JeffCroft.com: A few thoughts on journalism

Comments

001 // Bradley Smith // 06.13.2006 // 8:53 AM

I’ve always found myself very disappointed in the local newspaper ‘ both its print edition and its online edition. As such, I have a hard time even following local news and events. The approach you describe above would be a refreshing change for consumers, I think, and would get me back into the local news.
002 // Nic // 06.13.2006 // 9:30 AM

I’ve always hesitated whenever hearing the claim that the newspaper is dead. If it’s dying, that’s because people don’t realize what a good local newspaper should be doing (which is, incidentially, a lot of what you’re saying).

I kinda sit in your boat as far as the journalism thing goes. I don’t consider myself a journalist, but I work around a lot of them. Reversing the production flow is one way to go, and giving the viewer more is an important route. However, where you hit the nail on the head is coverage. Journalists need to cover local news as deeply as the big three and cable news covers the national(/international) scene. It’s the main reason why someone picks up that paper or travels to the website.

Until local news outlets understand that, they’ll keep losing viewers.
003 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:55 AM

Nic-

I suppose I should clarify. I don’t really think the newspaper is dead. There will always be a market for a printed paper, I think — even if that market shrinks.

What I really mean, I guess, is that the idea of a company who does nothing but produce the traditional newspaper is dead or dying. Newspaper companies need to become news companies — providing news in any media possible (and obviously online is a big part of that).
004 // Thomas M. // 06.13.2006 // 11:26 AM

When you look at the Online Version of our local newspaper here in Southwest Michigan, it’s pretty obvious the local rag is in pretty sad shape in many of the facets you’ve just written about.

The online version has a stipulation that you must be a paid subscriber of their print version, before you can view the online news. Are you kidding? I can’t even see if the newspaper is worth reading if I can’t even get snippet of it online? Heck, I can’t even get their demo to work properly …

“create a community around the news..” This is something the Herald Palladium certainly haven’t created. My wife, a musician, rarely sees many local musicians or entertainment events covered - unless it’s sponsored by the local big daddy “Whirlpool”.

“Most newspapers focus their efforts on their print edition and then repurpose that content onto the web.” … This is the Herald Palladium’s strategy. Their online edition is just their newspaper scanned in so you can see it online. What good is that going to do me if I already have the friggen’ newspaper! There’s no “Online Breaking Stories”, or “Local Events This Week or Weekend” … I’d have to get the newspaper, then create an online account, and re-read the same crap that I have sitting on my desk!

I’m not really sure what’s in store for the Herald Palladium ‘s future, but it wouldn’t hurt to look at those news companies who making it Online, and in Print production.

It’s pretty sad when I spend most of my time getting news from my previous home state, rather than the one I live in now.
005 // Nic // 06.13.2006 // 11:48 AM

Ah, yes, that would clear up a lot, then.

Newspapers should evolve to more media, especially expanding online, but definitely shouldn’t overlook already established places — radio and television stations, for example, could serve as collaborators. (Of course, it helps when those are already established, like The World Company has.)
006 // Adam Spooner // 06.13.2006 // 12:58 PM

On printed media: I completely agree. The newspaper, to this day and age of blogging geeks, is dead. I know of noone in my age group [mid-twenties] that “takes the paper.” So why hasn’t the printing world caught on? Not only should they be concerned about conserving resources - not just paper/trees, but everything that goes into the process from power to pollution - but also in the speed the news is delivered. Printed media can only be given so quickly. We live in an “I want it now” society. So, let’s give it to them now!

I love the way that ljworld.com does their journaling - just learned about this in Jacob’s video - it makes more sense than the reverse.

On professionalism and blogging: True, what makes a professional any better than an amateur? Most of the blogs I read are written by “amateurs” like yourself (meaning you’re not a professional journalist - on Webster’s terms - see mine below). Though, I do not consider your writing sub par by any means. If anything I appreciate the raw honesty presented in your writing…like many others - Diaz, Moll, Budd, etc. I believe a professional journalist is one who reports the news in their field with the best presentation and most of the facts - aren’t we all biased anyway?

On hiring geeks galore: Amen!

Great thoughts!
007 // Joshua Blount // 06.13.2006 // 1:27 PM

I’m not going to continue being a gushing fanboy, but hot damn do you write well. I’m planning on forwarding this article to a couple of my contacts within our most local paper (the daily commercial) who’s online and offline versions could use some massive over haul.

