Thursday, December 16, 2004
TALKING TO THE WALLSSpeaking of passion (I do in the post immediately below), Tim Porter brings all of his considerable passion for newspapers to bear on what newspapers need to do.
In order to survive, newspapers must change their form — form, not standard — of journalism (not to mention their means of advertising delivery), but, as radical as those new forms may seem in most newsrooms, I no longer think that is enough. Many news executives know what to do, but they still don't do it. They are handcuffed by cultures that not only inhibit change, but frequently punish those who champion it. What's needed is a fundamental organizational makeover. The current newsroom structure — segregated departments, hierarchical decision-making processes, platform specific (instead of agnostic) content, and strict producer-consumer division — does not permit change on a large enough scale to break newspapers free from the traditions that bind them. Tim is writing in response to a reader, who wonders if he's getting tired of beating his head against the wall in the face of the reticence of newspapers to consider fundamental change. He answers "yes," but I suspect that like all of those who love journalism and, in particular, newspapers, he's not about to stop. The message has to get through. The more we can spread it, the greater chance that it will begin to change the hidebound culture of journalism.
(Note: The ground shifted a little underneath me while I was writing this. Ever since I started writing this thing, I've been reflexively using CP (Canadian Press) style, which means using last names only after the first reference to the subject. Tonight it felt more natural to write "Tim," not "Porter," even though I've never met him. (Can I call you Tim?) Maybe I need to go formal: full name on first referenece, add the honorific for subsequent uses. We'll see.) |
IMAGINING WORLDSJay Rosen took me to school again with his latest essay, Undercurrent: Nation, Region, Weblog, Home. His topic is blogging community, and how those involved are connected, how they interact and where they come together. I have put that badly or too simply: go read. Actually, Ed Cone puts it better at his blog: global blogging and local culture. At the end, Rosen asks:
What is that great nation like--how do we imagine the community--corresponding to the English speaking, reading and weblog-writing world, as it extends across the globe? Is this one public, or many? Does it have its own press? Are there patriots? I need to start with journalism. I'm Canadian. The journalism culture in Canada is different than that of the States, but we have the advantage of location: the influence of what is good and vibrant in American journalism (and what is bad, too) is reflected in what we do. My journalism nation isn't Canadian, though, or even necessarily entirely North American. It's not defined by a set of practices or standards, but by a belief in the importance of it, its value, and by passion. It's informed by what I did during my career, by what I've drawn from its history (English, American, Canadian), by the newspapers I've read and admired, and by the journalists I've used as mentors and guides. It's informed more than ever by the continuing dialogue that is internet, whether it's served from New York or Baghdad. Belief and passion are why I blog. (If I were doing this for readership, I would have quit a long time ago.) The blogs I read most, that I write most about and react most strongly to, are those where I find belief and passion. I don't blog because I "know," but because I'm learning. This is my thought process: not always clear, occasionally messy, sometimes contradictory. I learn some stuff, try to put it together with other stuff I've learned and put it out. I hope I am adding to a conversation. And maybe that's one of the things this nation looks like: questers, people with a passion and a drive to learn, to attempt to figure out things (or small portions of things), to add to a greater pool. (Question: Does that make the nation a "self-learning" entity?) One of the big changes media has to go through is to erase the artificial wall between professional and reader and that may offer an analogy, too: if there is a nation — with many publics, press and patriots — the technology it's built on carries no walls. Publics intersect, overlap, flow (but rarely collide). Here's a thought: The internet, this nebulous place, is the commons where the nations, the publics, gather to chat, talk wisely, think deeply (or for entertainment). It has its press in that everyone can be media now (although there those, like Rosen and dozens of others, some of whom are named in the links on the right, who help frame the questions and focus parts of the conversation). And it has its full range of partiots, from the truly brave (the jailed bloggers or Iraq and China), to the defenders (Lawrence Lessing, the EFF, et al), to the everyday patriots whose passion and drive keep the conversation alive.
Re-reading that, it's too broad, too general. But there's something there. I'll keep thinking about this, Prof. Rosen. |
DON'T LET THE DOOR...From Samantha Israel's Blog on Blog:
The National Post's editorial blog, Across the Board, has been shut down due to lack of commitment. Lorne Gunter, National Post Editorial Board member, told me: We on the edit board let our blog lapse about two weeks ago because we just didn't have time to research, write, edit AND blog. Since the first three are what we're paid for, we gave up the fourth, voluntary function, blogging. No loss. Across the Board wasn't much of an effort to begin with. It was conversation, but conversation limited to the members of the editorial board. No ability to comment or interact with the blog, just four or five people "talking" to each other. It didn't seem to serve much purpose: it didn't provide insight into the editorial board as an entity or into the individual members of the board. The biggest "revelation" was that they were various shades of right, which is patently obvious to anyone who has read more than a single issue of The Post. And, most days, the blog wasn't enlightening or entertaining. Way too much noise for way too little signal.
Interesting, too, that in 2004 a major newspaper considers blogging a voluntary activity that can easily be dropped from the mix. No commitment, no vision. |
GIVING BACKLa Monde, which has already set up "branded blogs" for readers that are given the same weight as staff-written blogs, is looking for more ways to engage readers. Agence France Presse is reporting:
On the editorial page of yesterday's Le Monde he [Jean-Marie Colombani] explained further: "Today, the purpose of the journalists at Le Monde is to examine and analyze the newspaper, to re-appropriate it and hence return the paper to its readers." I've added the italics for emphasis because that's what's important about the announcement. I've heard editors and publishers (for decades) talk about service to reader and community, but I can't recall a case of someone saying what Colombani did. Saying, of course, is one thing and doing another. We'll have to see what "returning the newspaper to the readers" means in practice, but the fact the words were even spoken is an encouraging sign that the walls of the media castle continue to crumble.
SOURCE: EDITORS WEBLOG |
Last update: 12/26/04; 7:04:04 AM .
