Journalists (like Businesses) Must Adapt to New Media

New media has changed the way we receive and share news and information. If it's true that people shifted from just consumers of news to news makers, it's also true that without mass media, we would have a really hard time getting most of the information that is passed on as newsworthy today.

Taking a very brief class on the characteristics that make a story newsworthy:

• Timing - this is pretty easy for us to tell, if it's something that is happening now, or just happened, it is news.

• Proximity - it is also likely that something that happened locally, or in a place we have affinity with, be considered news.

• Prominence - you know that celebrities and famous people get more coverage. It was interesting to see how even on Twitter, when people in this group signed on, they immediately accumulated thousands of followers.

• Significance - as well, the number of people affected by something determines the newsworthiness of the story.

• Human interest - the more timeless kinds of news stories are those we connect with at emotional level. You might think that these kinds of story should not be considered newsworthy, and you'd probably be correct.

Given that more of us get their news online than they ever had before, and given that online is not just a new distribution system  - it's also about aggregation, interaction, contextualization and having the ability to be flexible with updates as the story develops - journalists must adapt to the medium.

Which means that they should also become fluent in some of the newer technologies and tools they can leverage to be more efficient and timely in their reporting. We all have the same or similar tools, rarely we have the same training.

I agree with Dan Gillmor, even those of us like me who are active content creators, still consume more content and news stories than we're able to produce. We want journalists, and we need them because of the characteristics that set them apart. In fact, to be a good journalist, you must (elaborated from the article):

Be skeptical of everything - a journalist I admire greatly taught me that skepticism means requiring he official reality to explain itself. This is a call to exercising critical thinking, which often gets lost in the desire to be accepted as part of a group, or tribe.

Use a scale of experience and education to decide what to trust - all things being equal is a lie, things are never equal, and it's up to you to decide how to weigh them appropriately. Granted, online someone with a well-designed site could "look" more credible. I'm thinking that social creds should weigh in here.

Step out of the "echo chamber" - if you read only what you agree with, you will have a hard time staying well informed. This requires that one constantly challenges assumptions, seeks out opposing views, and remains active in pursuing new angles.

Do your homework - do you search for more than one reference on a story? Asking more questions takes time, but it's a good way to really get a hold of a topic and help tell the story more fully. Personally, I like it when I find conflicting data points on something, it helps me dig deeper.

Understand and learn digital media tools - this is both to help with speed and adaptability, as well as see how the tools can easily be used to persuade and manipulate. Just because it's easy to publish and spread information, it doesn't always mean that it is true or accurate.

Credibility continues to matter and to me the big issue remains transparency. This is valid both for journalist and businesses. Adapting to new media still means that when you got something wrong, you admit it, and you can do so promptly today.

Transparency is also the gift of letting the reader know what you mean when you write and what you don't know. For those, I am more than happy to receive contributions from the many smart readers here. Why couldn't news organizations do the same? Here's what we know, and here's what we don't know - asking smart questions is one of the hallmarks of good journalism.

Let's face it, we do need more original thinkers. Much of the Web content today is recycled just as much of TV news programming. Do you see yourself as a news creator? How do you use digital media to stay up to speed on information for your business?

Are you adapting or merely keeping up? Think about your use of sourcing and hyperlinks? Does it resemble that of news organizations - in other words, is it non existent?

Weigh in.

Comments

[Rosh - New media photographer]

I would agree if we could create a future for journalists. I would argue that professional journalists have little to adapt to unless they wish to become bloggers.

News organizations are hiring editors and firing journalists. Media outlets of the future will continue and expand efforts to source, edit content and redistribute to the public.

The current rate for most information - zero.

Local newspapers are depending on bloggers and part-time writers to submit content for the honor of having their work printed. Even CNN depends on camera phones for free content.

Sadly, why would someone train and update skills for a career with little future. I sincerely hope we find an answer.