We’ll see what happens though. Something needs to change.
008 // Michael H // 06.13.2006 // 3:55 PM

It’s a nice idea, but putting a news story into a structured format would tend to force the writer to treat it too much like a series of facts, which would run counter to most newspapers’ agendas…
009 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 4:05 PM

Michael-

I’m not suggesting that we NOT publish stories. I’m just suggesting that we ALSO structure important data. I’m not sure what agendas this runs counter to, but we do it all the time here at The Lawrence Journal-World.

If a newspaper’s primary agenda isn’t to report the news (which is, after all, a series of facts), then maybe they need to re-think their agenda.
010 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 7:17 PM

Hmm…

I have always found the news industry fascinating, even though I hadn’t had a chance to make the opportunity to break in. That said, I have a couple of thoughts to share:
1. Jeff, in the context of local news, is it really trivially easy to collect data? It will obviously depend on what data we’re talking about, but when I think about the easy to collect data, the list appears to include: statistical data (which is more readily available for successively larger regions than for ‘local’ regions), national news generated by other people, and corporate PR’s. In the context of local news, the collection of data appears to be the most difficult (relatively speaking) to do.
2. Adding extra structure to the news is, I think, an awesome idea, but without knowing how the raw data is collected, it’s hard for me to see if this work is economically feasible to do. When you factor in my first point (that collecting local data is hard), the economic incentive seems to be harder. Granted, you touched on this (“Structured data good. Unstructured data just okay.”) too.
What I’d love to see is more conversation related to the process of collecting the data, and more conversation devoted to how we can make it economical. I would love to participate in both conversations, but I can’t contribute to the second one until I participate in (or learn about) the first one.

Have you got any pointers for getting up to speed on how journalists put together a story?
011 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 7:58 PM

Robert…
1. I’m sure you’re right that it’s a bit harder to collect data on a local level than larger areas. But, I still think there’s a lot of available data that most online news doesn’t take advantage of. Off the top, I can think of a handful of things that seem to be readily available for most areas — crime reports, weather data, employee data for public institutions (gvmt, education), registered sex offenders, city geographics information on things like parks and recreational facilities, traffic reports, demographic infromation, housing costs, etc. You can use this kind of data to do stuff like this or this. There’s also a simple, but effective way to collect data: have other people enter it for you. What if you made an area of your site where local businesses (restaurants, shops, churches, non-profits, etc.) could enter all their own data into your system? You could build up a local “places” database and do things like this or this or this or this. You can build a comprehensive city guide and reap the benefits of being able to attach places to stories, like this or this.
2. We definitely still do a lot of manual data collection and manual data entry — but we try to take advantage of what’s readily available whenever possible. What is economically feasible for one organization may not be for another. We have several online producers who do nothing but produce content and enter data for us. That may not be possible for all news companies.
But talk about economic incentives — think about the advertising possibilities. If you’re a local mexican restrauant, would you rather place your ad genericly on any random page of the online paper — or have your ad show up when someone has just searched for mexican cuisine within 10 miles of them? I know which one is more likley to result in a customer…the one that isn’t possible without some structured data.
012 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 8:27 PM

Jeff: thank you for sharing those insights.

I just remembered something else I wanted to mention — which may seem obvious in retrospect — if the local papers can build up local online communities, depending on how they do it, they may be able to mine the user contributions for some of that ‘raw data’ to support ongoing stories, but also mine the same community for new stories to publish.

Hmm… is it standard practice for newspapers to media-shift their archives to a digital format? I can’t imagine a better source for local data than their own issues.
013 // Isaac // 06.13.2006 // 9:43 PM

Speaking as one of the people who helps present the data collected by others as online content, I do have a couple of concerns with the idealized goal you’ve presented.

First, until there’s a major change in how reporters and editors are trained, the data collected for many stories (especially the local ones) is found on notepads and the collective knowledge of people who’ve covered the same beat for years. We’d have to convince the reporters to place their data in a specific way that makes it easier to import. Otherwise, you’ve got someone (read: me, or someone at my end of the process) trying to read scribbled notes, going through grayed-out copies of microfiched stories, or asking some clerk to email Excel files, all in order to get the structured data.

