Comments on: Why It’s a Good Time to Go Into Journalism

By: Jessica Roberts

Jessica Roberts — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:08:53 +0000

The one thing that hasn’t been discussed is that perhaps traditional journalism is dying because it is completely and totally boring. Few other communication methods have remained static as say, TV news. A comparison between Walter Cronkite and Katie Couric will show more similarities in structure than differences. Talk, talk, serious, serious: clip from correspondent. Repeat. The formula taught to every journalism student makes for an easy, quick “package” but fails to inspire or really even inform. The processed stories served as rich and insightful commentary are insulting; the audiences know the difference between K-rations and a creative, gourmet steak dinner.

The mythic “creative class” so exalted in the early 00s doesn’t want to watch or read the same, boring junk. They expect their media counterparts to be as inventive, creative and passionate as they must be in their own professions. The fact that comedian John Stewart is considered “the most trusted newsman” should be a neon sign reading: “Keep it Interesting, Stupid.”

I can’t begin to agree more with the sentiment: “Journalism needs you. It needs someone who can bring a fresh approach without the baggage that burdened earlier generations.” Having sat through two years of Journalism school listening to my ‘elders’ lament the death of journalism, my tolerance for moaning is extremely low . The “inability to put the readers first” has killed newspapers. If readers don’t see themselves in the paper, they won’t connect and move to other news sources. A sea change is required because incremental updates were systematically denied.

It’s refreshing to hear others tout the tremendous opportunity afforded a new generation of journalists. We can become modern counterparts to the brave editors who created newspapers one hundred years ago. America loves stories of re-building from the ashes. The innovations of a new generation, armed with new story telling techniques, will create new readers, new confidence in advertising, and a new structure for keeping content relevant and necessary. Perhaps this downfall will keep us closer to the true reason for news: the audience. I’m an optimist. There is more content being created now than ever in the history of the world and higher literacy rates than humanity has ever known. You can’t tell me that there isn’t a way to make a profit.

As Briggs says: “Whether you end up working for a newspaper, magazine, TV station or Internet start-up, you will have the opportunity – make that responsibility – to do things differently.”

By: James Taylor

James Taylor — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:54:58 +0000

The fact that the NewsHour has built a credible news “brand” and therefore a large audience is something that allows them to eschew the traditional means of revenue generation, but, is there going to be a dearth of journalistic talent following these years of diminishing news revenue? It seems there are many journalists in a graduate program like MCDM because they have lost their news jobs. They are in the program to learn how they can be a part of the new monetization of news, but what about the incoming undergrad students? I believe it is imperative now for undergrad programs to focus not only on how and what to report, but how to get paid for that reporting. It is no longer going to be good enough to effectively create and tell stories that need to be told. I hope our traditional ways of teaching undergrads at university journalism will start to incorporate the evolving monetization. If not, I fear in the short term, college students will decide that journalism is a dead enterprise, and therefore should not be studied. This would be the ultimate problem with our current situation.

By: Mary Perkins

Mary Perkins — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:19:13 +0000

I agree with most of the commenters here, in that the one thing missing from the equation is a viable business plan. Competing with all of the free resources on the web just isn’t sustainable. That’s why I believe the future of news lies (as those above have said) in the non-profit realm. A great example of how business partnerships can work with non-profits is in public television. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS just had a major overhaul of its brand and site. They’ve beefed up their online presence and integrated it into their newsroom. They are still a non-profit (with federal assistance), and rely on business partnerships for the majority of their funding. They are able to do this because of the integrity of the brand, something that I think hyper-local blogs and smaller news orgs. might have a harder time doing. On the other hand, part of the NewsHour’s new strategy involves partnerships with these smaller, localized news orgs. Maybe the future of journalism can work around this model, with larger non-profits receiving the majority of the major grants, and smaller orgs. partnering with them for more in-depth localized coverage.

Here’s a link to a preview of the new NewsHour rollout:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec09/pbsnewshour_12-04.html

By: Stephen Brashear

Stephen Brashear — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:29:31 +0000

It’s a great time to go into journalism if you are independently wealthy, have a lot of free time on your hands or your creditors accept bylines and/or photo credits as payment. Journalism, which by-and-large, never paid well, is paying even less when it pays at all.

I agree, in the long run, the upheaval in the journalism industry is no doubt forcing changes, which should have been made long ago. However, the business model if far from complete or even sustainable. There are still far more J-School graduates than there are jobs for them, which favors employers. Is Hyperlocal a viable business model? Right now it seems to be viable, but how viable will it be when as more and more Hyperlocal and psuedo-Hyperlocal competitors pop up and compete for advertising on Hyperlocal sites that once had very little competition? How long before volunteer newsgathering declines in popularity? Will volunteer journalists disappear in the same way that contributors to Wikipedia have disappeared? I realize that there could be other reasons for the decline in Wikipedia contributors. I think we will strike a balance with new that is produced by professional journalists and that produced by volunteer journalists. Right now, the pendulum has swung toward the Hyperlocal/volunteer model. When the pendulum swings back, it could be that volunteers free up the professional journalists from the daily grind to pursue more in-depth journalism, that many news organizations abandoned while desperately trying maintain profit margins by cutting staff.

