This is the first in a series of rants/internal debates occasioned by a challenging project I am starting. It is a way for me to put down ideas I will need to refine as the project progresses. These are unfinished thoughts but represent my thinking at the moment of writing. I welcome input, critical or positive.
I am in the process of starting a skills upgrade in digital journalism (for want of a better term) for one of Sweden's major newspapers.
I will be giving a number of "inspirational" talks, a series of hands-on practical workshops and being an "on-call" research problem solver.
As is so often the case there is a huge spread of knowledge about using digital resources, both on the research side (collecting and managing the information) and on the distribution side (publishing in differing digital forms). There are a small number of very advanced users, a larger group of users who have amassed a good degree of competence in specific areas - lists of German cultural sites and magazines, sites which have addresses and telephone information in individual countries etc. - and a majority with a surprisingly low level of digital literacy.
This is slightly worrying. Journalists have been using the Internet now for almost a decade. The branch perception seems to be that as we have had access to the Internet for so long, then we must be able to use it. Also, the younger generations have grown up with the Internet and therefore know how to use it. Both perceptions are deeply flawed. Just because you grow up in a society where motor cars are prevalent does not make you a driver.
Swedish journalists (and journalists in general) have a shockingly low level of mid-career further education. In times when media organizations are being squeezed on the one hand from owners looking for a higher level of profit and on the other by ever decreasing advertising revenues (due to increased competition from Interned based classified advertising amongst others), upgrading the skills level of journalists seems to be one of the first things to go.
This is a very short sighted policy. Unless your workforce is up to speed with the latest advances in your field then you are going to fall behind new players.
The problem, whilst most obviously manifesting its self on the "factory floor" of the editorial rooms, is a management problem.
Too many of the managers have no real idea about the serious and speedy changes in the information world they operate in.
As Rupert Murdoch, who whatever your views on his politics may be has undoubtedly an extraordinary nose for business trends, said to a meeting of editors and publishers earlier this year that editors needed:
to apply a digital mindset to
a new set of challenges.
We need to realize that the next generation of people
accessing news and information, whether from newspapers or
any other source, have a different set of expectations about
the kind of news they will get, including when and how they
will get it, where they will get it from, and who they will
get it from.
This mind set needs to permeate the organization. And it needs to be understood that it will cost money to achieve both a level of understanding around necessary strategic digitalizing aims and practical uses.
Board members and managers need an elevated level of understanding of the changing digital landscape from both a technical and ideological or journalistic cultural point of view. This entails an understanding that the megaphone model of media communication - one authoritative voice to the many- has played out its role. The new consumer wants a dialog or a conversation, not a monologue.
This is a hugely difficult lesson to learn and an even more difficult lesson to put into practice.
It demands serious thinking around issues that go to the core of both the business end and the journalistic end of publishing.
How to involve audiences in not just the consumption of news but in the production of it.
Do we pay them? If so how and for what?
How do we make money from this?
What differing standards do we employ in publishing to different platforms? Or do we?
What are the legal implications of audiences participating in content creation.
What are the ethical implications?
If the implications of such a discussion are to be taken seriously then the staff - editors, production journalists and journalists - need to be involved in the discussions and to be trained to use the new tools of the trade. From search engines [it is amazing how few people know how to use Google despite the fact that it is their primary source of information -which is a problem in its self] to pod-casting, from databases to collaborative encyclopedias.
OK enough for now. More to come.
Recent Comments