J-school reboot?

 

Image via Wikipedia

Some probably know I have no formal training or education in journalism (did the grammar and headline burying give it away?), so I tend to feel less comfortable talking to journalist-specific topics.  I have the luxury today of stepping out of my comfort zone thanks to a crafty piece of writing from Guy Berger (@guyberger).

 

The rhetorical premise behind Guy’s post was whether journalism schools should be a mirror of the industry’s requirements or a enablers of change for the industry.  I cannot do Guy’s words justice and I really do encourage you to read his article.

Guy does close by asking,

“Anyone out there agree that journalism education needs re-booting?”

As I mentioned, I probably wouldn’t know a j-school if it hit me, but my answer is a resounding “YES.”  Guy isn’t just stirring things up for fun – this guy understands that the media customer is already on the other side of the fence.  He participated in a book panel and provided input, of which I wanted to share a couple sentence.

In a time when cellphones are becoming the mass communications device of the masses, this realm is increasingly important to look at. And what becomes complicated is that the “traditional” mass communication roles now become merged with private interpersonal communications in the uses to which these new technologies are put. Audience expectations of the roles of mass media are arguably changing under this meshing of one-to-many with one-to-one and many-to-one communications.

Go back and read those sentences again, please.  That really takes the mirror v. change agent a different and, in my opinion, mostly relevant direction: the audience.  Oh yeah, those dreaded readers and customers?  If that’s your reaction, I submit that Guy’s words fell on deaf ears.  The fact is that he is spot on.

There is no question the audience expectations are out in front of the industry.  When and where the audience and their expectations got out in front of journalism is a fruitless debate.  What is of concern is the audience expects content, in context (their context, not some editor’s choice of context), in real-time and from whatever device they choose.  Journalism by the inch and line, however comfortable, convenient and profitable (decreasingly) it might be argued to be, is dying. 

J-schools are where the bounds of innovation towards atomization of content, technology-enabled/driven networking and customized delivery and consumption must be pushed.  By now, at least one person is rolling their eyes and chuckling about the paucity of proven business models, whether pay walls are the way to go, and concerns about the trustworthiness of all this new-fangled stuff.  News flash for you – at no time in the future are you going to wake up to a neatly packaged print article that describes a totally packaged answered to all that.  The answers are going to be small, dispersed and  available only to those who are truly willing to hit the reboot switch (repeatedly).  Where else is better suited for those reboots than the beginning of the industry pipeline, the journalism schools?

Fear. Addiction. Paranoia. Blindness. Time for a check-up?

This is based on an Idea Lab article by Dan Pacheco, “How Fear, Brand Addiction and Paranoia Block Innovation.”  Take a few minute and read it – you will find it relatively objective and not so nearly focused on newspapers as you might first suspect.  Go ahead…read it.  Here some mood music for you, too.

 

I thought Dan’s post challenging to all the sub-cultures, egos and personas that exist in our lives; those that loath change; those that refuse to relenquish any ounces of Draconian control; those that just don’t know how to change; those that see change as an indictment on the past; etc.

I couldn’t help but try to mentally grade our progress and, more importantly in my mind, our readiness to make bigger, wider and more dramatic changes going forward.  I know some won’t visit the article link above, so here’s the recap of the criteria:

1) Fear.  Dan is verbose in his description and his real focus is on clutching to formerly successful paradigms.  Mine is simpler: accept those paradigms as dead or dying.  Publicly declare yourself to be a Young Turk of the new age of media.  Commit to crossing the Rubicon.

2) Brand addiction.  Dan’s focus is on newspapers’ focus on the existing customers, not their potential customers. We actually know this – we’ve heard it, discussed it.  We have to facilitate communities, not build them…they already exist.  Just imagine what a supreme failure the Cash for Clunkers program would be if we all viewed the value of our vehicles like some view the value of their products.  Kill off the weak and let the rut begin.

3) Paranoia.  I actually thought Dan missed a huge point on this one.  Media companies should have a decent balance in the community’s “trust bank.”  The media company should represent a trusted source and that alone is an extremely powerful position from which to operate.  It might be a scary proposition for some, but Sun Tzu nailed it when he said, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

4) Business blindness.  Dan’s point is simple and needs no commentary: don’t forget the revenue stream when it comes to innovation. 

Once again, this was a good article and one I encourage everyone to consider as a basis for personal and organizational introspection.

 

Photo flap reinforces my point

   The evolving (degenerating?) debate over pay walls and concerns about news organizations giving away content for free continues to rage.  By this time, most nearly all directly involved are generally on one side of the fence or the other.  Those headed towards a pay wall are considering home-brewed solutions and some believe there is some monetary value to gained from a collective approach (the “ViewPass” scheme for one).

   It’s gotten so bad, there are even dweeby IT folks like myself weighing in here on this blog, on Twitter and our company Yammer.  Some excerpts:

• Twitter (@mgcoleman, 7/29): Schenectady paper (Daily Gazette) reverts back (backwards?) to paywall for content.  http://tinyurl.com/m9nv4s.
• C3 Roadies blog on ViewPass being just another pay wall…nothing more, nothing less (6/9): http://c3it.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/viewpass-just-another-paywall/
• C3 Roadies blog publicly calls being able to control the the supply of news & content a falacy (5/29): http://c3it.wordpress.com/?p=143
• C3 Roadies blog on why Murdoch has it wrong (5/8): http://c3it.wordpress.com/?p=139

   Today I read through an article (http://open.salon.com/blog/future_of_journalism/2009/07/29/photog_thrilled_to_get_peanuts_from_time) about a photographer getting $30 for a stock photo that was used as a Time Magazine front cover photo (http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2009/1101090427_400.jpg).  We all know Time got the better of the deal, the photog could’ve (under a commission) received greater compensation, etc., etc., etc..  The article rapidly shifts to the topic of online content and the 4th paragraph from the end really caught my attention both as a well-versed statement of fact and being supportive of my strong position to date:

If Time hadn’t found Lam’s stock photo of coins in a jar for $30, or $125, it would have found a similar photo for a similar price. If news consumers can’t get their news online for free from their favorite news organization, they’ll find it for free somewhere else.

“…they’ll find it for free somewhere else.”  Amen.