news-record.com

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

New journalism platforms call for new journalism rules

Ever since the Romenesko dustup, I have been thinking about how the digital frontier’s lack of rules has changed or is changing or is going to change long-cherished rules of journalism. This is an unfinished thought of mine and I need your help in adding, editing or telling me where I’m wrong. I’m not necessarily trying to plow new ground; many of these are long-held beliefs by many digital denizens.

• Once we thought it was news when we said it. ------> Now it’s news when it hits Twitter, Facebook or a blog.

• Once we wrote headlines to invite readers. ------> Now we write headlines to invite search engines.

• Once sources were “officials” and people in power. ------> Now sources are everywhere. And they have become their own news organizations.

• Once “exclusives” were important. -------> Now “exclusives” only last for seconds and the source is quickly forgotten as a link is shared.

• Once we insisted readers wanted the highest quality writing and photography.-------> Now good is often good enough.

• Once people bought the newspaper because of its content. -------> Now they buy it because they like its package.

• Once we wanted everything to be complete before publishing. -------> Now we show our work.

• Once we didn’t acknowledge other new organizations.-------> Now we link to their work.

• Once newspapers were the “paper of record.” -------> Now there is focus.

• Once Twitter and Facebook were a waste of time. -------> Now social networks are a font of news, links and friends. In other words, a major source of news.

• Once we thought news was key. -------> Now we know connection is key.

• Once we thought objectivity mattered most. -------> Now we know that transparency, accuracy, fairness and independence matter most.

• Once newspapers had to speak with the voice of God, or at least James Earl Jones.-------> Now newspapers speak more with the voice of Oprah.

• Once we thought news would pick up advertising along the way.-------> Now it is decoupled from advertising.

These aren't in any order other than as I've thought of them. At first, I thought it would be tough to get to 10. But when I got to 20, I stopped and started eliminating some for ease of reading. As I look at them now, I'm thinking I didn't get down and dirty enough. That'll be a post for another day.

Please add some — or correct these — either in the comments or via email.

Permalink

Posted by John Robinson on Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 1:44 pm

What do you think?

5 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Other Recent Entries

New journalism platforms call for new journalism rules (Dec. 1, 2011)
Godspeed Gerald Witt (Dec. 1, 2011)
Obits and paid obits (Nov. 29, 2011)
Godspeed Dustin Long (Nov. 29, 2011)
Work behind the scenes (Nov. 27, 2011)

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

bwb1952

December 1, 2011 - 3:08 pm EST

I think you're wrong about this one:

Once newspapers had to speak with the voice of God, or at least James Earl Jones.-------> Now newspapers speak more with the voice of Oprah.

Maybe it's not so much that newspapers had to speak with that voice, but assumed that they did. Because there were few alternatives, the public by-and-large turned to papers, radio, TV -- and to those media journalists as sources. The average guy had no voice, no part in the conversation.

That's no longer the case. Anyone with a web-connection via tablet, iPhone, computer, etc., can participate by reporting or sharing, and of course by editorializing.

The newspaper speaks with the same voice as before. There are just a lot more voices now.

There are still standards for authority and quality, however. I think the public looks to our traditional media (and their web presences) to give us reliable news, well-written news, and news in much greater depth.

retiree

December 1, 2011 - 3:25 pm EST

I remember years ago when USA Today was created. All you heard from traditional news media and journalists was that USA Today was not really news, but was snippets of information and pretty much discounted their effort . . . . until USA Today made financial inroads into the base subscription of the traditional news media. That caused them to rethink their purpose. Then the era of digital media began and they once again had to rethink their purpose. I even recall taking a class in writing html at GTCC in the mid 1990s with someone from the N & R and now look how the industry has changed . . . light speed. Newspapers aren't accustomed to change that quickly.

So here we are today with the traditional newspaper industry once again trying to find their place in a different world. Maybe newspapers should also ask themselves if the journalism degree is as meaningful as it once was? Is there a need for a daily newspaper in print form anymore? Can the N & R survive on ad revenue and subscriptions to on-line content, or will they follow the way of the buggy whip makers of the past? Only time will tell.

pjacob

December 2, 2011 - 9:31 am EST

I think rules are different from 'how things are'. This is how things are. Rules could be more aspirational. So with that in mind:

Writing headlines for search engines. Does that have to go on? I'm not in the business so I'm not in the loop.

Hopefully 'official' sources and people in power are weighted differently than randon twitterers. I hope. Not on CNN.

Exclusives can still work if people are being pulled back to your site. Right?

*Readers still want highest quality writing and photography. At least this one does. Go with good enough and enjoy me in your comments!

People still buy newspapers for their content. More attention can (well, and is) being paid to the web as a package.

Mostly complete before publishing is still good with me.

*News is still key. Connecting to a bunch of nothing is just that.

Transparency, accuracy fairness and maybe even independence are a reasonable approximation of objectivity. Maybe we forgot what that was even supposed to look like. Or, wasn't that the journalistic end goal in the first place? Worth discussing.

If newspapers are going to speak like Oprah that sucks...bring back James Earl Jones a little bit. Raise the bar.

That's what I got today. Thanks for writing this out. Great stuff to discuss.

overtaxed

December 3, 2011 - 12:14 am EST

Once newspapers were locally and independently owned and operated that cared more about the subscriber.
Now they are owned by corporations,some foreign, that control what's reported.

Here's the latest example of the state of " Today's Journalism".

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/syracuse-bernie-fine-ta...

Panacea

December 4, 2011 - 9:57 pm EST

There was a time when news articles were lengthy and full of detail. Now all you get is a snippet.

This is because news is disseminated much faster than 100 years ago. Back then, a newspaper had time to put the polish on a story, even if it was a daily (and many were weekly or monthly). Now, if you take that kind of time you're likely to be out of date with the story, which has quickly marched on.

Readers 100 years ago were more literate and would spend evenings reading for the pleasure of reading; because there was no radio, internet, or TV as a distraction in the late hours before bedtime.

As readership's time management has changed, and sources change, so must journalism's response.

But journalism has ALWAYS been about entertainment. Now we have Rupert Murdoch. 100 years ago, we had William Randolph Hearst. There's a reason why Citizen Kane is so timeless . . . .