Second, is that until the process of making the data useful to a reader is made more simple, you’re going to have a similar logjam - one or two web developers with a lot on their plate taking valuable time out of their days to whip out a database when it should be something that an editor or producer could be doing.

I’m not saying your stated goal is a bad one. Far from it. I just have to be cynical about what it means in terms of problematic workflow. If we can address these problems properly, then we can really do some cool stuff.
014 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:49 PM

I’m not sure if it’s “standard practice” or not. I think most newspapers these days at the very least putting all the media they print online. At the World Company, we database just about everything. For Lawrence (as an example), we’ve got all of the stories printed in the paper, videos of all of the news stories run on our cable channel, all sorts of information about the city (like the sort of stuff I mentioned above), MP3 of local bands and musicians, blogs, user comments tons of sports stats and scores and more — all the in same relational database. That database serves up several sites for different properties.

Here’s an example of how this aids in media convergence (which is based on, but not exactly, a real-world incident earlier this year). Some of this we really did and some of it is stuff we should have done but didn’t (or possibly didn’t yet have the capability to do):

Our Lawrence.com exhaustively covers the local music and nightlife scene. The Journal-World is our local newspaper. Channel 6 is our local cable station that has a news broadcast. The Turnpike is a local TV show we produce that deals with the music scene in town.

So there’s a shooting downtown at one of the nightclubs. A man is murdered. Obviously, we cover this online at the Journal-World. Since we’ve got the video, we’re able to include 6News’ TV coverage of the event in the same story. Since we’ve got all of the places and businesses in town in our database (including latitude and longitude), we’re able to include a map in the story that pinpoints the spot in town where the shooting took place. We send our photographers out, armed with digital SLRs and handheld digital audio recorders. They shoot hundreds of photos and talks to passersby, police, etc. While only one or two of their shots might make it in the printed papers, our online producers take almost all of them and set them into a slideshow using the recorded audio as the background “music.” That goes into the story. We might poll the crime records and whip up a quick database of similar crimes downtown over the past several years/ We could graph them to show if they’re on the rise or not. As the comments start flowing on the story, people begin to wonder aloud if that evil hip-hop music that was being played live at the club that night was to be held accountable for the murder. Since we store MP3s of local bands, we’re able to add a playlist of the act in question so users can listen and judge for themselves. Our story might have a “blog about this” link so that users can voice their own opinions in the blog space we give them (we don’t actually do this right now, but we will, very soon). We accept user photos from the shooting and post them online. It might be a blurry cameraphone shot, but if it shows an important part of the story, then it’s worth posting.
015 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:49 PM

(Continued…ran into my own character limit — hah!)

We might publish a site-specific version of the story on Lawrence.com that is more centered around the music aspect of the story, since Lawrence.com is largely about local music. The text might be different, but we can re-use all the same media, since it’s all in the same database (actually, you could re-use it whether it’s in the same database or not — the point is that we have it).

Like I said, we didn’t actually do all of this. But everything I mention here is stuff that we either have the capability to do right now, or will have in the next month (we’re still finishing up the blogging thing).

We’re big on user-submitted content. A lot of what we have in mind for that isn’t actually done yet. But, yeah, there are a million ways you can take advantage of your users (in a good way, of course). The problem for most newspapers, I think, is that they don’t have that loyal user base to work with. How do you get one? Well, breaking down any ridiculous registration barriers and allowing comments on every story (that aren’t ridiculously moderated) will go a long, long way towards getting you there.
016 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:55 PM

Thanks for the comments Isaac. You rock at production, by the way, and are a large part of the reason we’re able to do a lot of the things we do!

On this:

“Second, is that until the process of making the data useful to a reader is made more simple, you’re going to have a similar logjam - one or two web developers with a lot on their plate taking valuable time out of their days to whip out a database when it should be something that an editor or producer could be doing.”

The obvious solution for today is have more than one or two web developers working on this kind of thing. :)

These things will get simpler, though, and we’ll also get more and more savvy producers (like yourself!) as time goes by.

This is a problem, but I think I don’t think it’s a long-term one.

There’s no question my ideas are a bit idealistic. They would definitely require a lot of resources and commitment which may not be readily available at a lot of news organizations right now.

