July 20th, 2008 at 11:35 am

This post reminds me of a recent post on the OJ blog, consisting of a list of things to skip in any discussion on the future of journalism.

Can’t we think of a practicle solution to this? (Because, well: we shouldn’t give up on everything over 30 who doesn’t yet ‘get’ blogging - the guys asking you those questions are not the same ones as last year…) Like, a list, an FAQ, or even a full-blown wiki, with a set of agreed-upon (perhaps not by everyone, but by forward-thinking people, you know) notions and rules, along with a bunch of easy answers to cliché questions?

It could be called the ‘online journalism FAQ’ or something, which you can refer to if anyone asks you a question. It can also be used at conferences: attendees are expected to have read the FAQ before signing up. It shouldn’t be too strict or formal though. It could serve as a great introduction to the whole topic, and I’d live to use it in class.

What about it, Jeff?

July 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Personally, I think the campaign to discredit and marginalize the curmudgeons is going just fine; and I do not intend to stop writing about them. As I’ve said before, the curmudgeon is a newsroom type, and the newsroom’s romance with this type has been a disaster. It is within the power of any living breathing thinking journalist not to conform to this type, not to “be” a curmudgeon. But when people do step into that role and go high curmudgeon on you, the performance should be discredited in any way that works. Could be smiling politely and reciting facts, or arguing back, or ignoring the provocation and moving on.

You have to persist, not only through the encounters like the one you write about here, but also through all the mini-lectures from all the well-meaning and usually quite intelligent, informed people who do the he said she said can’t we all get along the truth must be somewhere in the middle what extremists on both sides overlook we need to be more civil can’t we get beyond this now what a tired debate thing at you.

July 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

From what I’m seeing, most newspapers today are not curmudgeon-run organizations. There’s a lot of bewilderment (and in many cases despair) but that’s not the same thing.

The curmudgeons are in the minority, fading fast, becoming marginalized even as they make trouble. The feeling of marginalization may be behind a lot of the increased noise they’ve been making lately. Marginalization radicalizes.

On my blog I call on curmudgeons to give up their self-indulgent oppositional defiance. I don’t actually expect any to pay attention.

July 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

It’s a British word. Whinge, to complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way. So don’t go whining about whinging.

July 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Thank you. No more whinging! Amen! What we need to be focusing on is what do we do now? How can we train young and old journalists for the new delivery models? What is the best way to deliver content? What is the best content model for the information? How do we monetize every possible delivery model so that we can stay in business?

Those are worth discussion. But whinging/whining about lost opportunities, layoffs, budget cuts, lost readership is all hot air.

You’re the man.

July 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Yes and I think that will be quite self-selecting. The young curmudgeons will seek out the old ones and they’ll make an orchestra for the Titanic. I think the folly of curmudgeonliness is now quite apparent to the smart students.

July 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

From Wikipedia:

The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt threatened their livelihood.

July 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Jeff, this is a superb discussion, and I’ll be trying to condense it into an essay of my own some time very soon.

One slight glitch: your links to my original rant and Jonathan Este’s response are broken. The linkage is Note to “old media” journalists: adapt, or stfu! and Bloggers: the biggest whingers since journalists respectively.

July 20th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

God answered my prayers at last–someone knows how to pronounce “whinging!” Whenever I come across it in British writing my internal reader gets all tongue-tied.

I’m not a professional journalist, so maybe I am missing something…and I am well over 30 and yet somehow up-to-date on modern conveniences like the internet and iPhones…but why should internet journalism have any less integrity than location-specific journalism? A NYT reporter can make stuff up–and they have, if I recall correctly. No matter how you write your stuff, if you are to maintain credibility, you have to fact-check and name sources and be able to write semi-coherently in order to have a consistent audience.

One reason I don’t buy the newspaper or watch news on TV is that I see an obvious bias in what is reported and how it is done. The media’s fawning adoration of Obama is apparent to anyone who doesn’t share the slack-jawed amazement of his followers. It will be interesting to see if anyone in the MSM picks up on the information collected by Atlas Shrugged on Obama’s “peculiar” campaign contributions (who contributes odd numbers of cents to a campaign? Hmm, I think I’ll contribute $46.72 to Obama today.).

I depend on the internet for most of my news–although I catch radio news, including POTUS 08, in my travels. Anyway, interesting site you have here–and a fascinating peek into the innards of journalism.

July 21st, 2008 at 12:27 am

My own approach to the curmudgeons is informed by ten years of work I did pre-blogging, on what became known as “civic journalism.” Something I had not known about or understood in the slightest at the outset seemed to me (after ten years of work) to loom largest of all factors affecting change at these big news organizations, from the local newspaper in Tallahassee to NPR. That was newsroom culture.

The curmudgeon type is not only a product of that culture but deeply expressive of it. If you believe that meeting the challenge of new media means for serious journalists a new culture surrounding the work–expressive but of different ideas and possibilities– then the curmudgeon type is a good place to start simply because it reflects so much of the old. There’s a lot of distilled pressthink in it.

July 21st, 2008 at 3:48 am

All great stuff here, but it may be that becoming a curmudgeon may be a slow gradual process, rather than genetic (I do wonder though having met some families…). I hope I don’t come across any of you in the future moaning that the future isn’t what you envisaged/what what you wanted.