Saturday, March 21st, 2009...12:50 am
Old journalism versus new journalism
New York University journalism prof Jay Rosen tweeted a video today that I think is a must-see for any journalist trying to understand the “Internet revolution.“ Basically, he compared the static experience of watching TV to the interactive experience of connecting with people, news organizations and newsmakers through the Web.
I think calling this an Internet revolution is apt. The technology of the interactive Web gives readers the ability to find their own news, make their own news, reach whomever they want in a way. So the role of journalists must change as part of this revolution.
Yesterday, I gave you 10 journalism rules you can break on your blog.
Today, with apologizes to Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” I invite you into two newsrooms: the newsroom of the past and the newsroom of the present (or future in some cases.)
Old Journalism: “We ran a two-line item on that fundraiser on page B-5 three weeks ago. We can’t run anything else on it. It’s old news.”
New Journalism: “Many may have missed the two-line item on page B-5, and people gather their news differently. Let’s put it on our blog, mention it in our calendar, add it the weekly print notebook. That way readers won’t have to hunt to find it.”
Old Journalism: “Some old bat called about this conference on getting kids to play outside. Sounds stupid. I told her it’s too late for us to do anything with it.”
New Journalism: “I asked the woman to write about what parents learned at the conference and post it on our public blog. I’ll let readers know by making a quick mention when I tease our online parents’ page in tomorrow’s paper.”
Old Journalism: “I’m heading to this town council meeting. Boy, will it be a snoozer. But, don’t worry, I’ll give you 18 inches if it kills me.”
New Journalism: “I’ll check in on the town meeting, and post an update to the blog. Don’t expect a story unless all hell breaks loose. Instead, I’ll double-team with the school board reporter on the hot artificial-turf vote. With both of us there, I can live blog it and tweet it, while she catches up with people to interview on video.”
Old Journalism: “Shoot, I’ve got to find people who are ticked off about the historic Venerable Day School for Students getting condemned. How will I find people who once went there? The school has been closed for 10 years.”
New Journalism: “Hey, I searched the school on Facebook and Linked In and found some alums. Maybe they’ll talk or know someone who will.”
Old Journalism: “We’re out of room on the briefs column again. Guess that means we kill the item referring to your big contest on the Web. Hey, the paper comes first.”
New Journalism: “We’re short on space, so we’ll need to trim the refer to your blog contest. But let’s get it in. The last thing we should kill these days is anything that connects our readers to the Web.”
Old Journalism: “Yeah, 300 people commented online about the dairy princess being named for the first time. But that’s not news. What do readers know? We’re not going to do anything more with that.”
New Journalism: “Why not publish a sampling of the comments with a picture of the new princess. Sure, it’s not my cup of tea, but we’re serving readers, not each other.”
– Gina
Like what you’re reading, subscribe
Share on Facebook
I'm Gina Masullo Chen, a 20-year veteran newspaper journalist who is a Ph.D. candidate in mass communications. I want to see journalism survive. I believe news organizations need to embrace new media, change their thinking, improve their content and innovate. Read more about me 
13 Comments
March 21st, 2009 at 1:07 am
Gina,
While I think the dichotomous old vs. new attitudes are a great explication, I think the qualifiers old vs. new are what’s doing newspapers and TV stations in (I’ve given up on radio stations — very few local stations have local news operations anymore; even NPR and Pacifica affiliates tend to rely on syndicated feeds while local personalities read the daily newspaper, frequently online).
When we accept “new journalism” as simply “journalism,” it’s then that we can begin to understand that journalism is thriving, no matter what the medium.
I think our colleagues at Wired use a better dichotomy: Wired vs. Tired. As in:
Wired: “I asked the woman to write about what parents learned at the conference and post it on our public blog. I’ll let readers know by making a quick mention when I tease our online parents’ page in tomorrow’s paper.”
Tired: “Some old bat called about this conference on getting kids to play outside. Sounds stupid. I told her it’s too late for us to do anything with it.”
While the comparison is definitely valid, it’s the language side of it that’s going to hold some people back and keep them from evolving with the industry.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:00 am
Gina,
Great post.
You may be interested in my book about networked journalism which shares a bit of your blog’s title:
‘SuperMedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save The World ‘(Wily Blackwell 2008) – free chapters here: http://is.gd/oiCV
best wishes
Charlie Beckett, Polis, LSE
March 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Josh,
Very good point. I think we’ll really be there when it’s not “new” journalism, it’s just journalism. In the same way, someday we can stop calling “new media” new. We’re not there yet, but I do get your point that changing your language helps move us along intellectually.
I do like the Wired versus Tired labels. May borrow that idea. Although I would submit that for some Internet-reluctant journalists that label wouldn’t quite have the same resonance as old and new.
Charlie,
Thanks. Will check out your book.
– Gina
March 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
[...] her most recent posts, an “old media” versus “new media” imaginary newsroom conversation [...]
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
[...] Old journalism versus new journalism [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
These differences between “old journalism” and new blogging are fallacious. Any good journo/editor has always taken the views you ascribe to “new journalism”. Your examples of “old journalism” are just plain laziness and lack of curiosity.
The main trouble with bloggers is that many of appear to be unemployed or under employed and think that everyone else time to wade through their thousands of words. They also lack rigour in checking facts and are more like the diarists of old
April 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
@Chris Hutching –
Do see your point. My examples of “old journalism” aren’t shining examples of good in any field.
However, my point is new journalism needs to be more focused on the reader — consumer centered. I don’t believe old journalism really was because it didn’t have to be; it was the only game in town.
Sure, newspapers said they cared about the audience in the old days, but I don’t think they took the time to really understand what the audience wants. And the audience in the pre-Internet era didn’t have the power to pick and choose its news as it does today. Sure, it could cancel the newspaper subscription, but then what.
My examples may be exaggerated to make a point. But I think the point is there: You can’t ignore the reader anymore.
– Gina
August 24th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Good point on the interactivity of new journalism, as a trained journalist who moved to the new media arena of the web back in 1996, I recently put together some ideas on my that will help the old media meet the demands on a younger, digitally-enhanced audience. My ideas are under the “New Journalism is Interactive” linked from my blog url above. With all the talk about public bailouts of old media etc., hope this can add something valuable to the discussion. happy blogging, looking forward to your future posts.
Joe
October 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
[...] some interesting fodder in the comments. Her post reminds me of mine from a while back, comparing old journalism to new journalism. Let’s move onto the news, [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Old journalism in comparison with new journalism more abruptly.
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 am
[...] to an article (source here) posted on a personal blog Save The Media, the author (Gina Chen) cited a video tweet by New York [...]
August 1st, 2010 at 11:18 pm
All good ideas. Just wanted to add my 2 cents from the Print viewpoint. To be clear, I’m neither a journalist nor involved in a newspaper. I’m a semi-retired blogger who spent 30 years running a Print business and then a stint teaching in design school.
March 7th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
@Chris Hutching – So, you’re countering Gina’s points — which are exaggerated for effect — by counter-blanketing bloggers as unemployed bags of wind?
Yes, some blogs are lengthy and unsophisticated but the more people experiment, the more they’ll figure out what works. I know dozens of blogs that are amazingly well-researched and well-written, often by people who are proficient in the field that they’re blogging about.
Like — Gina’s blog, for instance.
Leave a Reply