Below the Fold

The New Journalism Rules: Learning to Fly in the Modern Mediasphere™

At first glance, The Naples (Fla.) Daily News web site looks like any other newspaper site: Articles include a local twist to a national story on declining home sales; a car crash that killed a local resident; and a cold front moving into the sunny Gulf Coast enclave of 20,000 retirees and not-so-idle rich.

But look deeper and you quickly learn that this is no ordinary newspaper web site: It is print gone wild. The site features online video, audio and podcasts; blogs and photo galleries; and news alerts about local high school football games delivered to subscribers’ mobile phones.

We have seen the future of news, and it is in South Florida – and, by the way, in Delaware, where the News Journal produces a daily, network broadcast quality video news show online; and it is in Columbia, Missouri, where the Missourian newspaper is available for download in PDF or QuickTime format, and the online “My Missourian” is produced almost entirely by local citizen journalists.

These are just some of the old media/new media marriages that, instead of diminishing the print product, actually enhance it with features not available in the version that lands on the driveway. And if newspapers are to survive in today’s Modern Mediasphere™, they need to embrace the “all media is multimedia” mantra, involve the news consumer and deliver the news in new, compelling, personal ways.

CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, “old media” is not dying – but it is changing.

•    According to the most recent Pew Internet Study, more than 50 million Americans get their news online each day, up from 27 million less than three years ago.

•    The New York Times combined its print and online newsrooms into one staff, smashing the wall between journalism old and new; USA Today followed suit;

•    The Los Angeles Times eliminated most of its daily stock market tables, rationalizing that most people nowadays go online for that information. And the paper just began offering daily summaries of news available only on its web site, directing readers to put down the paper and pick up the mouse for more information and special web-only features;

•    VCast from Verizon Wireless now delivers CNN, ESPN and NBC News daily to mobile phones, and live sporting events are coming soon.

Still not convinced? Just follow the money – according to an article in Red Herring magazine, while media giant Knight-Ridder’s traditional revenue rose 3.1 percent in 2005, revenue in its digital division grew nearly 55 percent. And venture capitalists have poured about 50 million dollars into new media companies that enable readers to organize, rank and edit the news within a kind of volunteer journalism co-op.

Social Media Rules
There obviously are many changes afoot, and big dollars to be had in the “zeros and ones” of digital data. But what we are seeing is not one media form replacing the other, but rather a sense of cooperation, mutual dependence, and excitement about the future of news.

Why else would The New York Times buy About.Com, a “non news” site? Maybe because “About” gives the Times’ content a consumer-focused kick – not to mention millions of new users. Other major “old media” companies now own pieces of the new media pie, from news aggregators like Topix.Net to job boards and online shopping portals.

The most intriguing “mashups” of old and new media, however, are the Web 2.0 social networks – sites where news from mainstream media, citizen journalists and bloggers is submitted, organized and voted on by thousands of amateur editors, also known as “the audience.”

Audience: The Missing Ingredient
The content of social news sites like Newsvine and Digg is not much different than that of traditional sites, except for one very important thing – the audience now has a voice. And, therefore, the content becomes both more powerful and personal.

The audience is as much a part of the mediasphere as anything else, with as much to say and, because of new publishing tools, the ability to say it and be heard.

This is what “old” media needs to focus on the most. Not technology or how to use the new tools of the web, although providing news in different ways such as video and podcasts, or via personalization like text messaging, is still critical to engage and attract today’s and tomorrow’s audiences.

What truly matters is the ability for media to listen, involve and engage these audiences, and the willingness to share the news with them. As a journalist you may write a story, but it doesn’t belong to you. And the more journalists who involve the audience before, during and after the process, the better those stories will be. Bloggers understand this – after all, blogging is all about sharing information and connecting with others. Journalists need to do the same.

Newspapers and mainstream broadcast media can’t survive without the online audiences made possible by social networks, and sites like Newsvine, Digg and even Google News can’t survive without the content and vast resources supplied by mainstream media news organizations.

