of that information.
"Free news on the Internet is already competing with newstand sales and paid subscriptions for magazines and newspapers." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 11) It is clear that the currently provided content isn't making the cut for audiences' attention. There must be an added value; there must be something more. Old media, with their star journalists and educated staffs, have the resources. They just need to take the news forward.
So, will newspapers ever be black and white and read all over again? Probably not black and white, but I believe they can continue to be read all over.
Sources:
Downie Jr., Leonard and Kaiser, Robert G. The News about the News. NY: Random House, 2002.
Stephens, Mitchell. Beyond News. Columbia Journalism Review: Jan./Feb. 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)