Bigger, better journalism
At the end of my response to Columbia J-school Dean Nicholas Lemann’s drawing of a line in the sand between professional journalists and bloggers, below, I challenged him to tell how he proposes to meet his proper desire to bring more reporters (I would say, instead, reporting) to citizens’ journalism. Well, I should pick up my own challenge. So here are some of my notions. As I embark myself on teaching journalism at CUNY this fall, note well that I haven’t even started yet and so I am sure to be wrong in countless ways. Note also that I don’t speak for the school here. These are simply notes on how I hope to learn and teach, study and explore some of the new possibilities for journalism.
First, journalism will become more collaborative — because it can, thanks to new tools; because it must, thanks to new business realities; and because it should, to build a new and respectful relationship with the public. So our challenge is to find the ways to help this happen.
To begin, I believe we have a cultural challenge to break down the walls in the newsroom and classroom. I’ve said before that as a small act, which may just be symbolic (though I hope it’s more), I plan to webcast my classes not to teach the world but so the world teaches us. I’ve also argued that newsrooms should become classrooms where the public teaches the journalists and each other and the journalists share the skills of their trade with the growing world of amateur journalists. I want the sources for stories we write to come to class and judge our work and teach us because — cue Dan Gillmor — they know more. I want to find projects that bring together professional and amateur journalists to report together in acts of networked journalism.
I am assuming that the classroom is a good place to experiment with collaboration and learn what can work. But I also think a school can be a meeting ground to bring together the pros and the ams to also discover their shared goals and meet each others’ needs. The challenge to all — journalists, citizens, educators — is not to protect against the shrinkage of a changing industry but to find the ways to expand the scope and work and quality of journalism, taking advantage of the many new opportunities before us.
Second, journalism will no longer be defined by its medium. It will be unbundled, in Terry Heaton’s words — and so journalists must learn how to tell stories and deliver information in any of many ways.
Thanks to the incredibly easy means of creating media today, there’ll be no more need for priesthoods of the tools. Yes, the tools will be taught (after my son teaches them to me) but as Rich Gordon emphasizes, the one sure thing is that they will change. We need to realize that the ease of creation pays a huge dividend: It means we can put less effort and resource into production and more into reporting.
Thanks to all the new means to gather and deliver from and to anywhere, this also means that the process of news must change — not just extending deadlines around the clock but also allowing reporting to become open: the story is never done and can always be better.
So this is about much more than just deciding whether you are a print, broadcast, or online person; those are soon-to-be meaningless lines and possibly career dead ends. This is about changing the essential architecture of news. But note well that I am not saying one medium will replace another (another common strawman in this discussion). See this week’s Pew study, which argues that the internet is a supplement to other media, though I’d put that slightly differently. What is a supplement to what depends on which medium gives you the most relevant news for your attention, I think. Still, online recognizes that there are other media people will still use and it also complements them. I think that newspapers never respected the role that TV and radio played. But online has to respect the role that newspapers and broadcast will always play. So it’s not about competition among media.
Third, journalists must take some responsibility for the business of news. Only a few years ago, this would have been heresy punishable by banishment to PR and in some quarters, it still will be. But today, we have to recognize that journalism will no longer be subsidized by closed monopolies and that the business itself — and the call on the public’s attention — is now highly competitive. There will be no magic bullet to save newsrooms. Newsrooms will change and those that don’t are the ones that are doomed. And there will be many business models. This is why I applaud NewAssignment.net as one model and why I keep flogging the idea of an open-source ad network for citizens’ media and why I am so heartened to see people like Deb Galant begin to succeed and Rafat Ali hiring reporters.
Fourth, journalists must redefine their roles and relationships as more than reporters, editors, and producers — which, yes, they must still be — but also…. Moderators. Entrepreneurs. Teachers. Students. Helpers. Enablers. Networkers. Filters. Partners. Community members. Citizens. I think in some ways this is the most exciting quest of them all.
