Here is a very stimulating and thoughtful piece from an accomplished blogger. Access her work at http://emediavitals.com/content/4-business-trends-shaping-role-editor
The role of the editor has become as diverse as the revenue streams in the industry in which we work. Today journalists are marketing gurus, audience development specialists and innovators. Smart editors are adapting by learning new skills and taking initiative — and smart publishers are encouraging them to do so.
In my brief career thus far, I've taken on many roles I didn't learn in journalism school (when Facebook was still only a portal for party photos), which is both challenging and exciting. I recently had a Skype chat with a journalism class at my alma mater, Ohio University's E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, during which we discussed innovative online revenue models and what they mean for editors. That's the first sign about how journalism is changing: In a magazine production class, future magazine editors and creative directors are also learning about business models.
Here are four ways new digital revenue models are changing the role of the editor.
The importance of content marketing
Editors and reporters are far beyond just content artists. We also have to understand how to market our content and brand beyond a newsstand, to an audience observable on a granular level. At the most basic level this means having Web analytics, SEO and social media skills. It also means having an eye to package content most appropriate for the medium and the metrics we want to achieve. (For instance, as I write this post, I'm not aiming just for pageviews — but I hope I can engage you with all of these informative links and maybe even get you to subscribe to our newsletter.)
Some journalists will also need to understand how to market products and services, beyond a newsletter or event. It's becoming particularly important at enthusiast publications where commerce is a big part of their business (like F+W Publications and Interweave). Though the blurring line of content and commerce is uncomfortable for traditional journalists, some editors will need to understand how to bridge this divide.
New jobs in brand journalism
It probably comes as no surprise that many of the friends I met in journalism school are not working as editors or writers at media organizations (though many of them are). There are still “traditional,” editorial-focused jobs at news wires and newspapers — though journalists need new skills in those positions, too. There are also non-traditional editorial jobs quickly becoming traditional (such as my position here at a digital-only publication).
But there's also more and more marketing jobs requiring editorial skills. It's nothing new that many journalists will move into PR or marketing — but now journalists have an even wider range of choices between news stories and press releases. As brands create more content operations, they need people trained in creating good content. Furthermore, as publishers beef up custom publishing operations, they need content producers with an understanding of marketing.
This isn't a sign of the detriment of journalism as a public service; it's a sign of new opportunities for content. It would only be scary for the public good if the police were funding police reporting. A magazine with fashion tips sponsored by a designer isn't scary for the public good. It just is what it is — which is more jobs for content people.
Diverse business models
In the old days the revenue model could operate outside of the newsroom, but as revenue models get more diverse, it's not as easy to say “advertising is over there and editorial is over here.” The barrier between church and state is still relevant and taken seriously, but church doesn't need to live in a bubble.
That bubble has popped for some, thanks to digital innovations and revenue challenges to the media industry in the last few years. Amid the recession, every area of a media organization — including editorial — has been thrust into figuring out how to plug leaks in the media business model. It's kind of like how we didn't want the mortgage crisis to happen, but on the upside, we understand the housing market a lot better now.
Jim Brady, who has worked at both traditional news organizations (most recently at the Journal Register Company) and the start-up TBD, told an Online News Association audience that this new understanding of the business model is a good thing for journalists. “Nobody is suggesting that journalists should go write a story and then sell an ad, but I think they should understand — like every other employee in every other company in the world — how the company they works for makes money,” he said. “I think good journalism and good business can easily coexist.”
Here at the small headquarters of eMedia Vitals, our cubicles are clearly marked as church and state. While the divide is clear, I strive to understand how the business works on the other side of my cubicle wall and the role I play in keeping the wheels running.
A focus on entrepreneurship
The really good news about all of the above trends is that editors can be purveyors of new ideas and produce better content than ever before. Instead of just naively proposing an expensive project and getting turned down, editors have the knowledge and tools to launch a feature that fits their audience and the business objectives of their companies.
I remember only a few years ago sitting in budget meetings for the student newspaper, arguing about what should go on the front page. We were operating in a vacuum, only able to use our conflicting judgment about what was important to our audience.
Now journalists have so much more than gray space to work with, including an ever-expanding number of tools and platforms to inform and produce journalism. We can suggest new media and methods to produce content (multimedia, curation), we can interact with our readers on Twitter, and we can even suggest new content products like gamification, personalization and geolocation.