That’s okay, though. Start somewhere and see where it goes. If it works, the people that make those decisions will invest the resources.
017 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 9:59 PM

Jeff: true. Or you create a system like this from scratch and compete against the incumbent.

Now that raises an interesting question — given a team composed of whip-smart devs/designers, forward-thinking journalists, a talented editor, and an ad sales guy, could this be bootstrapped?

interesting times…
018 // Mark Friesen // 06.14.2006 // 3:38 AM

Jeff,

I’m a journalist and could not have said it better myself. Spot on.

given a team composed of whip-smart devs/designers, forward-thinking journalists, a talented editor, and an ad sales guy, could this be bootstrapped?

Oh, believe me, Robert, many of us worry about such things. Newspapers have a lot of resources that bootstrappers would be hard pressed to replicate. But there are areas (think dining, entertainment, etc.) where a motivated, nimble team could make a run at the established, hidebound daily. And if they build a successful community around their effort, the resources that community represents could definitely rival the newspaper’s. Interesting times, indeed.
019 // Bryan Peters // 06.14.2006 // 8:05 AM

Happy 30th birthday!
020 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 8:46 AM

I’ve learned that a journalist basically does three things: collect data, distill data, and present data (again, I can credit Adrian with this one). It seems to me the first piece has gotten rather trivial in many cases. Data is everywhere. We’ve never been so inundated with information as we are now. Since many news organizations are going to have the same data, the way that you distill and present it is your ticket to setting yourself apart.

I’m not sure I agree with this part. We’re inundated with data that’s already been collected, not with uncollected data. It seems to me that the point of a journalist is that they “break” stories, not organize information that has already been broken.

That’s the #1 issue I see out of Newsvine, right now. It’s a lot of people (myself included) utilizing collected information to essentially editorialize. What Newsvine needs is student journalists who actually have the time to seek out “new” information and to right about that. Be it interviews, stories about crime, etc.

If you’re merely working with collected data, you’re dealing with commentary. If you’re “collecting new data” and presenting it, you’re a journalist. The best journalists are the ones who can collect the best and least likely data. I maintain that this stuff isn’t just lying around uncollected on the internet.

Most of us simply don’t have the time to do this. I’d love to be able do some actual journalism, but between having a wife and having a full time job, there’s just no way that I could do so on a regular basis.
021 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 8:48 AM

Shoot… “write” about that, of course.

Oh, and yeah… happy birthday.

We’ll see ya this weekend.
022 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 9:47 AM

Brian-

I see what you’re saying, but I still think that distilling and presenting existing data in useful ways is part of journalism and a part that can be very beneficial to the community. I’ll again reference chicagocrime.org. That site does nothing but take existing crime data and parse it into useful information. That crime data has always been available from the CPD, but until Adrian and Wilson made it possible to browse it by crime type, neighborhood, or even along the route you take to work every day, no one was making use of it. The distillation and presentation made mundane, useless data into something incredibly valuable.

I’m not at all suggesting we should be replacing reporters with technology that fetches data. Of course there is always new information to be collected. I’m simply saying that we should take more advantage of what exists when possible — and we should find ways to let technology help us automate the process of gathering new data. Maybe a reporter’s job in the future won’t be so much to manually collect and write down every bit of data, but to find where the data is and see to it that a system is put into place to capture it.

In hindsight, I think I overstated things when I said it was “trivially easy” to collect data. That’s not true. It is, however, easier than it ever has been before, and it will only get easier as we go forward.

I also don’t think you should pass off commentary as “not real journalism.” Commentary and editorials have been part of the news for as long as there’s been news to print. Yes, it’s a different type of journalism, but I still think it’s journalism nonetheless.
023 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 10:32 AM

I guess I just wanted to distinguish between “collecting data” and “organizing collected data.”

It just seems to me that your article doesn’t really deal with the first part at all, and focuses on the (important, yes) second part of a journalist’s job description.

I just don’t think that part 2 can happen without part one, and most of the data that we have at our disposal has already gone through phase one.

Again, the best data is collected by the best journalists. And, the best data isn’t likely sitting around waiting to be organized into a readable format. (In most cases.)

Are editorializers journalists? Do they entail different skills? I would argue that they do, but I’m not sure if “officially” that this is the case.

I wonder if that assumption is like the assumption that other people have about “graphic designers” vs. “web designers” in that the two are related but certainly different fields.