There is room for both in the Modern Mediasphere -- and as communicators and marketers, we now also need to put the audience front and center. We should have been doing this all along, but better late than never.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Citizen Journalism social networks newsvine Digg social media citj Journalists

Citizen Journalists at the Gates

For a profession where the practioners' names are connected to every story, journalism is a bed of insecurity stuffed with pathos, where journalists bemoan their lot in life as if the act was as essential as breathing. Forget that a journalist's job is so important that it is written into the U.S. Constitution, the question still comes up at every family gathering: “So, it would have killed you to go to medical school?”

The truth is you don’t need any formal training to be a journalist. You don’t need a degree, you don’t need a membership card and you don’t need to learn to play golf. All you need are curiosity, skepticism, and the means to communicate. Not only does it take more training to become of plumber, it pays better, too.

I went to journalism school and I believe that anyone who wants to pursue a career in journalism should have some level of formal training. But that’s not to dismiss the majority of working journalists who do not have journalism degrees or formal training (read Leonard Witt’s post for details), or the hundreds if not thousands of 'citizen journalists” who are trying to find their way and contribute to the conversation of news.

It is this lack of official sanction that causes some professionals to deride and dismiss citizen journalists as purveyors of rumor – amateur scribes steeped in ignorance who lack the skills or will to play in the big leagues. Every person with a blog is a threat not only to truth and civility, they believe, but to their very livelihoods.

“Less Journalism,” More “Raw Material”
Witt wrote about one such journalist, Columbia University professor and author Samuel Freedman. In a column published on CBS News’ Public Eye blog, Freedman said:

“However wrapped in idealism, citizen journalism forms part of a larger attempt to degrade, even to disenfranchise journalism as practiced by trained professionals.” He added: “I appreciate the access that citizen journalism provides to first-hand accounts of major events. Yet I recognize those accounts are less journalism than the raw material, generated by amateurs, that a trained, skilled journalist should know how to weigh, analyze, describe, and explain.”

This is how much I respect Sam Freedman – he teaches at Columbia University and I went to the University of Missouri, and I still like him. Freedman is well meaning and, like me, believes we need to train journalists in the fundamentals and teach them to use their Constitutional freedom to question, before that freedom atrophies like an unused muscle.

Nevertheless, methinks the professor doth protest too much. News doesn’t belong to the professionals anymore; it belongs to all of us because we all can create, comment and share the news. Smart news organizations like the Washington Post recognize this and include bloggers in the conversation. There is no finished product without the raw material, and if that means sometimes seeing how the sausage is made then so be it. This is something to be embraced, not feared.

Opening the Gates
And, by the way, it also works. MyMissourian, a citizen journalism site run by the University of Missouri journalism school, is testament to the “sharing the news” philosophy.

“What happens is, well, they write,” said Clyde Bentley, Missouri journalism professor and MyMissourian founder, in a speech last year. “And they write about controversial things and they write about very nice things. We have a religion section that has some really great things by our local group of pagans, and we have some really great recipes and stuff. But they write and they write and they write. And that’s fine. That’s what we want. We’ve got all the room in the world.

“We’re getting into this whole idea of participating — the idea of journalism; of sharing. It’s a new concept for us, but we think it’s going to work.”

Witt is correct when he says “…rather than worry that citizen journalists might tarnish the profession, open the gates instead. Search for the very best talent in the blogging, citizen journalism movement and invite them into the party.”

Yes, open the gates. The ones who are unkind or unruly will be asked to leave, and the rest will learn from each other, from pros and from amateurs, until there is no longer a distinction between the two.

There will just be citizens and journalists, one and the same.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Citizen Journalism Journalists

New Rules for the Modern Journalist

Few would argue that institutional journalism has lost its way. But journalists are not institutions; they have minds, ideas, passion, prejudice and purpose. They have the tools necessary to bring journalism back from the abyss – but not the will.

That’s too bad, because for journalism to regain its conscience and credibility – to save itself – it can’t look to the institutions. Only journalists can save journalism, and so far they have failed.