Yes, it's easy to feel wary about how complicated this makes life as a journalist. But I would argue there's never been a better time for creative minds in this field.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Hearst Birthday Today
from Garrison Keillor's daily almanac:
Today is the birthday of publishing colossus William Randolph Hearst, who was born in San Francisco in 1863.
He demanded the helm of his first paper, the San Francisco Examiner, when he was 23 and his father acquired the paper as payment for a gambling debt. It wasn't long before his papers had a reputation for sensationalism, or as it came to be called, "yellow journalism" — one of his writers said "A Hearst newspaper is like a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut."
On the other hand, Hearst newspapers also employed some of the best writers in the business, like Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Jack London.
He and Joseph Pulitzer had an open rivalry in the New York market. Reporters from Hearst's Morning Journal and Pulitzer's World went beyond scooping each other to stealing stories outright from the competition.
Hearst had the last laugh when he ran a story about the death of Colonel Reflipe W. Thenuz — an anagram of "we pilfer the news" — and Pulitzer's paper took the bait, even adding made-up dateline information.
This prank was harmless enough, but when the U.S. battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor in 1898, the two papers both published a supposedly suppressed cablegram saying the explosion was not an accident. There was no such cable, but it boosted sales of both papers to record levels, and the public demanded that President McKinley declare war on Spain.
As the famous story goes, artist Frederick Remington was sent to Cuba by Hearst to cover the war. He wrote home, "There is no war. Request to be recalled," only to be told, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And so he did.
Today is the birthday of publishing colossus William Randolph Hearst, who was born in San Francisco in 1863.
He demanded the helm of his first paper, the San Francisco Examiner, when he was 23 and his father acquired the paper as payment for a gambling debt. It wasn't long before his papers had a reputation for sensationalism, or as it came to be called, "yellow journalism" — one of his writers said "A Hearst newspaper is like a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut."
On the other hand, Hearst newspapers also employed some of the best writers in the business, like Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Jack London.
He and Joseph Pulitzer had an open rivalry in the New York market. Reporters from Hearst's Morning Journal and Pulitzer's World went beyond scooping each other to stealing stories outright from the competition.
Hearst had the last laugh when he ran a story about the death of Colonel Reflipe W. Thenuz — an anagram of "we pilfer the news" — and Pulitzer's paper took the bait, even adding made-up dateline information.
This prank was harmless enough, but when the U.S. battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor in 1898, the two papers both published a supposedly suppressed cablegram saying the explosion was not an accident. There was no such cable, but it boosted sales of both papers to record levels, and the public demanded that President McKinley declare war on Spain.
As the famous story goes, artist Frederick Remington was sent to Cuba by Hearst to cover the war. He wrote home, "There is no war. Request to be recalled," only to be told, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And so he did.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
In Half or In Two
Just curious -- this is a headline from WNDU this morning.
Does something "crack in half" or does it "crack in two?"
Semi cracks in half on Toll Road
Elkhart County
A semi-truck snapped in half on the Toll Road during Wednesday morning rush hour.
Posted: 6:57 AM Apr 27, 2011
Reporter: Joel Schipper
Email Address: Joel.Schipper@wndu.com
Does something "crack in half" or does it "crack in two?"
Semi cracks in half on Toll Road
Elkhart County
A semi-truck snapped in half on the Toll Road during Wednesday morning rush hour.
Posted: 6:57 AM Apr 27, 2011
Reporter: Joel Schipper
Email Address: Joel.Schipper@wndu.com
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
In Praise of Editors
Here's a great post by master agent/publisher Steve Laube:
In Defense of Traditional Publishing: Part Three
CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
I need to clarify what I’m attempting to do with this series of posts. I am not digging deeper trenches and pouring the dirt over a head that is already buried in the sand. Some think I’m defending a dying industry and failing to see the changes around it. This series is merely an attempt to remind us what traditional publishers do well. Their critics are jettisoning all of traditional publishing as antiquated. But I posit that there is good to be found in the things that brought publishing to this place.
Today’s topic is Content Development – or more simply, “Editorial.”