I suppose journalism is a general term (like design) and that there are “reporters” and “commentators” (editorialists).

So, i guess I’ll revise my statement: Newsvine needs more reporters and news gatherers. We have an abundance of commentators.
024 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 10:56 AM

It just seems to me that your article doesn’t really deal with the first part at all, and focuses on the (important, yes) second part of a journalist’s job description.

Yeah, that’s true. I wouldn’t really call it an “article,” though. More of a few thought off the top of my head at one o’clock in the morning. :)

I did sort of blow off the manual collection of data a bit. Not intentionally, though. It’s just something I don’t really deal with, myself, so it wasn’t on my mind. It’s still a very relevant part of journalist’s jobs, of course. I’d like to see journalists doing a better job of storing the data they collect. In their heads or on a paper notepad isn’t going to go very far towards doing interesting things with that data. In relational databases or other structured storage means will.

Again, the best data is collected by the best journalists. And, the best data isn’t likely sitting around waiting to be organized into a readable format.

I disagree. Just consider archives of local papers, which I’m sure we can agree is a great source of data. Until people like Isaac don’t have to use microfiche to find old articles, there’s plenty of data organization to be done.

Are editorializers journalists? Do they entail different skills? I would argue that they do, but I’m not sure if “officially” that this is the case.

I think they’re journalists, but definitely a different segment and one that requires different skills.

So, i guess I’ll revise my statement: Newsvine needs more reporters and news gatherers. We have an abundance of commentators.

I think Cit-J probably always will lack a balance there.
025 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 11:16 AM

BTW, Brian — who’s to say automated data collection can’t “break” a story…check out what’s happened as a result of Adrian’s congressional votes database:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/14758822.htm
026 // ZT // 06.14.2006 // 10:01 PM

Off topic but

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JEFF!!!!!
027 // omit // 06.16.2006 // 3:11 AM

Good points, and I’m sure a few of them will be incorporated into the newspapers that are evolving in the next decade or so. The data organization and recontextualization aspects of information that people like Holovaty specialize in are lacking at quite a few newspapers. In addition, these newspapers are just now starting to dip their toes into interactive features and user-generated content. They are going to have to evolve and focus on covering local events—in fact, I think that’s what most of them do.

I don’t know if it’s any indication of the general newspaper attitude, but the news outlets in my community tend to veer to the conservative side. Funding for web developers is not first on the agenda for a lot of them, and their CMSes sometimes seem like scotch-taped, make-do Rube Goldbergian contraptions. So either their conglomerates can use economies of scale and information sharing in their national Web depts, turn to outside software that may not fit all their needs, hire high-priced consultants or do what my local weekly’s doing and put a help wanted ad for an enterprising low paid intern.

But I digress. My main rebuttal to your well-thought essay is that you are missing one of the key elements of news journalism (some that are mentioned above)—the human side.

1) Reporting (collecting the info): This involves calling people on the phone, calling people, establishing a rapport, getting out there on foot, interviewing people who might not want to be interviewed, doing research before those interviews, sending out FOI requests, scrawling notes at boring meetings as mentioned above, and knowing who to talk to. It is labor intensive and not trivial in any capacity.

2) Writing (telling the story): People understand things in story format. Chicago Crime’s great, but at the end of a work day or when they’re squeezed for time in the morning, a lot of people want a bullet point, easily scannable summary of what’s going on, and they want it as a story, not as searchable data or a chart.

So while I think you have great ideas (for example, starting online and going to print, which my paper definitely already does), these ideas are going to be supplementary and complementary to the main purposes of newspapers, reporting and summarizing news. And let’s not forget another big thing–advertising.

As the younger generation that really gets more of their information online than on newsprint comes of age, newspapers are definitely going to have to adapt. Not to mention the fact that online advertising is still in its infancy as a revenue source.

As an aside, I just heard on NPR today about how investors at Tribune Co. are not happy with their ROI based on current newspaper consolidation practices. Where is the money going to come from to fund these ventures?

Though I have to admit, Holovaty is doing some exciting, pioneering online journalism work.
028 // Jeff Croft // 06.16.2006 // 8:08 AM

tim…

Thanks for you thoughtful comments.