The greatest benefit that can come out of all this is that we rediscover the essence of journalism and its standards. In most of the discussions of this, we hear about standards in a bundle — without enough discussion of the standards themselves — and they tend to be thrown around as the badges of professionals. But when we extend the definition of journalism and open the doors to all who commit acts of journalism, then the discussion of standards no longer becomes one of ‘we have them and you don’t’ (aimed at the amateurs) or ‘you think you have them but you’re failing at them’ (aimed at the professionals). Standards can stop being cudgels and start being what they should be: goals. But I do not think we should assume that the standards of journalism are signed, sealed, and delivered. As more people gather and share news in more ways and as the roles of journalist, citizen, newsmaker, and advocate mesh and sometimes merge and often conflict, I agree with those who fret about standards. I b elieve it becomes more important than ever to restate and reexamine them and be open to new standards that fit some of our new roles, standards like transparency and generosity.
I will — I’d better — change and adapt these views with every class and every discussion. But that’s my starting point.
Tags: journalism, jschool, networkedjournalism
August 1st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
You made boatloads of sense on Radio Times today and I came straight home, well nearly, and Googled you. I agreed with the caller who said your show was one of her best. (My link may not work correcly after today because I think it’s the current show page. Look for the second hour of the 1.August.06 show afterwards.)
As a former print reporter who appreciates the interchange between the old and new media, I cherish your point of view. What was the great phrase you used, the honor of the link, or link honor? Damnation, I can’t remember. Anyway, it’s one of the things I think separates the blogosphere. It translates into instant accountability available nowhere else.
Thanks. And thank heaven for satellite radio or I’d never have heard this show.
L
August 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I agree with your views on the future of journalism. I myself hope to major in journalism as it broadens its horizons to encompass all forms of communication. People often tell me that writing for magazines and newspapers are a dying profession but I believe that the internet is not looking to replace the printed word. It is basically another form of journalism. Thanks for your insights!
August 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Jeff, why would someone pay to go to school where the teacher/instructor/professor says upfront that he/she does not know enough to teach? You suggest that the best way for a group of novices to become expert at a profession is…for them to teach each other? What would they teach other?
I mean, I get the idea that there’s lots to learn, but I think your role as an instructor is much more difficult than you think it is.
Meanwhile, your description of journalism makes it sound a little bit like group therapy or marriage counseling. I wonder if it doesn’t need a few more hard and fast skills and strategies?
August 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
You now express an interest in helping mold standards for journalism. A year ago, though, you soured on standards for bloggers: “It may be contrarian of me, but I will argue that we should not adopt a code of ethics and standards. That is for institutions to declare because they lose touch with their publics.”
Now, you could be for the notion of re-examining standards without adopting them. Or it may be the case that, to your logic, blogging is not a subset of journalism. But, of course, certain bloggers feel they are doing journalism, that is uncontestable, and many are represented by the Media Bloggers Association, from where your post above came from. The MBA eventually adopted standards, but refrained from playing the role of arbiter or judge.
Something to consider before the bell rings in a month.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Leolabeth,
Thanks.
Jenny,
You keep projecting that I”m going to go into class and say I don’t know anything. Of course, I better be prepared to teach. But I am saying that no one — teacher, student, journalist — knows exactly where journalism is headed and we need to explore that together.
A.J.,
Fair question. The difference I didn’t express well is that I’m not suggesting that we create some professional or amateur code to sign onto, only that we have standards upon which to JUDGE the journalism that is done by anyone.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Okay, I’ll bite. What exactly are YOU going to teach? Is it that you can learn things from everyone–even people who know nothing about journalism? Is it that students can learn more from each other than you?
If I were a student in your class, what materials what I encounter on the first day of class? What would be your objectives for me and other students with regard to the materials, and your enactment of them as a teacher?
As a student, I will spend at least 90 minutes with you and other students on Day One. How will that time be spent? And how will you as an instructor know that they time has been well spent?
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 am
I liked everything said in the post. It’s always a useful exercise to say what you believe in.
I know nothing about journalism. Looking forward to hearing about and reading about and maybe even watching these classes.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:52 am
One more element to add to the mix, get it right. Pay attention to the details, pay attention to the facts. Be on the lookout for errors and be ready to correct them when they come to your attention. Correct errors when you spot them and do not wait until readers bring them to your attention. Have the courage to admit to being wrong.
Finally, the story’s author writes the headline. No exceptions.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
Alan, what if the reporters are terrible headline writers? Some people are skilled at writing headlines that express the gist of a story, sometimes with humor or irony. Why not use them? What’s more, some stories need to be rewritten by editors, with new lead, new nut graph, etc. Should the authors of those stories still write the headlines? If journalism is a team game, as Jeff says, why not work as a team?