Many critics say that the day of great editors are past. The legends are gone and instead we now have overworked editors who don’t have time to spend crafting and developing an author’s content into a masterpiece. They have become paper-pushers.
While editors are generally overworked…that is not anything new. It has been that way for a long time. While at Bethany House Publishers I managed the acquisition and editorial development of nearly fifty titles per year. But I did not work alone.
Editing is a multi-person process in the traditional publishing companies. First is the acquisitions editor who finds, defends, acquires, and negotiates the acquisition of a project (i.e. The Curator). Many times the actual content edit (also call the “line” or “substantive” edit) is done by a different person. The content editor look for accuracy, balance and fairness, cogency of argument, adequate treatment of the defined subject matters and issues, and also includes conformity to all aspects of the description of the work contained in the original book proposal. (That sentence is an adaptation from actual contract language defining an “Acceptable” manuscript.)
Next comes the copy editor who scours the manuscript looking for accuracy in grammar, citations, and factual content. Then it is sent to a proof reader who scours the work for fine-tuned details in punctuation and other tiny details.
These editors are amazing people. And despite the cutbacks in many major publishing houses there are still a number of truly incredible men and women who stay behind the scenes and pour their minds and hearts into the books they work on.
In the Christian industry I’ll highlight one man as an example (and he will likely be embarrassed by this!). David Kopp is an exceptional editor with Waterbrook Multnomah. He was the one who created the eight million copy bestseller The Prayer of Jabez out of a nearly unpublishable massive manuscript. He worked on the bestseller Do Hard Things by the Harris brothers. And recently he helped transform a book about missions into what is now called Radical (by David Platt) that has been on the NY Times bestseller list for 43 weeks (as of this writing).
This is the type of talented person that sits unknown in an office in a traditional publishing house… helping to create magic. I could rattle off a dozen or more names off the top of my head of similar people who make this happen every day. And that does not include the number of freelancers who are hired by publishers to take up the slack when they cannot meet the demands of the editing process in-house.
A critic might say, “But I can just hire these freelance people myself. Why do I need a traditional publisher?” That is a good point. But it misses a critical part of the process. It is illustrated by the question, “Who pays the invoice?”
Think about it for a moment. In a traditional publishing house the publisher is basically in charge. If there is a major dispute over editorial changes or input, the publisher has final say and contractual clout. Rarely is this used as a hammer, but the writer always knows it is there. In almost every case there are long discussions and a compromise is achieved.
But when the author hires the editor, who is the boss? The writer is the boss. The writer will usually defer to an editor’s comments. But what if your novel is going down a terrible path, a path to commercial destruction? I know of a case where an author was bent on writing a particular storyline and would not take anyone’s advice. His agent was unsuccessful. His writing friends and critique partners could not sway him from the path. If he were self-publishing he would have failed miserably. Instead an editor at a traditional publishing house recognized the talent and came alongside with valuable suggestions. The author, realizing that the editor had the goal of creating a great book, acceded to the advice. The book was saved, is now in print, and being sold in stores everywhere.
I also know of another case where a freelance editor took an author’s manuscript (to be self-published) and rearranged the non-fiction content from a topical presentation to a chronological presentation. (The book was the history of a specialized type of job in our court system.) The editor felt that a history should be told chronologically instead of topically. The author disagreed and made the editor put it all back the way it was in the first draft. Because the author was “paying the invoice” the author’s wishes prevailed. The book did not sell and was not adopted as a textbook, which was the goal of the author.
James Michener once said, “I’m not a good writer; I’ve been a masterful re-writer.” He has a fascinating book called James A. Michener’s Writer’s Handbook (1992). In this work are reproductions of the interaction between Michener and his editor. You can see the original text, the editorial suggestions, and the rewrite. A interesting exchange that is rarely seen.
As with the idea of “curation” I believe the editorial or content development process is a vital part of what a traditional publisher does for an author’s work.
Part One: Introduction
Part Two: Curation
In Defense of Traditional Publishing: Part Three
CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
I need to clarify what I’m attempting to do with this series of posts. I am not digging deeper trenches and pouring the dirt over a head that is already buried in the sand. Some think I’m defending a dying industry and failing to see the changes around it. This series is merely an attempt to remind us what traditional publishers do well. Their critics are jettisoning all of traditional publishing as antiquated. But I posit that there is good to be found in the things that brought publishing to this place.