I think I’ve already noted that I definitely kind of “blew off” the reporting aspect of journalisim here in this article, simply because it’s not what I’m personally involved with. I didn’t mean to dismiss it as trivially easy. I think it is trivially easy to do some data collection, but that certainly doesn’t mean we get to stop doing all those things you are talking about. It’s just not what I am involved in.

Again, I am not at all suggesting we lose the story — the story should always remain the number one product. I just think we also need to be storing data in structured formats for seaarchability, findability, discoverability, and archival purposes.

There is definitely a need for creative strategies for monetizing these efforts. Just like newspapers are going to have to change their attitudes and techniques when it comes to how they collect, distill, and present the news, they’re also going to have to adapt and find new ways to make money off it. It will happen — we just need some creative minds to put their heads to the task.
029 // Baxter // 06.19.2006 // 8:51 AM

Jeff, for someone who’s only been in the industry a few months, you’re showing more insight than most of the people I know who’ve been in it for decades.

As a semi-reformed journalist, I would pick one nit, though. The first job isn’t collecting the data, it’s sifting through it. As others have pointed out, finding data is easy. There’s tons of it. A good reporter isn’t worried about finding it, he’s worried about figuring out which data is misleading or wrong, which data is just extra clutter, and which data actually provides some illumination.

Beyond that, I think you’re spot on. In particular, I love the backwards workflow. Both the web and print versions could end up much stronger. A print version that aggregated the best, and was informed by community feedback would be a much stronger edition.

By the way, did you get my email?
030 // Rich // 06.19.2006 // 5:13 PM

Jeff, great thoughts.

Some of the faculty members at the Poynter Institute have told us participants about the need for mapping data, drawing relationships, seeing the big picture.

But that was the first day, and that idea hasn’t resurfaced. USA Today’s Juan Thomassie spoke on Flash and XML integration, but we are doing very little, true Web work. Sure, we have “neat” Flash presentations, but it seems as if we’re limited to either a traditional PDF (with the possibility of embedding audio and/or video) or a Flash gallery.

I fear that I am among the very few, if any, of this group with Web experience; stories from the program must be posted to Poynter.org’s template, which means pure text, PDF or Flash gallery. No Google Maps, no XML, no AJAX.

I fear that we continue to practice journalism the old way: top-down, a one-way line of communication.

And it scares me every bit as much as it does you.
031 // Jeff Croft // 06.21.2006 // 11:03 AM

We just did something along the lines of what I was talking about for a story, an I thought it was worth pimping here. My co-workers David and Matt put together this census data database with whizzy graphs and charts for a story that ran in today’s paper.
032 // Jak Boumans // 06.22.2006 // 12:40 AM

Why did not you link your graph to Google maps. This would have visualised the places involved for outsiders.
033 // Jeff Croft // 06.22.2006 // 12:47 AM

Good idea, Jak. I guess the only reason we didn’t is that we simply didn’t think of it.

Then again, we strive to be hyper-local, so I’m not sure it’s totally necessary for our audience. Just as in the paper we would simply write “Tonganoxie,” rather than “Tonganoxie, Kan.,” it may not be necessary. I think we focus so much on the local audience that we sometimes forget that there are people from all over that might view our site.

I like our focus on local, but you’re probably right that giving something like that for outsiders would be a good idea, too.
034 // Mindy McAdams // 06.23.2006 // 8:55 PM

Great post, Jeff. Clear, accurate, thoughtful. And mostly true! (Hee! Okay, maybe ALL true.)
035 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 12:10 AM

I think half of what you said is dead on: local stories are what papers must thrive on since most places have a monopoly on coverage - and if they don’t, there’s a reason competition is important. Repurposing for web first is a good idea, but I think it’s not a plausible way to make money. Training readers that they don’t need to buy the “deadwood” edition because it’s all online, quicker and for free will do nothing but hurt circulation numbers, and paid-walls have a hard time wooing customers, er, readers. And I see your point about the blog thing, but the difference is reporting vs. writing, as reporting is something most (not all) bloggers never do. In that same token, of course, there are columnists that don’t report but rather blather on - but the best columnists are actually reporting. But as much as I have total respect for your sentiments and see exactly where they are coming from, you are missing some key elements of what separates information from journalism. You list some types of journalism the “web geeks” at LJW made were “data on public salaries, local soldiers who’ve died in the war, and data from a survey of local street conditions.” That’s great information, but anyone can gather statistics. They help illustrate trends and raw data, and a user looking at a cool AJAX/Flash bar chart can see for themselves - but it’s not telling them anything. The conclusions they draw on looking at graphs alone in a vacuum doesn’t give them the context of what those numbers actually mean. A journalist on a beat can tell them what it means, and they can do that without the graph. It makes it easier, sure, but it certainly doesn’t replace it. Journalism is not about the who-what-when-where-why. Journalism is the how, the so-what, the who-cares. Chicagocrime.org is awesome, but it’s not replacing journalism. It’s a form of service journalism, which is a key difference that keeps what it from making the leap from water-cooler-quality memes to actual journalism. I’ll admit it - I geek out anytime I see anything Lawrence does, thinking about how awesome immediately parsed tables sorted by my whim can be accessed quicker and faster than before. And there are far too many examples of when LJW and Lawrence.com get it so, so right.
036 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 12:11 AM

