Paul has asked me to join his 'expert panel' to (attempt to) answer it... which I will do in due course...
In the meantime; consider the question for yourself (by playing the video below) - and please add your responses as comments - which I'll be happy to feedback to Paul.
A few initial thoughts: The price of content (read information/news) was sustained by scarcity. Now information is abundant.
We can of course still make money in this networked world. We can make money because of content rather than with it.
The traditional training of journalists has been about gathering, editing, filtering and broadcasting. Perhaps it's time to shift a little more towards the value creating skills of the networked world - the creation of useful services people will want to share?
In the context of information that takes us to ideas like apple's itunes - where I believe you are paying for a useful service rather than the content itself. Google does a rather good job of making money because of content rather than with it, too.
It also places a value on synthesis (and therefore reasoned opinion) rather than 'reporting the facts'.
And crucially places value on collaboration rather than working to the exclusion of others.
Services, synthesis and collaboration - skills for a world in which media doesn't get to control who makes content, who distributes it, or even the user journey.
You probably know it by now but my favourite quote on this is Jeff Jarvis: "do what you do best and link to the rest". Journalism is an expanding skill set, with new elements including journalists as authenticators, navigators, forum-leaders joining the old skills. It's now very much a service not a product.
ReplyDeletecontent is ubiquitous, yes, and context is nowhere ... no one is giving guidance as to what it all means, or how it relates to a larger human story ... journalists either don't have the experience, or are attracted to being a personality, and are not interested in meaning or implications.
ReplyDeleteand the addiction to balance bypasses values and often distorts understanding.
i haven't talked about owners yet, and profit motive, and the perceived lowest common denominator interests of customers ...
the press is evil, gutless, venal. look at the buildup to iraq, or financial writing today. i don't think the press can correct itself.
it simply needs to be bypassed, and thankfully that is happening. nature wants something else.
paul might agree. most people who are involved in reform are motivated by dissatisfaciton with what is.
Hi Greg, Neil, thanks for joining in. Neil, I wonder if Jeff's line stands the test of the cloud? It is becoming more important to be taken with rather than pointed at. That's what I'm driving at in the idea of useful service - and which I expanded on in the post Portability is the New Pointworthy. Be good to get your thoughts on that if you have a moment: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2008/07/portability-is-new-pointworthy-why.html
ReplyDeleteGreg, the setting of the agenda was something media once got to do. Now it functions the other way around with some media organisations creating stories specifically because they are tracking the 'buzz' on the internet. In other words we set the agenda then they try to create content to catch the zeitgeist. I'm not even sure they understand the implication of what they're doing in choosing to take that approach...
he is asking, is there an economic future for the profession of journalism ...
ReplyDeletethere will always be an economic future for the profession of communications ....
teach those birmingham boys and girls how to communicate, they will be fine
"...media organisations creating stories specifically because they are tracking the 'buzz' on the internet"
when the big boys do that it is called spin or disinformation ..
god knows we need spin masters, and gossip columnists, we have to keep the sheep diverted
journalists, writers. will always have a niche, it might not pay so well when machines can give us our daily media food, or when reuters stories are being hack out here in bangalore.
An interesting question.
ReplyDeleteThe issue I believe is that the function of Journalism is being outsourced more and more, not that the function itself is redundant.
If the direction of news is guided by the social community than the role of the journalist is to interpret the mood and feeling of the people and give a broad overview of what is being discussed.
Now that individuals can report on world events as they see them on the ground Journalists need to embrace and work WITH the community, not direct it!
So to answer the question, academia need to be teaching journalists social media, it's meaning and how you work with it.
http://www.beatblogging.org/
ReplyDelete