Today’s topic is Content Development – or more simply, “Editorial.”
Many critics say that the day of great editors are past. The legends are gone and instead we now have overworked editors who don’t have time to spend crafting and developing an author’s content into a masterpiece. They have become paper-pushers.
While editors are generally overworked…that is not anything new. It has been that way for a long time. While at Bethany House Publishers I managed the acquisition and editorial development of nearly fifty titles per year. But I did not work alone.
Editing is a multi-person process in the traditional publishing companies. First is the acquisitions editor who finds, defends, acquires, and negotiates the acquisition of a project (i.e. The Curator). Many times the actual content edit (also call the “line” or “substantive” edit) is done by a different person. The content editor look for accuracy, balance and fairness, cogency of argument, adequate treatment of the defined subject matters and issues, and also includes conformity to all aspects of the description of the work contained in the original book proposal. (That sentence is an adaptation from actual contract language defining an “Acceptable” manuscript.)
Next comes the copy editor who scours the manuscript looking for accuracy in grammar, citations, and factual content. Then it is sent to a proof reader who scours the work for fine-tuned details in punctuation and other tiny details.
These editors are amazing people. And despite the cutbacks in many major publishing houses there are still a number of truly incredible men and women who stay behind the scenes and pour their minds and hearts into the books they work on.
In the Christian industry I’ll highlight one man as an example (and he will likely be embarrassed by this!). David Kopp is an exceptional editor with Waterbrook Multnomah. He was the one who created the eight million copy bestseller The Prayer of Jabez out of a nearly unpublishable massive manuscript. He worked on the bestseller Do Hard Things by the Harris brothers. And recently he helped transform a book about missions into what is now called Radical (by David Platt) that has been on the NY Times bestseller list for 43 weeks (as of this writing).
This is the type of talented person that sits unknown in an office in a traditional publishing house… helping to create magic. I could rattle off a dozen or more names off the top of my head of similar people who make this happen every day. And that does not include the number of freelancers who are hired by publishers to take up the slack when they cannot meet the demands of the editing process in-house.
A critic might say, “But I can just hire these freelance people myself. Why do I need a traditional publisher?” That is a good point. But it misses a critical part of the process. It is illustrated by the question, “Who pays the invoice?”
Think about it for a moment. In a traditional publishing house the publisher is basically in charge. If there is a major dispute over editorial changes or input, the publisher has final say and contractual clout. Rarely is this used as a hammer, but the writer always knows it is there. In almost every case there are long discussions and a compromise is achieved.
But when the author hires the editor, who is the boss? The writer is the boss. The writer will usually defer to an editor’s comments. But what if your novel is going down a terrible path, a path to commercial destruction? I know of a case where an author was bent on writing a particular storyline and would not take anyone’s advice. His agent was unsuccessful. His writing friends and critique partners could not sway him from the path. If he were self-publishing he would have failed miserably. Instead an editor at a traditional publishing house recognized the talent and came alongside with valuable suggestions. The author, realizing that the editor had the goal of creating a great book, acceded to the advice. The book was saved, is now in print, and being sold in stores everywhere.
I also know of another case where a freelance editor took an author’s manuscript (to be self-published) and rearranged the non-fiction content from a topical presentation to a chronological presentation. (The book was the history of a specialized type of job in our court system.) The editor felt that a history should be told chronologically instead of topically. The author disagreed and made the editor put it all back the way it was in the first draft. Because the author was “paying the invoice” the author’s wishes prevailed. The book did not sell and was not adopted as a textbook, which was the goal of the author.
James Michener once said, “I’m not a good writer; I’ve been a masterful re-writer.” He has a fascinating book called James A. Michener’s Writer’s Handbook (1992). In this work are reproductions of the interaction between Michener and his editor. You can see the original text, the editorial suggestions, and the rewrite. A interesting exchange that is rarely seen.
As with the idea of “curation” I believe the editorial or content development process is a vital part of what a traditional publisher does for an author’s work.