There are some exceptions of course; there always are. Nevertheless, it’s the rule I’m concerned about, as are many ordinary citizens who eat from the trough of homogenized news, forced either to swallow the muck whole or seek alternative forms of information nutrition – some healthy, some not.

And despite the rise of the Internet and blogs, most Americans still get their news the old-fashioned way – via the mainstream mass media. And the news we get is less representative of what Americans want to know about, and more representative of what those in power want Americans to know about.

Yet I am a believer. I believe there is still time to reshape mass media for the modern age and make real journalism matter again.

The Rules
The best journalism schools teach the Chicago Manual of Style, reporting techniques and how to write a tight headline. These are all important – but the rest of what they teach, by and large, is crap.

Why? Because no matter how good the teacher or the program, the rest can’t be taught. This is the difference between vocation and profession – between good stenography and good journalism. The former requires training; the latter requires talent, drive and conscience.

The latter is what matters. And for journalism to matter, modern journalists need to live by the following rules:

• Be accurate, not objective.

• Be honest and open – when you are right and especially when you are wrong.

• Be responsible for your sources, your stories and your actions – editors won’t protect you, nor should they.

• Listen to your audiences and learn from them – as Dan Gillmor says, they know more than you do.

• Stop reporting the news – start sharing it.

• Name names.

• Don’t be led – lead instead.

• Ask questions – then question the answers.

• Celebrate change; abhor conformity.

• Reach people where they are, not where you want them to be.

• Be a citizen first, journalist second.

• Follow your heart, not just the story.

• Be right, not first.

• Be there for the First Amendment, or it may no longer be there for you.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Journalists

Making Newspapers Matter: The Journey Back to Brand

(Note: This is the first in an occasional series of posts about newspapers, their loss of “voice” and relevance, and how they can regain both. You can find these posts under the category “Journalism Next.”)

I read a newspaper this morning. Stop the presses.

My primary computer is being repaired so I don’t have access to my RSS reader and my 60 or so feeds.  I can’t sync my iPod to download all my Podcast shows. I don’t watch television news unless there is a major event or crisis, I don’t have time to go to multiple web sites or set up the custom Google home page I should have set up months ago. I catch National Public Radio in the car or sometimes at the office, but it’s hard to multitask with Nina Totenberg talking about the Supreme Court and Congressional hearings.

So I read a newspaper and tried not to think of it as nostalgia. the paper felt warm and comforting, like the college sweatshirt you won’t throw away no matter how many stains it has. The sweatshirt isn’t about clothing; it’s about time and place. Another time, a simpler place.

The newspaper, too, has little to do with actual news and much to do with familiarity. That’s why, despite all the essays and death knells from leading industry professionals, many of those same professionals are trying to save newspapers.

Wither the Printed Word
Yes, Jeff Jarvis says newspapers and other print publications are “where words go to die.” Yet he works to help newspapers, to keep them relevant in print and online. He is passionate about journalism and protective of journalists. The same goes for Tim Porter, whose often “tough love” approach is meant to wake newspapers up, not drive them away.

There are countless others – Jay Rosen, Dan Gillmor, Leonard Witt, Steve Outing, Terry Heaton. They all agree newspapers have failed, but they are not ready to dance on the grave of print.

They may never admit it – and it may be impossible to understand if you have never worked in the news business – but I believe a part of them would miss the ink that rubs off on their fingers after reading the Sunday paper. They would open their doors and stare at their driveways out of habit, searching for the gray bundle that was always waiting – a world of words and ideas literally laid at their doorsteps.

Today’s world of words and ideas, however, doesn’t sit still long enough to rest quietly on a porch. This is why the Internet, blogs and other modern tools are on the rise and newspaper circulations are in decline.

Yet today’s speed and breadth of information alone is not why newspapers are dying. In fact, newspapers aren’t dying at all – quality journalism is. And as goes quality and focus, so goes the brand.

Bringing it Back to Brand
Why are some blogs popular? They are perceived as being authentic and having a focus -- a clear point of view. They are more about listening and connecting than lecturing. Blogs aren’t afraid of any man or government, and embrace their audiences as equals with conversations that are relevant and accessible.

