Who's talking about whom?

In discussions with people who view the media climate as being a binary between big media and bloggers, many times the exclamation rises, "Well, if MSM didn't exist what would bloggers talk about? All they do is talk about 'real media' stories."

But how the tables have turned.

The last couple of weeks across the US and Australia has seen a great rise in MSM's coverage of 'normal' citizens production of content on new media channels. Blogs, yes. But beyond that, social media is rising to take over. There seems to be stories in MSM covering content produced on Twitter, Ustream, 12seconds every single day.

The Sydney Morning Herald's front page online today features a home invasion with details simply drawn from Twitter and UStream. Yes, when you open it you end up in the tech section - but it is firstly listed on the front page.

The New York Times had a great piece recently on how traditional media 'personalities' were taking up Twitter.

But all MSM reports have been very much along the lines of "we don't know how this inane stuff involves so many people, but hey, it does." MSM reporters are challenged by social media. They know it's a space they need to be in, and report about, but they're not really confident with doing either of those things.

Real life celebrities such as Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, Stephen Fry and (ex-model) Kathy Ireland are getting into Web 2.0 and actually talking directly to real, ordinary people. MSM is suddenly no longer needed to give a broadcast audience celebrity gossip. Why bother when I can watch Demi's recent photo shoot for Helena Rubenstein courtesy of her husband's Qik stream? It's authentic. It's credible. It's straight from them!

So tell me again. Who's talking about whom?

An exciting time for journalism

The print edition of the Rocky Mountain News has hit the newsstands for the last time. It's no secret that I have little time for those who are crying over the death of print. In fact, I believe that journalism has never had better opportunities than right now.The money in media has not just 'disappeared'. It's still there. The only difference is that now the playing field is opened up and the best will get their hands on the dollars - instead of it being limited to the few who could afford the cushioning luxury of an established masthead.

If established mastheads had moved effectively online, then their brands would survive. I firmly believe that in any business if the market likes your product then you survive. And media are no different. Do a good job, meet market need, and you survive.

The Rocky tried to go online, but all they did was degrade the quality and credibility of their brand in the process. They did a Web 1.0 operation and faked a bit of Web 2.0 by including unmoderated reader comments on everything from murders to the weather. The Rocky added absolutely nothing to the print edition by going online. All they did was further deplete the paid for market.

And that's not a bad thing. Print newspapers are about the most environmentally unsound yet 'accepted' standard thing here in Colorado. I find it completely ridiculous that there are environmental reporters who are crying over the death of the newspaper. But I digress... (as usual)

The Rocky Mountain News online masthead is still up for sale, along with its archives. And it's the only thing that would be worth buying anyway. So if I had the money, this is what I'd do:

1. Spend money on a relaunch of the Rocky online. Brand it as the community news source it built its reputation on.

2a. Run a couple of workshops for the public on how to be a part of the new Rocky, including how to contribute stories (in either text, video, audio or all of them).

2b. Invite the community to contribute news stories to be edited and considered for publication.

3. Vet the contributions as they come in, and invite contributors to make adjustments as needed.

4. Invite the most vocal, opinionated people to write regular paid columns.

5. Trawl the web to add value to the articles posted (and aim to do it with every story) - by linking to relevant educational sites, background info, interactive elements, etc. This includes other newspapers/sources. It means journalism really gets to be transparent, credible, authentic. You know, all that stuff it should always have been.

I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm purple in the face - the future of journalism is social. And involving the community to contribute to their own news source means democracy and the essential recommendations of the Hutchins Commission in the 1940s will be enabled far better than it ever was before.

That's why this is an exciting time for journalism. The only sobbing I'm doing is over the traditional journalists that don't see it.

MSM forgets what sets it apart

The Rocky Mountain News has taken a lot of my attention this week. Primarily because it is one of the first MSM outlets which I've come across attempting to incorporate a greater range of Web 2.0 usage as part of its general reporting effort.

Virtually all MSM now features online sites with reader polls and reader comments. Those have their own incredible issues which are related, but I won't delve into here.

However, the RMN decided to incorporate a Twitter-feed as part of its news service, on the front page of its online issue wednesday this week. And the story they covered? The funeral of a 3-year old boy who was killed by accident while at an ice-cream store.

The result of running this piece was that the RMN was brought to task by The Poynter Institute, its own readers and other media over two things.

Firstly, the appropriateness of using the 'tool' of Twitter at a funeral. A child's funeral. Well, you know what? They didn't really use Twitter. They might as well have video taped it (oh, actually they did that too) because while Twitter is a social networking tool, the RMN (like all other MSM) only use it for broadcast purposes - there was no conversation going on. The RMN, like all other MSM, simply doesn't 'get' Twitter. If you'd like a metaphor, it's the same as if the telephone was invented and the RMN called you and said stuff, then hung up. No interaction. The RMN still sees the potential of Web 2.0 as tired old Web 1.0. MSM uses Web 2.0 with an 'it doesn't really count, it's just a bit of fluff' attitude. And that's why the brains of MSM, with all its years of journalistic experience, is failing in the 21st century.