Part One: Introduction
Part Two: Curation
What He Thinks He Knows About Journalism
Here are some thought-provoking observations from a great observer/participator in the journalistic process. You can read the entire post and also see reader comments at http://pressthink.org/2011/04/what-i-think-i-know-about-journalism/
What I Think I Know About Journalism
April 26th, 2011 by Jay Rosen
Next month I will have taught journalism at New York University for 25 years, an occasion that has led me to reflect on what I have tried to profess in that time.
Or, to put it another way, what I think I know about journalism. #
It comes down to these four ideas. #
1. The more people who participate in the press the stronger it will be. #
2. The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere. #
3. The news system will improve when it is made more useful to people. #
4. Making facts public does not a public make; information alone will not inform us. #
Shall we take them in order? #
The more people who participate in it the stronger the press will be. #
The more people involved in flying the airplane, or moving the surgeon’s scalpel during a brain operation, the worse off we are. But this is not true in journalism. It benefits from participation, as with Investigate your MP’s expenses, also called crowd sourcing, or this invitation from the Los Angeles Times: share public documents. A far simpler example is sources. If sources won’t participate, there often is no story. Witnesses contribute when they pull out their cameras and record what is happening in front of them. The news system is stronger for it. #
In 1999, I wrote a whole book on this idea: What Are Journalists For? It’s about what today we would call “engagement.” But that was pre-Web. Today we can do a lot more. According to the internet’s one percent rule, a very small portion of the users will become serious contributors, which is still a lot of people. Let’s say you’re a beat reporter who has a niche blog on the local public schools (like this one) with a loyal user base of 10,000. If the one percent rule is accurate, 100 of those loyal users are likely to become heavy contributors if given the chance. They should be given that chance. It will strengthen the site. #
That’s what I believe. But we still don’t know very much about how to make these pro-am combinations work, because for a very long time the news system was optimized for low participation. Switching it over is extremely difficult work. Even CNN’s i-Report, which claims 750,000 contributors worldwide, is poorly integrated into the main CNN newsroom. In what Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, calls the “mutualization” of journalism, most of the big discoveries lie ahead of us. We ought to get cracking. #
The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere. #
It’s Bill Keller insisting that “torture” is the wrong word for the New York Times to use in describing torture because it involves taking sides in a dispute between the United States Government and its critics. It’s Howard Kurtz suggesting that Anderson Cooper was “taking sides” when he called the lies of the Libyan government lies. But it’s also the reporter who has to master the routine of “laundering my own views [by] dinging someone at some think tank to say what you want to tell the reader.” And it’s that lame formula known as he said, she said journalism. It’s the way CNN “leaves it there” when two guests give utterly conflicting accounts. #
Long ago, something went awry in professional journalism the way the Americans do it, and it caused these visible deformations. In my own criticism I have given various names to this pattern: agendalessness, the quest for innocence— most often, the View From Nowhere. The problem is not what it is usually said to be: that the press is supposed to remain “objective” but no one can be totally unbiased. The problem is equating trustworthiness with the prohibition on taking sides, when the actual result may be exasperation with he said, she said, rage at the helplessness that “leaving it there” creates, and mistrust of the formulaic ways in which journalists try to advertise their even-handedness. #
“Harsh interrogation” isn’t a more objective term than torture. Rather, it appears to offer more protection against charges of bias. But these stratagems haven’t worked. The View from Nowhere is increasingly mistrusted. Journalists have to go back and fix the wrong turn they took. #
The news system will improve when it is made more useful to people. #
In the 1970s and ’80s, a number of classics in press scholarship were written by social scientists (like Herbert Gans and Gaye Tuchman) who went into newsrooms to study how decisions were made there. They all observed that routines drive what happens in journalism, and that these routines ultimately served the demands of a particular production cycle: the daily newspaper, the 6 p.m. broadcast, the monthly magazine. Ideas about what journalism is–and even what it can be–get frozen within these routines as they become second nature to the people who have mastered them. #
Look at how J-schools organized the curriculum and you can see what I mean: there’s newspaper journalism, magazine journalism, broadcast journalism. Why do we teach it that way? Because the production routine is god. Master that and you’ve learned the business. #
But that was during the era of heavy industry. The lighter, cheaper, and less restrictive publishing tools that we have today can free the news system from the production gods. The new gods are the users themselves, and what they find useful for staying informed and participating in public life— you know, getting things done. Which is why I’ve said that the simplest way to add value in journalism is to save the user time. #
Making facts public does not a public make; information alone will not inform us. #
There’s a reason why the word narrative has been on the rise in journalism, almost to the point of cliche. It’s become obvious to people that good information alone cannot inform us. News stories pushed at us can be defeated by narratives with greater pull. Under conditions of abundance, the arc of attention matters more than the availability of information. #
To feel informed, we also need background knowledge, a framework into which the relevant facts can be put. Or, as I put it in 2008, “There are some stories—and the mortgage crisis is a great example—where until I grasp the whole I am unable to make sense of any part. Not only am I not a customer for news reports prior to that moment, but the very frequency of the updates alienates me from the providers of those updates because the news stream is adding daily to my feeling of being ill-informed, overwhelmed, out of the loop.” #
In The Lost Art of Argument, Christopher Lasch said we should invert the usual order of information and debate. “We do not know what we need to know until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy. Information, usually understood as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product. When we get into arguments that focus and fully engage our attention, we become avid seekers of information. Otherwise, we take in information passively– if we take it in at all.” #
So that’s what I think I know about journalism, after 25 years of teaching it, studying it, and writing about it. #
Of course, I’m still learning. #
What I Think I Know About Journalism
April 26th, 2011 by Jay Rosen
Next month I will have taught journalism at New York University for 25 years, an occasion that has led me to reflect on what I have tried to profess in that time.
Or, to put it another way, what I think I know about journalism. #
It comes down to these four ideas. #
1. The more people who participate in the press the stronger it will be. #
2. The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere. #
3. The news system will improve when it is made more useful to people. #
4. Making facts public does not a public make; information alone will not inform us. #
Shall we take them in order? #
The more people who participate in it the stronger the press will be. #
The more people involved in flying the airplane, or moving the surgeon’s scalpel during a brain operation, the worse off we are. But this is not true in journalism. It benefits from participation, as with Investigate your MP’s expenses, also called crowd sourcing, or this invitation from the Los Angeles Times: share public documents. A far simpler example is sources. If sources won’t participate, there often is no story. Witnesses contribute when they pull out their cameras and record what is happening in front of them. The news system is stronger for it. #
In 1999, I wrote a whole book on this idea: What Are Journalists For? It’s about what today we would call “engagement.” But that was pre-Web. Today we can do a lot more. According to the internet’s one percent rule, a very small portion of the users will become serious contributors, which is still a lot of people. Let’s say you’re a beat reporter who has a niche blog on the local public schools (like this one) with a loyal user base of 10,000. If the one percent rule is accurate, 100 of those loyal users are likely to become heavy contributors if given the chance. They should be given that chance. It will strengthen the site. #
That’s what I believe. But we still don’t know very much about how to make these pro-am combinations work, because for a very long time the news system was optimized for low participation. Switching it over is extremely difficult work. Even CNN’s i-Report, which claims 750,000 contributors worldwide, is poorly integrated into the main CNN newsroom. In what Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, calls the “mutualization” of journalism, most of the big discoveries lie ahead of us. We ought to get cracking. #
The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere. #
It’s Bill Keller insisting that “torture” is the wrong word for the New York Times to use in describing torture because it involves taking sides in a dispute between the United States Government and its critics. It’s Howard Kurtz suggesting that Anderson Cooper was “taking sides” when he called the lies of the Libyan government lies. But it’s also the reporter who has to master the routine of “laundering my own views [by] dinging someone at some think tank to say what you want to tell the reader.” And it’s that lame formula known as he said, she said journalism. It’s the way CNN “leaves it there” when two guests give utterly conflicting accounts. #
Long ago, something went awry in professional journalism the way the Americans do it, and it caused these visible deformations. In my own criticism I have given various names to this pattern: agendalessness, the quest for innocence— most often, the View From Nowhere. The problem is not what it is usually said to be: that the press is supposed to remain “objective” but no one can be totally unbiased. The problem is equating trustworthiness with the prohibition on taking sides, when the actual result may be exasperation with he said, she said, rage at the helplessness that “leaving it there” creates, and mistrust of the formulaic ways in which journalists try to advertise their even-handedness. #