Now look at newspapers (forgive me, I’m generalizing here). They are perceived as being sanitized and too often unquestioning. They lack focus and relevance, especially on the local level. They speak from bureaus and offices – to people rather than with them. Newspaper management knocked down the wall between editorial and advertising, and replaced it with a wall between the paper and the reader.

Okay, so what makes a brand? Authenticity. Passion. Personality. Quality and trust. Meaning on a personal, emotional level.

Newspapers have failed not because of CraigsList, or the Internet, or bloggers, or citizen journalists, or content that is “unbundled.” Newspapers have failed because they have lost their brand identities. They have forgotten what made them household names in their communities in the first place. They have become “Hyper Global” in a world that needs more “Hyper Local” coverage. And that has led to many empty driveways and doorsteps.

Quality journalism can’t operate in this environment – and neither can newspapers. Newspapers have tried so hard to be “objective” and not ruffle any feathers (especially those of their corporate owners) that they have lost value and credibility in readers' eyes. By trying to serve everyone they have served very few, and they are paying the price.

While formats need to and will continue to expand, newspaper content needs to contract. If newspapers can regain their focus, purpose and voice, they will regain readers. It’s that simple – and that scary.

Let the Los Angeles Times web site give me the up-to-the-minute news; let the print edition give me perspective and analysis. Let the web tell me about Baghdad; let the paper tell me about City Hall. And let both question authority and go back to being the people’s voice, and include us in the conversation.

I read the newspaper this morning. My fingers smell like newsprint. I hated the story on page 3.

I can’t wait until tomorrow.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism

We Media Conference: In “Us” We Trust

The 2005 We Media conference was a gorgeous blur, a non-stop serenade from modern media pioneers, practitioners and a few procrastinators about the coming Collaboration Age. It was a day not just to drink the Kool-Aid but also to soak in it.

Many others have summarized, theorized, blogged, podcasted, used mental telepathy and that language only twins understand to share their We Media experiences. God bless them, it will take me weeks to digest it all. For now I just have a few comments and observations:

• Watts Whacker, who looks a bit wacko but is really quite wise, had this to say about “branding” today (I’m paraphrasing): “A brand is a promise, but there are two things you can’t promise: Trust and Authenticity. That’s something the audience gives back to you.” Watts is right and I hope the corporate communicators in the room were listening.

• Finally, a whole day of talking about the brave new Web world without the word “blog” being repeated more often than President Bush says Sept. 11th. This was a high-level group that understood the current transformation beyond any one technology or trend.

It’s true that conversation and collaboration are key to our evolution as communicators. But while the move toward News 2.0 is enabled by technology, people power it – and by people I mean any person who wishes to participate. In other words, blogs are not changing communication, we are.

The best illustration of this “we are all the media” mindset came from a BBC News executive. He compared today’s reporters to soccer players on the field (or “pitch” in proper Queen’s English), and the crowd in the stands as all of us.

“We don’t own the news anymore,” he said, later adding, “The crowd has invaded the pitch.”

It has indeed -- and now, everyone has the opportunity to play.

Technorati tag: wemedia

Who Can You Trust in the New World of News? Start With Yourself

Journalism is a public trust – the journalists trust the public to believe what they write and say, and the public trusts the journalists to report the unvarnished truth.

But trust, like journalism itself, is subjective. Some people trust Fox News, some trust National Public Radio, and still others consider A Current Affair to be Murrow-esque. Trust is about perception, not truth, and the only way to discern the best semblance of reality is to absorb as many truths as possible.

Consider Judith Miller, who is to jingoistic warmongering what Geraldo is to egocentric hyperbole. In other words, nobody does “the sky is falling” journalism better than Judy.

Miller did hard time because she refused to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame CIA scandal – because she trusted her source and his information (as of this writing, it is being reported that Miller’s source was Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby – I assume if Scooter gets the ax he will be replaced by longtime friend and comic James “Fozzie Bear” Mitchell.)

Miller’s trust landed her in jail; our trust of Miller’s erroneous reporting contributed to the ill-fated rush to war in Iraq. Trust is nothing if not fickle.

