Posts
Two caveats on this previous post:
There's nothing wrong with having a conversation or joining it. The Civic Journalism movement, of which the "join the conversation" emphasis seems to me an outgrowth, is a perfectly fine thing for newspapers to support. The problem is that Civic Journalism is often presented as if its major goals -- increasing public involvement in electoral politics and grappling with the issues of our time -- are, or at least are a major part of, the only true purpose of journalism. A newspaper is, once again, like a department store; it's not a boutique. Civic Journalism and the conversation are a department, maybe on the main floor or mezzanine, but if they are the main thing in the store, not many people are going to come in every day.
Even if those could be our only goals, Civic Journalism and joining the online conversation is not of itself a successful business model for newspapers, as is becoming clearer every month. To be fair, its advocates have never presented it as such. They present it as a civic good and assume therefore that it will find support; because it is in the public interest, the public will somehow arrange for it to work. This has always been a problem with Good Government initiatives.
Of course, if the conversation is about Miley Cyrus' photos, that might be a successful business model, but I doubt it's what Jay Rosen envisioned. But why a daily newspaper would believe that it would become in 2008 the major venue for a conversation about Miley is beyond me.
And the fact that a large number, possibly a third, of our paying print customers appear to use our online offerings as well is a wonderful thing. The seamless garment, to use a religious metaphor. We give it away online and they are still willing to pay for the print product, because they get added value from it. If we give them stuff exclusively in print and then give them other stuff online, instead of giving them the same stuff free, they might still be happy. Of course, they would still want the ability to e-mail to their friends a link to a story they read in the paper. This sort of stuff we can work out. But it seems that promoting print and then having online as added value to print is not a model being rejected by the newspaper marketplace.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Fall in Spring, Part II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Huh?
"The problem is that Civic Journalism is often presented as if its major goals... are, or at least are a major part of, the only true purpose of journalism."
Really? I don't recall that. Are you talking about the way doubters and critics paraphrased it, or the way supporters described it? Big difference.
"They present it as a civic good and assume therefore that it will find support; because it is in the public interest, the public will somehow arrange for it to work."
Again, huh? The argument I recall from the civic journalism movement during the 1990s was that a dangerous disconnect has opened up between the citizenry and its professionalized press, and that it would be wise for journalists to attend to it, and that helping people participate in public life was in the interest of journalists and the public.
"It's in the civic good so it will work" is something that journalists who make fun of goo-goos dreamed up to make the movement sound as silly as possible.
"Joining the conversation online is not a succesful business model." Did someone actually say: this is the business model? I don't recall that, whether from civic journalism proponents or really anyone else. I recall people saying, "news is becoming less of a lecture, more of a conversation," but that is a long, long way from claiming to have the next business model.
Where are you getting these ideas that you are so certain you doubt? You don't quote anyone and you don't link to anyone, so it's hard to know.
Are you trying to refute what Tom Curley, head of the AP, said in 2004? You should tell us. ("The news, as 'lecture,' is giving way to the news as a “conversation.")
Here's a conference report from Mark Glaser about which I had the same questions: where are they getting these ideas they are so certain they doubt?
Listen in...
David Washburn: My question is so much of what works online, citizen journalists, crowdsourcing, runs counter to what our grizzled editors say. Keep your stories to yourself. Are we rushing too much to go on the web?
Jonathan Landman, NY Times: I’m all about thinking things through. If you do, you can mobilize your readers, and think about how you do it, but do it in a way that doesn’t just throw things out there. Wikileaks is a good example of that. Our job is to add value. I don’t think these are things to consider.
Jeff Leen: I think the jury is still out about crowdsourcing, I still don’t see the Pentagon Papers. If it was the be all end all, we would all be doing it. Everyone talks about the Ft. Myers sewer project, and I can see that, but I don’t know if that can be done on bigger projects.
So crowdsourcing isn't the Pentagon Papers. I agree. But who said it was? Is that really an attempt to understand something? It seems to me an attempt to ward something off.
Even more odd is, "If it was the be all end all, we would all be doing it." Who said crowdsourcing is the "be all and end all?" Who even suggested it? Who he is talking to, or about?
Darn if I know. Do you know?
Post a Comment