Not quite separation of church and state…but it sure seems like it!
How about some impressions on a cultural challenge the industry will face? No, this post isn’t going to be poli-theological diatribe. That territory is beyond my scope and I frankly don’t have the constitutional law background to wade too deeply into that discussion. This is about the separation of content gathering/creation and content packaging. As a reminder, I am not, nor have I ever been, a journalist. I am simply a career IT guy who happens to have the exciting opportunity to contribute to a metamorphosis of the information provider world. Moving on…
Journalists take pride in their work and that’s a tremendously admirable quality. They take pride in being timely, accurate, concise and engaging with their product. Product is the key word in the change equation right now, in my estimation. Journalists today know they are targeting a content delivery platform today as they develop their stories. It may be a newspaper, a television station or a web site. Where the industry makes its quantum leap is when the journalist becomes a content gatherer/creator instead of a packager. This is where a clear cultural shift in the profession will be made and it will rock the foundational pride of these professionals in their product, because their work will become purely about content and OTHERS will make decisions on how best to package all, some or none of their content. It is very likely a content packaging role would include the synthesis of work from multiple content creators. Uh, oh. Who gets the by-line (think that’s the right term)? This could be contentious. The long and proud tradition of journalism is lined with outstanding feats of determination, creative research and, of course, exemplary composition. This forthcoming paradigm shift holds a near guarantee that many packages of content will not be attributable in such distinct ways to a single journalist. The pragmatics of this new industry model (sort of akin to the “state”) will impact the pride and artistry of the journalist (the “religion”). The reality is that this “religion” is slowly becoming an artifact, a fading shadow cast by an industry being overtaken by a new sun.
How’s that for an IT dweeb’s perspective? My interest in this paradigm shift is huge. This separation will be reflected in how the industry is retooled to handle the new roles of content gather, content moderation, content packaging, etc. The current tethering of some journalists (the content creators) to package-specific systems will be cut (that’s for the content packages). The content creators will instead be utilizing a suite of tools ranging from wireless assets (smart phones, laptops, etc.) to general use assets like blogs, RSS readers and database query reports to build content that will then be dropped on to an information bus for use, in whole or in part, as seen fit by others (the content packagers). While my extremely minimal experience in the industry is undeniable, my IT experience is more than enough to have seen multiple process-based and role-based changes over the years in a number of specialized endeavors. Simply put, there are those who will make the transformation and those that will cling to religion so fiercely they must be kicked to the curb. It’s an evolution and somebody invariably and voluntarily plays the part of the dinosaur.
The evolved metrics for journalistic pride in this new paradigm are not all that different. It will require being timely, accurate, concise and engaging. Hey, those are the same things I mentioned above about the current state of journalism. How odd.
Chuck Peters 1357 on December 24, 2008 Permalink |
Thanks Mike. I agree that this is one of the core issues we face as we try to create a Complete Community Connection.
The pride in artistry might come from creating an elegant organization to key issues in the community, insightful analysis, or synthesis of multiple voices.
Chuck
Annette Schulte 2218 on December 26, 2008 Permalink |
Interesting blog, Mike. I stumbled across it via your Facebook page. You might consider letting more people with GazComm know it’s here.
At the risk of being labeled a religious fanatic
I’ll push back on your use of the term “journalism” when I think you mean “newspaper.”
I agree that journalism, like religion, can be a higher calling. I disagree that this “religion” is fading. Certainly, newspapers are fading, and journalists will have to stop tying their personal identities to the delivery medium, but journalism will go on. “Journalism” will still be done and done well, regardless of the medium.
As for bylines, eh. We know readers don’t pay much attention to them. (Ask Chuck about his experience writing for The Gazette’s travel pages for context.)
And since future journalists don’t have to concern themselves with how content is packaged and presented, their credentials will simply list their blogs, wikis, etc. and then “contributor to (product names).”
Of course, the change is anything but “simple.”
Good post, Mike. Look forward to reading you regularly.
Mike Coleman 2241 on December 26, 2008 Permalink |
Thank you, Annette. I have and probably will continue to interchange terms incorrectly. Maybe the fact I am incredibly new to the industry and a classifiable IT dink could be my excuse? I liked your pushback. I obviously didn’t explain my thoughts and opinions well enough, because I agree 100% with your stance.