But for readers - who newspapers all know are time-strapped scanners who barely have time to read headlines - the sheer avalanche of blogs, tables, charts, PDFs, slideshows, etc. aren’t necessarily adding to their actual comprehension of a complex issue or a nuanced view of how something affects them. It’s journalists that do that. We’re more than gatekeepers; we’re filters. What do I need to know? How does this affect me? How can I be entertained? How do i get in-and-out, quickly, get on with my day, and know more about the human condition? Sending 5 photographers to cover a crash may help drive traffic to the website, and it is a great service journalism exercise. But it’s not adding any more context than a reporter with notebook and actual work could accomplish. It’s just more content that needs to be indexed, bookmarked and shuffled. LJW and it’s omnipotent web existence is a perfect example of how you can nail it and give your readers what they want. But not every community is LJW: not as web savvy, not as fortunate as having a medium with low expectation of profit margins, etc.

The main point here is the difference between content and context, something that a lot of papers (and information geeks who love trumpeting the death of newspapers) don’t get. Compiling information is absolutely a necessity, as it makes the jobs of journalists a lot easier. But once it’s compiled, it doesn’t make everyone who load that database an immediate journalist. I understand you make this point very clearly, that journalism will never die. But your repeating that journalists only (basically) “collect data, distill data, and present data” is a flat-out misrepresentation of what the job is. That’s like saying a designer makes something pretty.

I know this sounds like I hate you and hate life and hate the Internet. But in reality, I’m just a journalist, editor, and designer who sees every potential in bringing together alternative story-telling and the break-neck speed in which the Internet changes our lives to keep newspapers alive and relevant. Oh, and I pretty much have a completely appropriate man-crush on you. So have no fear: I’m really looking forward to your next post.
037 // Jeff Croft // 06.28.2006 // 1:57 AM

Matt-

You may be surprised to hear this, but I agree with basically everything you said. You seem to think that I believe all of this web-based “service journalism” is a replacement for traditional journalism. I don’t. I think it’s an important enhancement to it, and that’s all.

I am not a journalist. I am a web geek.

What I’m getting at is this: the fact that I am not talking much about traditional journalism isn’t because I don’t value it. It’s because it’s not what I do and I don’t feel like I understand it well enough to talk intelligently about it. Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I think it should go away or the stuff I did mention should replace it.

Thanks for your comments. Seriously — very well written and well thought out. It’s nice to see that people are enjoying reading my stuff enough to take that kind of time to respond to it. :)
038 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 3:43 AM

Jeff:

I’m not surprised at all - I know you are much, much more observant than that.

My problem with journalism right now is that it’s running scared on what the Big Solution is. For example:

The Dallas Morning News plans to offer buyouts to 50 or more employees as it restructures its news operation to focus more heavily on the Internet, sources familiar with the newspaper’s plans say. At least one source familiar with the newspaper’s plans said the potential employee reductions likely will be much higher than 50. Read the rest.

But most web geeks (minus you and Holovaty) are loving the demise of newspapers, cheering for its death, heralding the bloggers, and so on. And I get the tone of that sentiment here, if not from you but the whole Web movement right now. You sit at a neat vantage point: someone who sees the power of the Web and its potential as a platform, but you work with journalists who are doing the reporting legwork. And your thoughtfulness comes from the amazing work that LJW does. (Again, I point out that not everyone can - or should - do what LJW does. Most of it, yes, but every market/community is different.)