Then there is the other kind of trust, not of the message so much as the messenger. Stephen Baker, who with Heather Green writes the must-read Blogspotting blog, said in a recent post about whether we can trust reporting from “bloggers” that citizens’ reporting is “additive.” He went on to say, “We hear news all the time from friends and colleagues about our towns, our schools, our bosses. We weigh the information based on the reliability of our sources. Some are utterly trustworthy, most quite a bit less. With bloggers, our circle of contacts grows exponentially, and we have to sort out what to believe.”

I agree on the last point, only I would add that the same goes for anyone who calls himself or herself a reporter, whether that person is a so-called “blogger” or Judith Miller of the New York Times. For every Jeff Gannon there is a Jayson Blair, for every Wonkette there is a Larry King.

And for every Ben Bradlee (former executive editor of the Washington Post) there is – or soon will be – a Bob Dunn, editor of the new citizen journalism publication Fort Bend Now (thanks to John Wagner of Wagner Communications for the information.)

FBN is much like other citizen journalism sites, with hyper-local stories covered by community contributors and lots of opportunity to interact with as well as read the news – a veritable commune for common minds. In his video manifesto, Dunn rails against corporate ownership of media and the lack of local news coverage. “There is one thing worse than media bias,” he said, “and that’s media absence.”

Dunn goes further by both acknowledging his enterprise’s shortcomings and promising to pursue accuracy, truth and trust.

“We know there's more than one side to every story,” Dunn wrote on the home page. “Sometimes there are several. Please help make FortBendNow as accurate as possible.”

Dunn added that an editor will “quickly review” comments about accuracy and post them on the site. Dunn’s goal is to make corrections “in minutes, not in days.”

So who should you trust, a “blogger” journalist like Bob Dunn, or a “professional” reporter like Judith Miller? I say read them both – but in the end, all you can do is trust yourself.

An Open Letter to J-School Students: Help Usher Us Into the “News 2.0” Era of Collaborative Journalism

Dear Journalism School student,

I read that you are questioning whether journalism is a worthy calling. You are considering public relations as an alternative, because you believe PR is the clearer path to the truth than the rocky road laid by some in the journalism profession.

There’s nothing wrong with PR – I made the transition from full-time journalism and have no regrets. But if I had to make the same decision today, I’m not sure I would leave the news business.

There has never been a more exciting time to be a journalist. The Internet has not only made your job easier, it has made your job more powerful. The new “consumer generated media” just scratches the surface of the sweeping changes and dynamic opportunities waiting for you, the first generation of journalists who will look at covering the news as a shared experience.   

There has been a lot of bad news about news lately, enough doom and gloom to make PR or any other profession appear better than journalism. To be fair, there has been little shortage of bad PR industry news either. There are bad people, lame people, and ignorant people in every profession – neither journalism nor PR has a corner on that market.

But there are more quality journalists than poor, and I believe more better days ahead than behind. You’ve heard of Web 2.0? Well this is News 2.0, and you can be a major part of this collaborative experiment where news never ends; can be created by anyone in multiple ways; and can bring the world closer more quickly than at any other time in modern history. 

Don’t just take my word for it – ask Dan Gillmor, Tim Porter, Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen. Get to know them well, because they are the avatars of News 2.0.

And don’t go to boring SPJ events (I was president of the University of Missouri chapter, I was responsible for a few). Instead go to conferences like We Media, where the future of news, storytelling and sharing are on the menu, not stale leftovers like how to write the perfect inverted pyramid.

I’m sure you would make a fine PR person – but we don’t need more PR people, we need more reporters who think beyond the beat. We need more editors who take risks and embrace the unknown. We need more thinkers and leaders to make sure there is a News 3.0 someday.

Quoting Phil Meyer, Tim Porter said “the ominous news of the last week signals opportunity for those journalists who want to build their own, intentional future.”

Everyone is the media, but not everyone can be a journalist. This is your time, your decision, and your intentional future. Please, make it a good one.

Technorati tag: wemedia