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 am
If trends continue we won’t have any reporters, they will all be in jail.
Today two NY Times reporters lost an appeal about having their phone records turned over to a grand jury.
A blogger/free-lancer was imprisoned for refusing to turn over his raw tapes of a protest rally.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 am
This is a quest we are on, I think, and we have been gifted with the tools to be good and true scribes for the tribe. Tools that are awesome yet available to anyone with the wit to find his way on to the web. Google my name and you will see what I mean.
We can skip around the sidelines to help make more sense of what is happening, we can work in squads, even platoons or as single sentinels, and we can and will swear to be honest and do right things.
Once all the strawmen and strawwomen are batted aside, and the difficulties hurdled, and the practicalities attended to, we should be able to do a lot of good, and if we volunteered that would be a nice thing, too.
And , it will be seen, I bet, that the “ease of creation ” does indeed pay huge dividends.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:40 am
I was interested that you say that one of the many things an individual journalist has to become is an entrepreneur and would like to know more about your views on this. As a journalist now running a business, there are all sorts of challenges that this throws up as you will know - not least ethically - how does making money always sit with reporting objectively? Apologies if I am stating the obvious. Also as someone who imposed a self exile into PR work when her children were small, can I ask if you think those ‘journalist entrepreneurs’ can ever make as much money as the hack who ’sells out’ to PR?
August 9th, 2006 at 9:55 am
[...] It’s not about them v. us, as Nick Lemann would have it. It’s about them and us. The more we work together, the more informed society will be. It is a good thing for journalism that there are now more people than ever doing journalism and these are just two small illustrations of that. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
[...] I will hasten to add that I don’t know a thing about the rest of the landscape of J-schools. I don’t even start working at one — at CUNY’s new Graduate School of Journalism — until later this month. But I see examples of different views here and there, some representing just individuals. Berkeley’s J-school has been web-wise for sometime and has also produced good journalism and a new forum for it with PBS’ Frontline. The aforementioned Leonard Witt has been a leader in public journalism for years. The University of Maryland’s J-school provided a home for Jan Schafer and J-lab, which tries to support and award innovative news projects. Then, of course, there’s my goomba Jay Rosen’s NewAssignment.net, which tries to find new ways to support journalism. And I put my personal stake in the ground here, arguing that we need to find the ways to make journalism more collaborative and less dependent upon media and that we must redefine the roles of journalists. [...]
August 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
