Posts
Well, my dear colleague, let's start with why. Step with me into the info-bahn. It's a cluttered place, with pages and pages of information on just about everything. Want to know about obscure patents for things like inside-out style garments and canine testicular implants? There's a site for that. What about how to trap a muskrat? You'll find that too. How about the true tales from Albuquerque? (It's a fun-sounding place, what can I say?) Here's one and here and here.
So, how are you going to stand out? Why should Ms. Susie Q. Internet Searcher come to your site? Well, that's where it gets a little tough: come out from behind your byline. You have to talk to her. It's simple but scary.
In every J-school classroom, in every newsroom, and in every community, journalists have been told to stay objective. The school board member who just purchased a trumbone company which then got the school's contract to supply the new music department wants a fair shake. Have you been asking neutral questions? You might have a nose for the news, but make sure it's connected to objective eyes. That lesson has sunk in.
But now, with journalism in crisis (Yes, it's a tired cliche. I know) we're being asked to do something new. Engage the audience. Tell them what you really think. That trumbone guy? He might not have known that his shiny new trumbone company would be competing for the school's music program contract, but it is certainly suspiscious. Can you talk about it?
Can you tell readers about other schools that have been fleeced by trumbone-toting school board members? Can you tell them about the nationwide rise in trumbone sales despite cuts in school music programs? Can you talk about your own experience learning to play the trumbone? Can you tell them something, anything at all about trumbones?
That's part of what the new journalism is. Or, at least, that's the part I've learned about so far. So, for now, that's what coming out from behind the byline means to me.
Of course, when I learn more, I'll let you know.
Just look for me, lightly pushing aside my byline to come out and chat for awhile.
But now, with journalism in crisis (Yes, it's a tired cliche. I know) we're being asked to do something new. Engage the audience. Tell them what you really think. That trumbone guy? He might not have known that his shiny new trumbone company would be competing for the school's music program contract, but it is certainly suspiscious. Can you talk about it?
 |
| FUN FACT: The German name for this instrument is "Sackbut", which actually means "pull" and "push." |
That's part of what the new journalism is. Or, at least, that's the part I've learned about so far. So, for now, that's what coming out from behind the byline means to me.
Of course, when I learn more, I'll let you know.
Just look for me, lightly pushing aside my byline to come out and chat for awhile.
You describe what I've seen recently in "journalism." Articles are becoming loosely veiled op-eds. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing. I think it depends on the subject matter. If I had a trumbone company or whatever, I'd be really offended if someone suggested I was dirty. But, if I'm a casual reader perusing an article on fashion, please feel free to editorialize.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. The one thing I worry about is the possible lack of training of these young bloggers. I came through traditional daily news media, but I worry that the bloggers don't have the proper training to carry out the decisive task of tracking down the truth. For example, you might hear -- and believe -- that the school board president has a stake in the trombone company, or that his Ph.D. is from a mail-order "university," but confirming it is the single most important part. I worry that a bunch of young keyboard cowboys with the misplaced cockiness of New York Mets fans will simply report what they hear instead of tediously uncovering the truth.
ReplyDeleteProper Proofreader: Good point! Readers have come to expect this more casual tone in the arts and community sections of newspapers. But I think that blogs are more than just their casual tone. They’re about providing additional experience and analysis relevant to the article.
ReplyDeleteObviously, talking about the facts in a potentially shady trumbone deal is going to rile some people up. But if the community is intent on asking a school board member to resign over the deal, then it’s important to present the facts. In a blog, a journalist could talk about how other communities have dealt with potential conflict of interest situations such as this one. Or she could talk about that school board member’s record. Maybe he gave the school a 50 % discount on the equipment so his company’s price was far below the cost of every other company that responded to the RFP. Or maybe, the reporter could refocus the issue and talk about how the students who are receiving these trumbones are the lucky ones because music programs are being cut in many less affluent districts.
The entire point is to present a new and different viewpoint that might not appear in the paper for space reasons or because it just doesn’t fit squarely in the category of either op-ed or news.
James: That's where the careful vetting during the hiring process and the guidance of a good editor comes in. Maybe when newspapers get newbie reporters, they should give them a little bit more supervision at first. I read about one newspaper where they used a buddy system: You proof mine and I'll proof yours. Others still send all their posts through one central "online editor." In my experience, I've held off teaching a blogger about how to post until I've become comfortable with their reporting abilities. It seems like everyone has their own system.
ReplyDeleteIn all of these cases though, we trust the newbie reporter to go out and gather evidence for a print article. If you've given them the proper support structure, then the only difference between print and online is the immediacy.
Looks as if you're a convert. A lot of deep stuff here on philosophy and best practice. I think what it comes down to is whether we trust the marketplace to winnow good from bad in the blogosphere. The popularity of scurrilous talk radio and in print the persistence of the National Enquirer do not inspire confidence.
ReplyDeleteTrina: I think the winnowing concept may be a little bit different in the blogosphere. One of the benefits of the internet, is that you don't have to have an audience of 50,000 to keep posting. For newspapers, magazines, and others, the websites just have to make enough money to pay the content producers and sales people, and for internet access.
ReplyDeleteThe question always arises for me: will publications of the future keep offices for all their reporters in one centralized location? Or will we eventually have reporters sitting down at the nearest cafe with free internet to file their stories? I'm pretty sure we'll always have that centralized office, but oh how different the world would look if we didn't.
I think its hard to find unbiased journalism, or maybe I just don't know where to look. But I know there are always multiple sides to a story (even more than two), which are not always presented. Maybe, then, it's good to have a bunch of biased bloggers all telling their sides. Then, readers can make up their own minds about what to think... if only they had time to read everyone's blogs!
ReplyDeleteNicole: An interesting concept but I'm not sure if it is one that will be embraced by many journalists. Are admittedly biased bloggers better than journalists struggling to keep the bias out of their writing? Where then do we go for the facts?
ReplyDeleteI used to think that there were bastions of proper journalism out there, maintaining the values of honesty and truth in reporting, but it seems like they are now fewer and farther between. Many seem to have bowed to the pressures to get subscribers and sell advertising.
Interestingly, until recently, I found that websites seemed exempt from these pressures because no one thought they could be profitable. In the coming years, as we try to monetize these sites, I'm sure there will be an even greater shift toward creating searchable, reader-friendly content that's sellable. I hope that we don't disintegrate into sensationalism as news. Look for a coming post on this topic.
Another note: Trina's idea of winnowing out the good from the bad in the blogosphere captured my attention this week.
ReplyDeletehttp://printjournalistinadigitalworld.blogspot.com/2009/08/can-we-trust-internet-winnowing-out.html
Kristen -- News reporting on the Internet is already decentralized. Look at the use by major news organizations such as CNN of on-site video sent in by ordinary people (on the ground, as they say -- much too frequently) before the news media even knew that anything was happening. Man-in-the-street photo-journalism.
ReplyDeleteTrina: That's a good point about the ordinary people providing content to major news organizations. Maybe this will catch on for paid journalists! I imagine it might cut out some of the overhead in print media production.
ReplyDelete