But the more important issue is the content.

The editor of the RMN responded to the outrage caused by his decision to run the Twitter feed. His excuse was basically "Well, we're struggling with this new technology stuff, and we had permission."

FAIL

'Struggle' away. However, I have listened to many MSM journalists describe the difference between them and bloggers. This usually comes down to 'We are professionals'. Tack onto that other qualifiers like "We've been doing this for xx years" and "All bloggers do is write about us anyway, so if we disappeared then what would be left?"

Well apologies if this seems harsh, but guess what the bloggers are writing about? What a crap job you 'professional' journalists are doing. How unbalanced, biased, ignorant you have become.

And if you are 'professional', then how about reading through your Code of Ethics a few times? Hell, why not stick it up on the wall to remind yourselves what you're trying to do? What it is that sets you apart from bloggers?

I sincerely believe that the Code of Ethics is the one thing - the touchstone - that journalists have to rely on.

In Australia we have a Code of Ethics which compels the professional journalist to "resist the compulsion to intrude." (Let's leave aside the fact that the Code isn't found on the first page of the MEAA's website... if fact, it involves lots of clicking to get to it.) Even though the RMN had permission to report the funeral, it wasn't the right thing to do using the words, images and portrayal you did. It was incredibly biased and the resulting feeling in the audience was one where you grew a moral panic about the 'illegal immigrant' who caused the accident. (Demonstrated by the reader comments.)

The USA's code as stated by the Society of Professional Journalists, is even more clear. It states, flat out "Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiousity." The RMN didn't do that. In the words of one reader's response; 'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

If you are to be professional journalists, behind every struggle, whether it is over the use of technology or the content you create on that technology, you should stand true to your professional Code of Ethics.

If not, a blog awaits.

Blogs offer no scope for the serious writer?

In preparation for our move to the USA I've been cleaning out my books.

I've come across one I picked up years ago in a second-hand bookstore for the bargain price of $2.50, called 'Writing for Television' by Arthur Swinson. The book was published in London in 1955 - yep, when TV was but a babe.

[caption id="attachment_23" align="alignleft" width="127" caption="Published 1955"][/caption]

The first paragraph of the book's Foreward features the sentence, "...so far, in this country, no book has been written to my knowledge, seriously attempting to analyse [television's] nature or to assess its impact. No full-length investigation has been carried out on the question of whether it is merely a new method of disseminating information or, in some aspects, a new artistic medium."

Parallels? I thought. And yes, there were lots.

Certainly, there's a parallel between this take on television and traditional media's embracing of online around the year 2000 - repurposing content from print formats for the web, in the same way radio and theatre scriptwriters wrote for television consumption in the 1950s.

[caption id="attachment_24" align="alignright" width="127" caption="A true medium for the serious writer?"][/caption]

An even more familiar resonance, however, is explored in Chapter 1: 'The Nature of Television: Is it a True Medium for the Writer?' Here Swinson considers whether television is a "cold, mechanical medium" (p.2) because it lacked a live audience. Swinson reveals his television writing colleagues believed television wasn't as good a medium because there was no feedback, no response. There was "no thrill" compared with live theatre.

What a surprise. Writers who were used to writing for theatre and were now trying to write for television found the new medium unsatisfactory. They say "it offers no scope for the serious writer." (p.4)

In his book, Swinson disagrees with them and believes television has promise of being an incredibly impactful medium becasuse of the sheer size of audience it can reach. However he still considers television only as being a new medium to deliver the same content already being produced (in radio or theatre), simply to a wider audience.

A format shift.

Of course we now know that television is a medium unlike any other. In it's relatively short existence compared to other formats it's had an unprecedented role in society. And what we see on our 'boxes' looks very different to what first appeared in the 1950s. Television grew up.

And that's the same mistake many traditional media outlets are making with the 'growing up' of online. At first, re-purposing content for online was satisfying enough. But that was the infancy of online media. And it's not what it looks like today.

Online media has opened the doors to all sorts of writers. Swinson quotes Hemingway in saying "there is all the difference in the world between a serious writer and a solemn writer - and a good many of the solemn category work under the delusion they belong to the serious."

Could traditional media journalists, in their dismissive, "we've had a masthead for xx years and know what we're doing" pouting attitude to non-masthead bloggers perhaps be reflective of the solemn rather than the serious?

I'll invite you to consider Swinson's words on page 6 (see, we didn't have to read much of his book, did we?) to conclude:

Let us say that such a man is one who writes not only to entertain or tell a story, but because there is something definite he wants to say; who employs whatever medium he choses (sic) on the highest level his powers will allow him.

Swinson, a man before his time, could just have easily been writing about blogs.