Sometimes I wonder what planet I’m from because I just don’t get things other Earthlings claim. Some of what follows I agree with, but a most of them raise, not just red flags but, huge, fluorescent-colored WTF flags. I’ve emboldenededed, and added numbers for the ones I disagree with.
Found via stoweboyd:
Changing Journalism, Changing Reuters
David Schlesinger, EIC of Reuters News
The rules of today’s journalistic world are these:
Knowing the story is not enough.
Telling the story is only the beginning.
The conversation about the story is as important as the story itself.
The more you try to be paternalistic and authoritative, the less people will believe you. (1)
The more you cede control to your audience, the more people will respect you (2)
The more you embrace new technology as a platform, the more your ideas will compete. (3)
The more you abandon the faceless and characterless, the more you can set the agenda (4)
The more you look beyond the story for connections, the more value you will have.
And if you have value and no one else does, you will get paid. (5)
Simple? No.
But it is exciting and transforming. (6)
1) The more you try to be paternalistic and authoritative, the less people will believe you. Yeah, that Glenn Beck is going nowhere FAST!
2) The more you cede control to your audience, the more people will respect you Really? Is that why Rick Sanchez is loved my millions? Oh wait, he’s not. For giving an entire show over to Twitter, he made himself a joke. Aside from Sanchez, it’s pretty obvious that people like to be told what to do (see point 1). Giving control over to people only sounds good on paper—in reality, no one needs *more* options. We have too much to think about as it is. We need BETTER options—hence, the whole “going beyond the story” thing makes perfect sense to me.
3) The more you embrace new technology as a platform, the more your ideas will compete. This may or may not be true. I don’t see any obvious evidence of this. The porn industry is always fast to adopt new technology, but I’ve been hearing they’re suffering just as much as everyone else these days and I’m pretty sure you can’t accuse them of not embracing the Internet when it first started to go mainstream (unlike everyone else in mainstream media).
4) The more you abandon the faceless and characterless, the more you can set the agenda I don’t even know what this means. I see zero connection between being faceless and not being able to set the agenda. This is what I hate about lists like this—no context, little explanation (guys, see the first few points ON YOUR OWN LIST to know what I’m talking about).
5) And if you have value and no one else does, you will get paid. Uh-huh. So value is something easily recognized, is it? Is that why there are so many amazing films coming out of Hollywood every year? Is that why for decades TV had the unflattering nickname of “the boob tube”. I see very few truly valuable shows/movies/news reports being produced these days.
The problem is that we’ve got two different definitions of “value” here. The list claims “The more you look beyond the story for connections, the more value you will have.” which makes perfect sense—but ONLY if you’re defining a “valuable story” as a deep, well-researched story. The catch? That’s not the definition the business world uses. The business world wants sensational articles that will get people to buy magazines or click links. That’s the definition of “value” to business. So, there’s a disconnect here between what the list claims and what the reality is. It’s almost as though the person that wrote the list didn’t bother GOING BEYOND THE STORY. >_<
6) But it is exciting and transforming. Seriously? No it’s not. It’s how journalism should have always been done and the only reason it isn’t is because we’re all in it for a buck. Jeez-Lou-eez, guys? How does this stuff get reposted and quoted when it’s so obviously full of holes?
I mean, here’s a list of crap that journalists are supposed to do that is “exciting and transforming” and isn’t simple. Yet, it is pretty simple. So simple, the guy that wrote it couldn’t be bothered to follow the very rules he was laying down and THINK about some of his claims before speaking them aloud.
Just because you consider yourself a liberal or a progressive doesn’t make you any less responsible for your words. Just because you quote other liberals or progressives (or whatever they’re called) doesn’t mean they’re always right or that you don’t need to question everything they say—even if it sounds good to you (at first).
These “rules” are sadly just wishful thinking. Hell, they might be the real reason why newspapers are failing. Maybe we should reinvent journalism to the point where serious journalists get paid with our taxes.
Or, maybe, we consumers need to stop paying for such stupid shit in the first place.