[...] No, I do believe that more education in the subjects reporters are likely to cover is important (and CUNY is offering such concentrations to our students, I should add). One cannot possibly argue that more education and knowledge is a bad thing. But no matter how hard and how much a journalism student studies, there will always be someone out there who knows much more. Journalists have fancied themselves experts — they often use the word now — and that’s just not the case, not usually. Reporters are facile at picking up subjects. Reporters should strive to be come more expert in the beats they cover. But, as I’m sure Lemann and I would agree, they do their best work when they go out and report, finding the knowledge of experts — who, thanks to the internet, can now share their knowledge on their own, albeit as amateur journalists. I do think is our job to narrow the gap between pro and am, between journalist and public, to do more together. But less education is not the path to do that. In fact, educating more people is the way to do it, I think. [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 am
[...] åƒçœŸä¸‡ç¡®ã€‚æ–°é—»å¦é™¢åº”该尽å¯èƒ½å¸®åŠ©ä»–们的å¦ç”Ÿç†Ÿæ‚‰åšå®¢å’Œç½‘上的æ¯ä¸ªäººï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯æ–°é—»å¦é™¢çš„èŒè´£æ‰€åœ¨ã€‚åšå®¢ä»¬æ¯å¤©éƒ½åœ¨ç½‘上徘徊，éšæ—¶å‡†å¤‡ç€ä¸Žæ–°é—»å·¥ä½œè€…对è¯ä¸Žè¾©è®ºï¼ŒåŒæ—¶ä»–们也会与新闻工作者åˆä½œä¸ºå…¬ä¼—更深入的讨论æ供更详尽的信æ¯ã€‚未æ¥æœ€æœ‰èƒ½åŠ›çš„新闻工作者会跳出二å世纪åªè¯»åª’体的é™åˆ¶ï¼Œä»–们会想方设法利用互è”网的å¯è¯»å†™æ½œåŠ›ã€‚（有关å¯è¯»å†™åª’体与åªè¯»åª’体，请å‚考Ethan Zuckerman对Larry Lessig在Wikimania上谈è¯çš„精彩总结 。）在å¯è¯»å†™æ–°é—»åª’体的世界里，公众ä¸å†åªæ˜¯ç®€å•åœ°é˜…读与收å¬æˆ‘们的新闻报导，他们还会å‚与其ä¸ï¼Œè€Œä¸”，当新闻工作者由于资æºçš„缺ä¹ï¼ŒæŠ¥å¯¼æ 目与æ’导时间的é™åˆ¶ï¼Œç¼–辑的心ä¸åœ¨ç„‰ï¼Œå•†ä¸šä¸Šçš„压力或是æ¯å…¬å¸çš„政治忌讳ç‰ç§ç§åŽŸå› 而ä¸èƒ½æŠ¥é“时，åšå®¢ä»¬ä¹Ÿå¯ä»¥å¡«è¡¥è¿™æ ·çš„新闻空缺。Jeff Jarvis对在这个全新的å¯è¯»å†™æ—¶ä»£åº”该如何教导新闻工作æ出了一系列建议 。é‡è¦çš„ä¸€ç‚¹æ˜¯ï¼Œä»–æŒ‡å‡ºäº†åœ¨æŠ¥å¯¼ç½‘ä¸Šå¹¿ä¸ºä¼ æ’的事件时，新闻工作者应如何转å˜ä¸ºç›¸å…³å¯¹è¯çš„监ç£äººä¸Žä»²è£äººã€‚æ¤æ—¶ï¼Œä¸“业新闻工作者带æ¥çš„价值是其å¯é çš„æ–°é—»ç¼–è¾‘ã€‚æ ¹æ®Pewçš„æœ€æ–°ç ”ç©¶ ，尽管网络带æ¥äº†çš„ä¿¡æ¯å‰§å¢žï¼Œå¤§éƒ¨åˆ†äººå¹¶æ²¡æœ‰èŠ±æ›´å¤šæ—¶é—´åŽ»æ¶ˆåŒ–ä¿¡æ¯ã€‚è¿™æ„味ç€ä¸“业新闻工作者的一个é‡è¦è§’色是帮助信æ¯è¿‡è½½çš„公众从å¯é çš„æ¥æºè¿‡æ»¤å‡ºä»–们想知é“的和需è¦çŸ¥é“çš„ä¿¡æ¯ï¼Œä»Žè€Œæ— 须整天耗费时间去查讯。当然，在å¦ä¸€æ–¹é¢ï¼ŒæŸäº›å…¬ä¼—ç»å¸¸è°ˆè®ºçš„新闻是需è¦é‚£äº›å¯é 的，ä¸è¾žåŠ³è‹¦åŽ»è¿½æŸ¥è¿™äº›æ¶ˆæ¯çš„ä¼ ç»Ÿè®°è€…ï¼Œæ™®é€šçš„æ‰“å·¥åšå®¢ä»¬æ怕是没有足够的时间和资æºåŽ»åº”付这类工作的。 这些都是全èŒæ–°é—»å·¥ä½œè€…的主è¦ä»·å€¼æ‰€åœ¨ã€‚ [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 1:55 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis says, “Journalism will become more collaborative — because it can, thanks to new tools; because it must, thanks to new business realities; and because it should, to build a new and respectful relationship with the public. So our challenge is to find the ways to help this happen. Jarvis says Saving journalism (and killing the press) is manditory in the age of Craig Newmark. [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis says, “Journalism will become more collaborative — because it can, thanks to new tools; because it must, thanks to new business realities; and because it should, to build a new and respectful relationship with the public. So our challenge is to find the ways to help this happen. Jarvis says Saving journalism (and killing the press) is manditory in the age of Craig Newmark. [...]
January 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
[...] Schluss möchte ich nochmal auf den kurzen Jeff-Jarvis-Artikel zur Evolution des Journalismus hinweisen, dem ich absolut zustimme. Journalisten müssen nicht nur Reporter, sondern auch [...]