But you still offer that journalists aren’t “structuring data” properly. We are, but the problem is, we’re doing it in the wrong medium. So many advances in print presentation and visual story-telling to make stories more interesting, complete and nuanced and have done great things for paper editions but they get lost on a medium like the web, for many reasons.
039 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 3:44 AM

But how did those advances happen? Did the journalists reach out to designers and say, can you make our stories better? How can we be better at our jobs? How can you help us sell our stories? Heck no. The designers stepped out of the toy department and became journalists. Designers had to help commit journalists to telling these stories in a way more suited for the platform (paper) by bringing in more reporters (photographers, graphic artists, copy editors) to make a better product based on journalistic principles. It wasn’t easy and it’s not over.

I think that this idea that newspapers need to hire more web geeks to help them do their jobs better is the first misstep. Geeks need to become journalists. Bloggers need to report. Code monkeys need to write words not chars. They all need to know what the other side is like before they can make a more useful and compelling product. We don’t mesh now because our priorities and goals are different.

It must sound like I am asking for geeks to walk a mile in our shoes and, you know, see how tough this whole life is. But really, I’m just asking for better journalists, those that aren’t limited in the ways they’ve always done things and aren’t afraid (like most journalists) to experiment with story-telling, to offer a better product to our readers. And if you become a better journalist than those who scoff at the Internet do - and have it not measured by page hits or copies sold - then you’ve won and, more importantly, our readers/watchers/surfers win. But you have to be journalists. ChicagoCrime isn’t journalism, but it’s a neat project. If ChicagoCrime was an internal service to a Chicago newspaper, and better stories came out of it, then I would see the point. But to say it’s journalism is false, which is really tough for me to say because it’s amazing. But if a geek made this, found out some disturbing trend, then starting reporting about it on his blog, he’d be a darn good reporter. Where are those guys?

Also: I know where Holovaty stand on registration walls on news websites. (He says they are alienating users.) What say you? What about paid-walls (TimesSelect, etc.)? I’ll withhold my comment so as not to taint the waters.

JeffCroft.com

06.13.2006 // 39 Comments // Aldrich Ct. Townhome A few thoughts on journalism

Comments

Links in this entry

This entry’s tags

AuthenticJobs.com

Comments

001 // Bradley Smith // 06.13.2006 // 8:53 AM

002 // Nic // 06.13.2006 // 9:30 AM

003 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:55 AM

004 // Thomas M. // 06.13.2006 // 11:26 AM

005 // Nic // 06.13.2006 // 11:48 AM

006 // Adam Spooner // 06.13.2006 // 12:58 PM

007 // Joshua Blount // 06.13.2006 // 1:27 PM

008 // Michael H // 06.13.2006 // 3:55 PM

009 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 4:05 PM

010 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 7:17 PM

011 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 7:58 PM

012 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 8:27 PM

013 // Isaac // 06.13.2006 // 9:43 PM

014 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:49 PM

015 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:49 PM

016 // Jeff Croft // 06.13.2006 // 9:55 PM

017 // roberthahn // 06.13.2006 // 9:59 PM

018 // Mark Friesen // 06.14.2006 // 3:38 AM

019 // Bryan Peters // 06.14.2006 // 8:05 AM

020 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 8:46 AM

021 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 8:48 AM

022 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 9:47 AM

023 // Brian Ford // 06.14.2006 // 10:32 AM

024 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 10:56 AM

025 // Jeff Croft // 06.14.2006 // 11:16 AM

026 // ZT // 06.14.2006 // 10:01 PM

027 // omit // 06.16.2006 // 3:11 AM

028 // Jeff Croft // 06.16.2006 // 8:08 AM

029 // Baxter // 06.19.2006 // 8:51 AM

030 // Rich // 06.19.2006 // 5:13 PM

031 // Jeff Croft // 06.21.2006 // 11:03 AM

032 // Jak Boumans // 06.22.2006 // 12:40 AM

033 // Jeff Croft // 06.22.2006 // 12:47 AM

034 // Mindy McAdams // 06.23.2006 // 8:55 PM

035 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 12:10 AM

036 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 12:11 AM

037 // Jeff Croft // 06.28.2006 // 1:57 AM

038 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 3:43 AM

039 // Matt // 06.28.2006 // 3:44 AM

Post your comment