The low cost of entry made possible by the Internet has no doubt led to the current state of journalism (and other industries as well). There is a glut of volunteer and citizen-journalists producing content for news organizations. Put aside the ethical issues of having a volunteer report on news in which they were involved or in which they might have a stake, some of the content good and some of it is bad. I would imagine that it mirrors YouTube in that ninety-nine percent of the content uploaded to YouTube is garbage. With a few exceptions, the most-viewed content is produced by professionals. Furthermore, YouTube pays for some professionally produced content, next to which advertisement can be placed.

Ultimately, the fate of professional journalism will rest in the ability to find a business model that monetizes content or subsidizes it. While news organizations will not be able to charge for all content, it needs to figure out for which content people will eventually pay. I think paying for proprietary content will be a learned behavior. It’s something that news organizations should have started long ago, but they were content and shortsighted as the clung to their almost advertising-only revenue model. Quality content will not remain free (really isn’t free now). It may be right now, but it won’t always to be. Hulu has already said. YouTube has yet to make any money for Google and Twitter continue to get money with no clear model on how it will monetize the application.

There is a place and there is money for professional journalists. Perhaps, there won’t be as many professional journalists before. But fewer journalists have more powerful tools. And for now they have an army of volunteer and citizen-journalists, which could be a great resource. Now is a great time to go into journalism if you want to be at the forefront of a massive paradigm shift, but you should also be prepared to be poor, unless you idea is so good that you can get someone to invest in it.

By: Katherine Turner

Katherine Turner — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:58:56 +0000

Journalism is not dead, but it has been transformed. In Briggs opinion, this should inspire hope.

Digital technologies are not only enabling millions of writers across the globe to publish their work online at little to no cost, but are also making it easier than ever for the companies who would typically pay for professional content to gain access to this work for free.

How can professional journalists compete against free? Journalism isn’t the only profession struggling in a new digital landscape, the same is true for photographers. Before the rise of the Internet part of the reason professional photographers were able to charge a livable wage for their photographs was scarcity. Access to high quality photographs was limited. Websites such as Flickr have changed that.

The question that remains from this article does not pertain solely to journalism. No matter how “bright” the future may be, how are all professional content creators supposed to make a living competing in a marketplace where free is the going rate?

By: shane

shane — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:54:37 +0000

I think I would change the title – It’s a good time to be an entrepreneurial journalist. With more tools, more competition and fewer barriers to entry, the sad and hard thing to take is that the best writers and journalists will not necessarily win. It’s those who can find their niche and market themselves better.

With the previous model, those who showed promise could be nurtured in a large organization. With those large organizations failing, and the price of failure dropping to almost zero, those who can sell themselves and their services will be successful.

The one thing I completely agree with is that the market for journalism, good writing and good content is growing at a fantastic rate. But, as much as we all love the idea of altruistic groups working together for social capital like in Wikipedia – bills still need to be paid and good journalism takes time to complete.

I think the best reason to be optimistic is that everyone in the journalism game now, if they can survive this disruption, will be able to have a say in what journalism is in the future. Those with the talent and perseverance will be able to mold the future of journalism and reporting, and that is something to be excited about.

By: Priti

Priti — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:17:30 +0000

“Technology, political and hyperlocal news sites have been the first to find success by starting small and concentrating on a very specific topic.” This quote really caught my attention and got me wondering about the perception of trade/B2B publications in the world of journalism. Would a position at very narrowly focused trade journal provide a viable alternative for journalists who envisioned a career at a major metropolitan newspaper or other mass media outlet? I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the journalists in our program.

By: Rose Egge

Rose Egge — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:45:03 +0000

Did anyone else just breath a sigh of relief?
I found this article so refreshing, and, even better, spot on.
Brigg’s point that the demand for journalism has not diminished is so essential. It is why I continue in my profession rather than throwing in the towel, moving to Woodinville and pouring wine for a living. It is human nature to crave knowledge, and that’s not going to change. It is the means by which people want to receive information that develops. Just because the public is reading less does not mean they don’t want to hear stories.
What’s even more important? His notion that journalism is moving towards “bottom up” models. This is where those of us trained in traditional journalism have to learn. It was nice when I was working for a newspaper where everything I wrote was edited by multiple eyes before publication. There was a safety net in that. But there was also something lost in that control. Speed for sure. Plus input, the consumer experience and transparency.
Now, with this idea of bottom up we’re showing more interest in what the consumer wants. It’s more conversational so the user can develop a deeper experience. I really believe that this is going to lead us to richer, more valuable journalism.
I am lucky to work in some of the subject-specific sites he recommends, the hyper-local. So I understand that this is truly a time for experimenting and I feel energized by Brigg’s suggestion that we are just what journalism needs. Because we are new, open to change and above all innovative. I consider this new frontier a challenge, one I am happy to take on. Briggs is right. We should be excited.
But out of all this, I think his most important statement lies here: “Change is inevitable, but progress is optional.”