“Harsh interrogation” isn’t a more objective term than torture. Rather, it appears to offer more protection against charges of bias. But these stratagems haven’t worked. The View from Nowhere is increasingly mistrusted. Journalists have to go back and fix the wrong turn they took. #
The news system will improve when it is made more useful to people. #
In the 1970s and ’80s, a number of classics in press scholarship were written by social scientists (like Herbert Gans and Gaye Tuchman) who went into newsrooms to study how decisions were made there. They all observed that routines drive what happens in journalism, and that these routines ultimately served the demands of a particular production cycle: the daily newspaper, the 6 p.m. broadcast, the monthly magazine. Ideas about what journalism is–and even what it can be–get frozen within these routines as they become second nature to the people who have mastered them. #
Look at how J-schools organized the curriculum and you can see what I mean: there’s newspaper journalism, magazine journalism, broadcast journalism. Why do we teach it that way? Because the production routine is god. Master that and you’ve learned the business. #
But that was during the era of heavy industry. The lighter, cheaper, and less restrictive publishing tools that we have today can free the news system from the production gods. The new gods are the users themselves, and what they find useful for staying informed and participating in public life— you know, getting things done. Which is why I’ve said that the simplest way to add value in journalism is to save the user time. #
Making facts public does not a public make; information alone will not inform us. #
There’s a reason why the word narrative has been on the rise in journalism, almost to the point of cliche. It’s become obvious to people that good information alone cannot inform us. News stories pushed at us can be defeated by narratives with greater pull. Under conditions of abundance, the arc of attention matters more than the availability of information. #
To feel informed, we also need background knowledge, a framework into which the relevant facts can be put. Or, as I put it in 2008, “There are some stories—and the mortgage crisis is a great example—where until I grasp the whole I am unable to make sense of any part. Not only am I not a customer for news reports prior to that moment, but the very frequency of the updates alienates me from the providers of those updates because the news stream is adding daily to my feeling of being ill-informed, overwhelmed, out of the loop.” #
In The Lost Art of Argument, Christopher Lasch said we should invert the usual order of information and debate. “We do not know what we need to know until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy. Information, usually understood as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product. When we get into arguments that focus and fully engage our attention, we become avid seekers of information. Otherwise, we take in information passively– if we take it in at all.” #
So that’s what I think I know about journalism, after 25 years of teaching it, studying it, and writing about it. #
Of course, I’m still learning. #
Monday, April 25, 2011
Prepping for Tonight's Candidate Forum
Sarah e-mailed me earlier today, asking about how much biography, etc. to include in the article for this evening's forum. Here is my answer--hope it is of help to you, also. We'll have a little time at 6 p.m. to discuss before we go to the forum.
It should be written for the local audience—Times-Union audience—who could not attend but wants to know what each candidate stands for. The biographical information is not as important as what they will be saying when given a chance to speak and answer questions. Presumably readers will want to know “what do they stand for….for whom should I vote?” Your job is not to be partisan, but to accurately and succinctly report what the candidates present as their main issues or solutions for the town’s problems. Biographic information should only be presented as it explains or gives context to their positions.
One of your tasks will be to decide what the main news element is—how you will lead, and what the headline should be. We can’t know that until experiencing the presentations tonight.
Good question—good luck!
It should be written for the local audience—Times-Union audience—who could not attend but wants to know what each candidate stands for. The biographical information is not as important as what they will be saying when given a chance to speak and answer questions. Presumably readers will want to know “what do they stand for….for whom should I vote?” Your job is not to be partisan, but to accurately and succinctly report what the candidates present as their main issues or solutions for the town’s problems. Biographic information should only be presented as it explains or gives context to their positions.
One of your tasks will be to decide what the main news element is—how you will lead, and what the headline should be. We can’t know that until experiencing the presentations tonight.
Good question—good luck!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Town Elections Blogsite Mounted
We were trying to figure out how to get candidate information available to people who visit the Town of Winona Lake Facebook page.
Brilliant idea--we opened up a new blog and then can just link to it from many sources.
Check it out here
http://winonalaketownelections.blogspot.com/2011/04/winona-lake-elections-candidate.html
Brilliant idea--we opened up a new blog and then can just link to it from many sources.
Check it out here
http://winonalaketownelections.blogspot.com/2011/04/winona-lake-elections-candidate.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