Rosh

[Brian Driggs]

While I can certainly understand Rosh's perspective, something that really stands out to me is how many people who participate in social media are quick to point out the failures of the traditional print media, all the while merely dealing in a digital version of the same thing. They aggregate and redistribute content as quickly as possible in order to gain readers so they can sell ad space. The end.

Maybe, one day, originality will play a larger role in SEO tactics and the pressure will be on to deliver unique content, forcing the in-it-for-the-money shills to page 2 or more. In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea for those in the news industry who have an understanding of what is really required of a true reporter to consider applying those skills in social media right now.

Find the stories that need to be told, investigate the issues that matter, develop a network of contacts that will enable the application of true, reporting skills, and create that fresh, new content today.

Aggregated content can hold some readers and generate some conversation, but it can't hold a candle to that which is possible when your website is known for fresh, quality content. People like being close to the source. I think I want to be that source.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Rosh - there will be a time soon, when those who can write will demand to be compensated for it/ And so they should. The other day I got an email from a well-intentioned young person who was asking for a reference to someone "cheap" who could write copy that sells. That's an oxymoron, you pay for that kind of service. Why fold the tents when you could be taking things into the future of media? That attitude of defeat I fail to grasp...

@Brian - you got it, so few are looking at the online medium as something entirely different, which it is. In that sense, I would think that being hungry to get the medium and its potential to do what journalists do best would be top of mind. You're correct, there is a vacuum on page one and it's one left voluntarily open at the moment, filled with opportunity for the people with the right kind of attitude and approach. What Arianna Huffington and many other online publications has done is fill that gap. If it's true that you can write compelling copy, write it!

[Jonathan Blank]

What I take away from this post more than anything is that both media publications and businesses need to ask more questions and admit what they don't know. I deal in B2B and our whitepapers would be greatly enhanced if we openly admitted what questions our surveys and research do not sufficiently answer. And then get the community to fill in the gaps.

[Brian Driggs]

@Jonathan - Oy. Whitepapers.

These are rapidly degenerating into shameless, desperate marketing fluff pieces. Publishers flood communities with them, hoping to gain more leads from the contact information provided by community members who download them. This bait and switch might not be so repugnant if...

- The organization responsible for the whitepaper had a presence in the community beyond ads; participating in group discussions about the subject matter which provided value.

- When the member got that phone call from sales, the person on the other end of the line was focused on discussing the subject in-depth, rather than scheduling an appointment to present, over-promise, and pressure.

Often, I saw that whitepapers promised time savings, yet delivered hassles which wasted it instead. Good point on the community filling in the gaps, but whitepaper publishers need to step into the void in order to create gaps. Otherwise, it's just empty space...

[Sean Weigold Ferguson]

"There will be a time soon, when those who can write will demand to be compensated for it/ And so they should. The other day I got an email from a well-intentioned young person who was asking for a reference to someone "cheap" who could write copy that sells. That's an oxymoron, you pay for that kind of service."

I'm not sure I agree with this. The same argument could be made about software, yet thousands of amazing open-source initiatives appear every year. Enforcing copyrights on information is quickly becoming a battle no longer worth fighting.

We live in a world where copywriting can be outsourced to an Indian MBA for $7.00 an hour. The mass media monopolies, sheltered by the First Amendment, are gone for good. Organizations need to focus on quality and specialization. Your organization MUST be the best in the world at what it does. If it is not, it is time to reconsider what it is that you do.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Jonathan - and we need more people who can think on their own.

@Brian - why don't you tell us what you really think? I agree with you. White papers should be useful to the people who read them, not gimmicks to get email addresses. In fact, I never (well, once and regretted it) sign up to download a white paper. We're in the content creation business.

@Sean - you want copy that sells? You pay for it. Period. Whether you agree or not, you may end up paying for it by buying cheap copy that sells you short. I've been around a couple of years and understand the power and magic of copy writing (not editing, not summarizing, actual writing). It's about quality of communication, no words wasted, long effects on share of mind. You could outsource that, but then you get what you pay for ;) Excellence is a worthy goal.