Thursday, October 19, 2006

Shift to new media a matter of culture change


Whew. I wish I could post daily on this blog, but working full-time and going to school part-time seems to eat up all my free time. Maybe I am to blame -- I like to sleep, eat, and exercise. That doesn't leave much time for blogging or reading blogs.

Anyway, as I have begun to think about the transition from old to new media I have become convinced that the lagging behind is due to culture -- traditional journalists not wanting to change their ways. In laypeople's terms -- stubbornness, I suppose. Many newspapers have adopted new technologies to make the process of newsgathering easier. Kudos. Lots of newspaper web sites have blogs by reporters and fora for readers to comment on, network, exchange information. Nice.

But what about a radical development? The term open source journalism has been in use recently to describe the changing relationship between professional reporters and readers. Specifically, it entails the notion that regular citizens can engage in fact-gathering and news analysis, supplementing the work journalists do. Sure, that has generated quite a bit of resentment, but that notion is becoming more prevalent.

What is less prevalent is the idea the journalistic competitors would actually collaborate on a story. The prestige of a scoop? Nice, but is it really worth sacrificing the potential depth and meaning of a news story, especially these days when so many journalists view themselves as in competition with blogs? We've seen how blogs with armies of readers can uncover new facts, research the nitty gritty details of web sites, unearth buried pages containing jewels of information, and advance a story in the mainstream media -- doing the work that one or two reporters did not have the time (or motivation?) to do.

From E-Media Tidbits:

If you can see past the competitive myopia that's endemic to the culture of many mainstream news organizations, there are lots of opportunities for "competitors" to collaborate on coverage in ways that leverage unique strengths and resources, thus yielding a larger audience (read: ad dollars) for all involved. Giving credit, offering live links, and even working out joint publishing strategies for certain stories might ultimately become strategies to build audience loyalty. As long as everyone involved is clear about who did what reporting, such collaborative efforts might even strengthen news brands -- rather than undermine them.

I realize this is a controversial proposal in mainstream media circles. I'm not dissing competition entirely. Competition has indeed fostered much good journalism.

But...competition is not the only way to approach reporting and publishing news. In fact, in some cases (especially with shrinking newsroom staffs and budgets) an overly competitive mindset might even be getting in the way of better journalism -- and better business for news organizations.


Now that's a radical culture shift, one that I would be all for. Producing better journalism without hiring legions of reporters, and potentially boosting advertising revenue? What's not to like?

No comments: