Journalism as we know it is changing. Rapidly.
I’m not nor have I ever been a reporter or worked for a media company, so take my commentary with that in mind. But if I can see and feel the seismic shift that’s happening – and none too prettily – something must be up.
Perhaps folks like Ike Pigott and Dave Fleet are sending me brain waves or something. Both of their pieces from this week were insightful and interesting. What Ike wrote about – embedded journalism but in the business world – is kind of related to what I think needs to happen next.
When the earthquake hit California earlier this week, Twitter was right on it, as usual. Within the hour, CNN was reporting on the quake, but oddly enough they were reading off the tweets.
They were, quite simply, late. And unoriginal.
Why? Because the current model of journalism just doesn’t have the presence and immediacy you need to report like Twitter did. So CNN just borrowed the best, most relevant, most instant information available. And it wasn’t theirs.
Perhaps we need to be looking at a new kind of immediate stringer, reporters made up of an immediate and present network of correspondents that are on the ground AND already embedded in the social networks themselves. It’s more than just citizen journalism I’m talking about here, I’m talking about ways to make the presence networks more concrete and officially part of the media.
It’s social networks instead of network affiliations. Journalism based on relevance, immediacy, and context. Being part of the news instead of reacting to it and just regurgitating it.
There’s lots of messiness inherent here. It’s decentralized and situational. And while social networks might carry underpinnings of familiarity and trust, there’s also the potential for chaos. Who moderates? How much?
Maybe that’s a step toward what we need?
I don’t have the answers. Like you, I’m exploring. But I was struck particularly how the lag time between what happens around us because of today’s communication, and how the original media model has been built (and to me, is now sadly irrelevant, fluffy, and almost becoming a caricature of itself).
Stuff is going to crumble, and I’m increasingly curious about how the news media as we know it will rise from the ashes. If it does.
What are you thinking and feeling as you watch how today’s news media reacts to what happens? Will the bridge of the early adopters make it over to the stalwarts to whom the mainstream model is still what they know? I’m curious about what’s on your mind, and if you’re seeing what I’m seeing.
Hey Amber,
I wrote about this a couple of years ago (ironically, for a magazine that never published the article online).
I think if modern news-gathering organizations are going to survive (and I really hope they do), they have to get past this first-on-the-scene mindset that has come to define successful journalism.
Getting the ‘scoop’ made sense in a more relaxed news cycle. You could still get the complete(ish) story and be first on the newsstands, with a whole day before your competitors could react.
That sense of competition has continued even as the media themselves have changed. Now there is so much pressure to get the scoop that the very things that separate professional journalists from the pack – an eye for detail, understanding of context, desire to be objective etc. – get tossed aside in favour of immediacy.
So a quake happens in Baja. People on Twitter scoop CNN. With what? News that the quake happened? So what?
What about numbers of dead?
What about cost of damage to buildings?
It’s this context that social media haven’t quite mastered yet. That’s the niche that professional journalists should be filling. Stop trying to tell the story first, tell it best. Take the time to analyze and add context that makes the story meaningful beyond the eyewitness accounts.
.-= Joe Boughner´s last blog ..Trying to do something good =-.
Hey Amber,
I wrote about this a couple of years ago (ironically, for a magazine that never published the article online).
I think if modern news-gathering organizations are going to survive (and I really hope they do), they have to get past this first-on-the-scene mindset that has come to define successful journalism.
Getting the ‘scoop’ made sense in a more relaxed news cycle. You could still get the complete(ish) story and be first on the newsstands, with a whole day before your competitors could react.
That sense of competition has continued even as the media themselves have changed. Now there is so much pressure to get the scoop that the very things that separate professional journalists from the pack – an eye for detail, understanding of context, desire to be objective etc. – get tossed aside in favour of immediacy.
So a quake happens in Baja. People on Twitter scoop CNN. With what? News that the quake happened? So what?
What about numbers of dead?
What about cost of damage to buildings?
It’s this context that social media haven’t quite mastered yet. That’s the niche that professional journalists should be filling. Stop trying to tell the story first, tell it best. Take the time to analyze and add context that makes the story meaningful beyond the eyewitness accounts.
.-= Joe Boughner´s last blog ..Trying to do something good =-.
I think this is completely true. But I think there needs to be a distinction between news reporting and news analysis. Reporting the news can be done by anyone who is in the right place at the right time. Social media allows anyone to publish anything at anytime. And this of course means that many journalists will be out of jobs. But news analysis requires an understanding and a skill set that social media can only amplify, not create. We may go to our social networks for news reporting, but for news analysis we will still go to the professionals.
This is certainly a change, and for media, it’s a change that needs to be acknowledged and accepted.
Thanks for the read.
Eric
.-= Eric´s last blog ..The #1 exercise every social media strategist must do =-.
I think this is completely true. But I think there needs to be a distinction between news reporting and news analysis. Reporting the news can be done by anyone who is in the right place at the right time. Social media allows anyone to publish anything at anytime. And this of course means that many journalists will be out of jobs. But news analysis requires an understanding and a skill set that social media can only amplify, not create. We may go to our social networks for news reporting, but for news analysis we will still go to the professionals.
This is certainly a change, and for media, it’s a change that needs to be acknowledged and accepted.
Thanks for the read.
Eric
.-= Eric´s last blog ..The #1 exercise every social media strategist must do =-.
Interesting points Amber, especially about being part of the news. What I disagree with, however, is the broad assumption that all news is regurgitated. Journalists often have access that is not afforded the Rogue Social ‘Reporter’ and not all news is immediate. I think that we need to bridge the gap between what journalism can do well and can’t do well, rather than assuming that a totally new model is needed. And credibility/vetting are huge. What I see lacking in Twitter ‘reporting’ is that vetting process. There’s an inherent danger in adoption without structure.
.-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..It’s about time…weight, that is =-.
Interesting points Amber, especially about being part of the news. What I disagree with, however, is the broad assumption that all news is regurgitated. Journalists often have access that is not afforded the Rogue Social ‘Reporter’ and not all news is immediate. I think that we need to bridge the gap between what journalism can do well and can’t do well, rather than assuming that a totally new model is needed. And credibility/vetting are huge. What I see lacking in Twitter ‘reporting’ is that vetting process. There’s an inherent danger in adoption without structure.
.-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..It’s about time…weight, that is =-.
I think Eric nailed it. I’ve been a reporter for more than 15 years and while anyone can give you “color” or description of what is happening at that moment, and anyone can “break” a story via social networks, someone still has to do analysis about what it means to people, why they should care.
Also, rogue journalism isn’t always accurate. If someone reports via social media that there’s a fire on a California hillside near homes that very well may be true. But because journalists have an obligation to check with sources, they can tell you it was a control burn.
.-= Shelly Cone´s last blog ..Is there such a thing as bad publicity? =-.
I think Eric nailed it. I’ve been a reporter for more than 15 years and while anyone can give you “color” or description of what is happening at that moment, and anyone can “break” a story via social networks, someone still has to do analysis about what it means to people, why they should care.
Also, rogue journalism isn’t always accurate. If someone reports via social media that there’s a fire on a California hillside near homes that very well may be true. But because journalists have an obligation to check with sources, they can tell you it was a control burn.
.-= Shelly Cone´s last blog ..Is there such a thing as bad publicity? =-.
Thoughtful and inspiring as always, Amber. really liked this line:
“It’s social networks instead of network affiliations. Journalism based on relevance, immediacy, and context. Being part of the news instead of reacting to it and just regurgitating it.”
I learned about the earthquake — and also yesterday’s mining tragedy — via Twitter … and also noticed that CNN was showing certain tweets on Sunday when the earthquake struck.
It’s the whole iReporter phenomenon … but with its inherent authenticity, we also run the risk of things not being fact-checked, etc. … it’s a delicate balance.
.-= Melissa´s last blog ..A Tale of Bloat =-.
Thoughtful and inspiring as always, Amber. really liked this line:
“It’s social networks instead of network affiliations. Journalism based on relevance, immediacy, and context. Being part of the news instead of reacting to it and just regurgitating it.”
I learned about the earthquake — and also yesterday’s mining tragedy — via Twitter … and also noticed that CNN was showing certain tweets on Sunday when the earthquake struck.
It’s the whole iReporter phenomenon … but with its inherent authenticity, we also run the risk of things not being fact-checked, etc. … it’s a delicate balance.
.-= Melissa´s last blog ..A Tale of Bloat =-.
Two words: “follow @marshallk” 😉
.-= M. Edward (Ed) Borasky´s last blog ..The ‘????? ???????’ story: Shostakovich, musique concrète, Wikipedia, bullshit and curation =-.
Two words: “follow @marshallk” 😉
.-= M. Edward (Ed) Borasky´s last blog ..The ‘????? ???????’ story: Shostakovich, musique concrète, Wikipedia, bullshit and curation =-.
Chilean earthquake and Hawaiian tsunami? Twitter. Easter earthquake and impact in Palm Desert? Twitter.
I like the real time reports and being able to read several different perspectives. I like getting my news from locals. They are more accurate than a Newsweek reporter who flies in hours or days after the event occurs.
Chilean earthquake and Hawaiian tsunami? Twitter. Easter earthquake and impact in Palm Desert? Twitter.
I like the real time reports and being able to read several different perspectives. I like getting my news from locals. They are more accurate than a Newsweek reporter who flies in hours or days after the event occurs.
This is a topic – that as a politics major – scares the crap out of me because as a society we have increasingly forgotten the difference between reporting events, news, and journalism. Because the business model for the news is broken, news outlets are almost as bad about making this distinction as the general public. But the public votes with its eyeballs so they have, in some ways, more control over the quality of the news that they absorb… and increasingly they care more about sensational singers than they do about what bills are being discussed in Congress. A business model exists for that content which drives eyeballs but not the content that people may need to hear to participate effectively in a democratic society.
Without a free and fair press, I think democracy is at risk. I don’t have the answer but people on Twitter scooping the reporting of an event is the least of our worries IMHO. Public broadcasting seems to be the one ray of light in the mess but even that has issues.
.-= Rachel Happe´s last blog ..Avoiding the Community Clique =-.
This is a topic – that as a politics major – scares the crap out of me because as a society we have increasingly forgotten the difference between reporting events, news, and journalism. Because the business model for the news is broken, news outlets are almost as bad about making this distinction as the general public. But the public votes with its eyeballs so they have, in some ways, more control over the quality of the news that they absorb… and increasingly they care more about sensational singers than they do about what bills are being discussed in Congress. A business model exists for that content which drives eyeballs but not the content that people may need to hear to participate effectively in a democratic society.
Without a free and fair press, I think democracy is at risk. I don’t have the answer but people on Twitter scooping the reporting of an event is the least of our worries IMHO. Public broadcasting seems to be the one ray of light in the mess but even that has issues.
.-= Rachel Happe´s last blog ..Avoiding the Community Clique =-.
I have been saying for 2 years now (albeit, not terribly loudly) that if mainstream media is to survive, it will need a 2-prong approach:
1) to become another portal for relaying the news as it happens on sites such as Twitter for those who are not capable of or desirous of filtering through the rest of the noise to get to the heart of one matter. (Reading relevant tweets? that would be an example)
AND
2) to further what institutions such as the Wall Street Journal have always excelled at: not necessarily being first to the news, but providing an in-depth coverage and analysis after the fact on a caliber not to be found elsewhere.
You may argue that bloggers provide analysis – but honestly? The caliber is seldom as good from those who are hobbyists as it is from those who make something their profession.
“If mainstream media is to survive, it will need a 2-prong approach:
“1) to become another portal for relaying the news as it happens on sites such as Twitter for those who are not capable of or desirous of filtering through the rest of the noise to get to the heart of one matter. (Reading relevant tweets? that would be an example)
“AND
“2) to further what institutions such as the Wall Street Journal have always excelled at: not necessarily being first to the news, but providing an in-depth coverage and analysis after the fact on a caliber not to be found elsewhere.”
I don’t think survival of “mainstream media” is an issue. It’s local media, especially print, that’s at risk. And, I’m guessing, the First Amendment. 🙁
“You may argue that bloggers provide analysis – but honestly? The caliber is seldom as good from those who are hobbyists as it is from those who make something their profession.”
Follow the money. 😉 If you define “hobbyists” as “people who make a comfortable living in a day job and blog out of love” and “professionals” as “people who must spend every waking hour of their day supplicating to advertisers, racing to find and break the latest juicy gossip, trying to predict how fickle consumers will react to the latest shiny object or Internet ‘service’, writing high-priced analysis reports and indulging in constant self-promotion in a crowded marketplace”, then I’ll take the hobbyists, like Ms. Naslund here. 😉
.-= M. Edward (Ed) Borasky´s last blog ..The ‘????? ???????’ story: Shostakovich, musique concrète, Wikipedia, bullshit and curation =-.
I have been saying for 2 years now (albeit, not terribly loudly) that if mainstream media is to survive, it will need a 2-prong approach:
1) to become another portal for relaying the news as it happens on sites such as Twitter for those who are not capable of or desirous of filtering through the rest of the noise to get to the heart of one matter. (Reading relevant tweets? that would be an example)
AND
2) to further what institutions such as the Wall Street Journal have always excelled at: not necessarily being first to the news, but providing an in-depth coverage and analysis after the fact on a caliber not to be found elsewhere.
You may argue that bloggers provide analysis – but honestly? The caliber is seldom as good from those who are hobbyists as it is from those who make something their profession.
“If mainstream media is to survive, it will need a 2-prong approach:
“1) to become another portal for relaying the news as it happens on sites such as Twitter for those who are not capable of or desirous of filtering through the rest of the noise to get to the heart of one matter. (Reading relevant tweets? that would be an example)
“AND
“2) to further what institutions such as the Wall Street Journal have always excelled at: not necessarily being first to the news, but providing an in-depth coverage and analysis after the fact on a caliber not to be found elsewhere.”
I don’t think survival of “mainstream media” is an issue. It’s local media, especially print, that’s at risk. And, I’m guessing, the First Amendment. 🙁
“You may argue that bloggers provide analysis – but honestly? The caliber is seldom as good from those who are hobbyists as it is from those who make something their profession.”
Follow the money. 😉 If you define “hobbyists” as “people who make a comfortable living in a day job and blog out of love” and “professionals” as “people who must spend every waking hour of their day supplicating to advertisers, racing to find and break the latest juicy gossip, trying to predict how fickle consumers will react to the latest shiny object or Internet ‘service’, writing high-priced analysis reports and indulging in constant self-promotion in a crowded marketplace”, then I’ll take the hobbyists, like Ms. Naslund here. 😉
.-= M. Edward (Ed) Borasky´s last blog ..The ‘????? ???????’ story: Shostakovich, musique concrète, Wikipedia, bullshit and curation =-.
It is also funny that media are busy erecting paywalls to keep people from seeing their content without paying. How does crowdsourced news fit into the equation?
If media are increasingly coming to rely on local citizen reporters and public information flows, where’s the argument for chargeable content?
It is also funny that media are busy erecting paywalls to keep people from seeing their content without paying. How does crowdsourced news fit into the equation?
If media are increasingly coming to rely on local citizen reporters and public information flows, where’s the argument for chargeable content?
I think this idea has more power than we realize – especially with the growth of Gen Z – the iGeneration – for whom everything is immediate, or uninspiring.
Take my son. He’s three in June. I started reading him to sleep, and that lasted all of two days – now, what works is stories, immediate and detailed, about just about anything. Australia. My day. Cats. It doesn’t matter, it’s better than a book – and he’s three.
Citizen journalism and hyperlocal don’t describe enough of what the real thing may feel like. Presence media certainly does.
.-= Ian M Rountree´s last blog ..What I said to Mitch Joel about Engagement =-.
I think this idea has more power than we realize – especially with the growth of Gen Z – the iGeneration – for whom everything is immediate, or uninspiring.
Take my son. He’s three in June. I started reading him to sleep, and that lasted all of two days – now, what works is stories, immediate and detailed, about just about anything. Australia. My day. Cats. It doesn’t matter, it’s better than a book – and he’s three.
Citizen journalism and hyperlocal don’t describe enough of what the real thing may feel like. Presence media certainly does.
.-= Ian M Rountree´s last blog ..What I said to Mitch Joel about Engagement =-.
IMHO, Ian’s point about presence really nails it. No question, the real-time Web is going to win out the first on scene battle – being in the monitoring business, we see this work particularly well when using sites like Twitter as a sort of early detection system.
Where the real-time social Web can’t compete is in providing the depth of coverage. There is an undeniable aspect of turning to mainstream news for the “real thing.” At best, Twitter posts can contain text and some static images. Maybe even a link to an amateur video posted on YouTube. But the disconnect is likely to be characterized by short, character limited, frantic piecing together of brief chat streams (which I hesitate to depict as conversation or dialogue) in a format which isn’t really suited to provide the quality and breadth of coverage the way a TV anchor, camera crew and on site reporter can.
Ultimately (and similar to Lucretia’s comment), where I can see the two forces colliding (and rather brilliantly) is if mainstream media becomes the hub – allowing rogue reporters to beam up their content in a real-time manner, using telepresence, scaled down for Web videoconferencing, and a broader range of online media tools that build around the current real-time reporting model. Just much faster, better quality, structured, brand of made to order reporting experience that feels immediate and real.
I’m not sure how well this alternate reporting future bodes with the current paywall model, but the Twitter-based evidence would seem to suggest there is certainly plenty of exuberance to go around, and lack of expertise hasn’t interfered with people’s infatuation for being “first” to break a story.
Joseph
@RepuTrack
.-= Joseph Fiore´s last blog ..Reputation Standoff – Reputations Do Matter =-.
IMHO, Ian’s point about presence really nails it. No question, the real-time Web is going to win out the first on scene battle – being in the monitoring business, we see this work particularly well when using sites like Twitter as a sort of early detection system.
Where the real-time social Web can’t compete is in providing the depth of coverage. There is an undeniable aspect of turning to mainstream news for the “real thing.” At best, Twitter posts can contain text and some static images. Maybe even a link to an amateur video posted on YouTube. But the disconnect is likely to be characterized by short, character limited, frantic piecing together of brief chat streams (which I hesitate to depict as conversation or dialogue) in a format which isn’t really suited to provide the quality and breadth of coverage the way a TV anchor, camera crew and on site reporter can.
Ultimately (and similar to Lucretia’s comment), where I can see the two forces colliding (and rather brilliantly) is if mainstream media becomes the hub – allowing rogue reporters to beam up their content in a real-time manner, using telepresence, scaled down for Web videoconferencing, and a broader range of online media tools that build around the current real-time reporting model. Just much faster, better quality, structured, brand of made to order reporting experience that feels immediate and real.
I’m not sure how well this alternate reporting future bodes with the current paywall model, but the Twitter-based evidence would seem to suggest there is certainly plenty of exuberance to go around, and lack of expertise hasn’t interfered with people’s infatuation for being “first” to break a story.
Joseph
@RepuTrack
.-= Joseph Fiore´s last blog ..Reputation Standoff – Reputations Do Matter =-.
While I think Twitter and other social media sites are often good at getting the news out in real time, it often lacks the facts and the full story. That’s where news organizations come in. They should and can develop the 140 characters into a real news story with the who, what, where and how. The potential sources are there. I think Twitter is more of breaking wind than breaking news at times.
.-= Ann Marie van den Hurk APR´s last blog ..Getting Your Website to Work for Your Small Business =-.
While I think Twitter and other social media sites are often good at getting the news out in real time, it often lacks the facts and the full story. That’s where news organizations come in. They should and can develop the 140 characters into a real news story with the who, what, where and how. The potential sources are there. I think Twitter is more of breaking wind than breaking news at times.
.-= Ann Marie van den Hurk APR´s last blog ..Getting Your Website to Work for Your Small Business =-.
I definitely agree that the traditional news media are late to the game now when immediate news like an earthquake happens. But what is missing from this citizen journalist model is accuracy. Now granted, in a crisis situation, news changes and accuracy is dependent on that particular moment. But there still needs to be some integrity and ethical considerations if our news media and others rely on social media as their sources.
I definitely agree that the traditional news media are late to the game now when immediate news like an earthquake happens. But what is missing from this citizen journalist model is accuracy. Now granted, in a crisis situation, news changes and accuracy is dependent on that particular moment. But there still needs to be some integrity and ethical considerations if our news media and others rely on social media as their sources.
Media. What was the main purpose of it. It was to broadcast to the world cases of what was happening in a time where broadcasting was insanely difficult and expensive. Now that this isn’t I see reporting as something that can be done by someone with a little training and the ability to broadcast from anywhere. Having said that reporting can be done by anyone with a flip cam, iPhone, laptop and an internet connection. This is why efforts like iReport and many others are better than usual media to inform about breaking news around the world.
As far as who will curate this content on the internet, I think it will be a great business opportunity to develop various models of curating. Niche sites, crowd curated sites and many other models will emerge and fit in different needs on the general public.
On the other end there is journalism as a analysis profession. In this case I see professional journalists still being valuable in sharing their opinions and moderating the debates between opposing point of views. So the future of journalism is more in analysis than in reporting. Reporting just became plain vanilla and will be even more in the future. So old media organizations (as monstrously big as they are) are to be engineered into lean networks of people with less assets and just assuring that the quality of the debate and opinions held in that specific company are of quality for users to care to pay attention to.
.-= Jorge´s last blog ..If you want to meet your objectives, make your product useful. =-.
Media. What was the main purpose of it. It was to broadcast to the world cases of what was happening in a time where broadcasting was insanely difficult and expensive. Now that this isn’t I see reporting as something that can be done by someone with a little training and the ability to broadcast from anywhere. Having said that reporting can be done by anyone with a flip cam, iPhone, laptop and an internet connection. This is why efforts like iReport and many others are better than usual media to inform about breaking news around the world.
As far as who will curate this content on the internet, I think it will be a great business opportunity to develop various models of curating. Niche sites, crowd curated sites and many other models will emerge and fit in different needs on the general public.
On the other end there is journalism as a analysis profession. In this case I see professional journalists still being valuable in sharing their opinions and moderating the debates between opposing point of views. So the future of journalism is more in analysis than in reporting. Reporting just became plain vanilla and will be even more in the future. So old media organizations (as monstrously big as they are) are to be engineered into lean networks of people with less assets and just assuring that the quality of the debate and opinions held in that specific company are of quality for users to care to pay attention to.
.-= Jorge´s last blog ..If you want to meet your objectives, make your product useful. =-.