Hopes for journalists in 2010

Happy 2010, readers! Wow. We survived what was quite the troubling year in journalism, and, I think, really, that journalism is better for it. Yes, there’s been too many layoffs, pay cuts, buyouts. But I think the economic woes have forced news organizations to rethink how they gather and deliver news — and that’s a wonderful thing.

A year ago, I came up with my 10 hopes for journalists in 2009. As part of the introspection that comes with the passing of a year — and a decade — here is my list of 10 hopes for journalists in 2010. (And, by the way, my hopes for 2009 still hold true.) Please share your own hopes in the comments. And here’s to a better year for journalism!

1. Realize it’s not just the economy: I hope in 2010, as the economy improves, journalists will realize that the downturn for newspapers wasn’t just from recession-induced lagging ad sales. Yes, that hurt. Yes, that hastened the pain for newspapers. But it would be a mistake to think that once the economy improves, everything will go back to normal. It won’t. See the recession as the wake-up call that is should be.

My parish priest told a story at Mass a few weeks back that, I think, explains what I mean. He told about a man who was stranded on a desert island with no hope of rescue. He made a life for himself, built a hut and struggled to survive. One day, the hut caught fire and burned to the ground. He thought: Why? Then a rescue helicopter arrived. If it weren’t for the smoke from the fire, the helicopter pilot would not have seen him. The moral: Sometimes our hut needs to burn down, so we can move onto where we need to go. Newspapers, your hut burned down for a reason — so you’d change your business. So do it.

2. Remove the sneer: All too often I read newspaper stories about people using social media that seem to portray the people as oddities. I know that’s part of journalistic routines: The odd is more newsworthy than the every day. But if newspapers continue to subtly portray social media users as exceptions to the norm, the weird techies, they will miss out on understanding what social media means in people’s lives. Yes, we’re in the minority in the general American population, but we’re a minority that going to grow and grow, as social media evolves. And then, dear newspapers, won’t you look silly?

3. Lead don’t follow:  This is a corollary to my point in Number 2. If you’re treating social media use like this weird techie thing, you’re not embracing it. You’re not figuring out how to use it for journalism. That’s a shame and a missed opportunity. Journalists should be leading in how to use and explain social media to readers, not sitting on the sidelines bragging that you don’t get social media as if that’s something to be proud of. It’s not. It’s like the reporters who argued in the ’80s that they’d prefer a typewriter to a computer. It’s just silly. News organizations need to make sense of the world for readers, so they should figure out how to use Twitter or Google Wave and explain that to their readers. Granted, some newspapers are doing a fabulous job of this. Far too many are not.

4. Changing your news-gathering: In the old days, the news gathering followed a pretty simple pattern. Source > Journalist >Reader. This has all changed, and news organizations’ methods of gathering and disseminating news must change with it. Some stories might be Reader>Journalist>Reader. Others might be Source>Reader>Journalist>Reader. Others might drop the linear model altogether and end up with multiple readers offering multiple ideas to multiple sources, and then a journalist uniting it. I’m talking crowd-sourcing here and curating. But I’m also talking more creativity even when the journalist is doing the gathering. (Stayed tune for a specific post on this later this month.)

5. Add some new blood: I know economically news organizations are really strapped, so it’s hardly the time to hire young people. But you must find a way to do this soon. I believe newspapers cannot truly transform themselves without adding some young voices to the mix. It’s not that the old-timers don’t have value. They do. But you need both. It’s unhealthy for an organization to go years and years without hiring new people, especially in an industry that is trying to reinvent itself in a rapidly changing world. If you don’t do this, these smart, young, recent journalism graduates will get jobs elsewhere for digital news operations that kick your butt. A quote from David Carr on BuzzMachine sums up well the value of young journalists: They don’t have to think out of the box because they were never in one to begin with.

6. Don’t play lip-service: I find that many online news Web sites from traditional media outlets offer innovation, but way less than people are growing to expect from interactive news. Having the capacity to comment or vote on stories isn’t enough anymore. That is, as my kids would say, “So 30 seconds ago.” The interaction must be intrinsic to the whole information experience. News organizations need to offer multiple options for receiving and interacting, but they must — and this is key — explain to their readers how to use them. Letting folks vote on stories, but giving no obvious guidelines on how they do this means it will fail. Simple. Only the diehards will try. The regular readers won’t. So you’ll end up with little meaningful interaction and just a lot of flaming.

7. Learn the lingo: Nothing makes the legacy press seems like the ancient, out-0f-touch press than not understanding the current technologies. I’d argue that pretty much any paper of any size today should have someone covering technology, blogging about it, and explaining it to readers. As I said in Number 2, being out of the loop is nothing to be proud of. It’s not a sign that you’re a true journalist fighting for a return to the old-time newspapering in a world that has gone all crazy 3.0. It just makes you look out of touch. Journalists are supposed to know how to explain things in which they are not experts. So do that. (And I don’t just mean the one or two people on staff who are into the new stuff; I mean everybody.) Read blogs, not just news sites. Experiment. Find out the buzz. Get educated.

8. Market yourself: At newspapers, the advertising and marketing folks are often on a separate floor from the newsroom. It’s a physical split that follows a philosophical division between those who gather the news and those who sell it. I believe this split is still important. However, journalists need to learn a bit from their marketing colleagues about selling themselves. Marketing works. If you’re doing something amazing or innovative, you need to let your readers know that loud and clear and more than one. If the print tells of a great interactive graphic online, but the reader can’t find it, you’ve lost. So many newspapers are doing wonderful, creative experiments, but readers need some help in finding these things. They spend seconds on your site, and if they can’t find what they’re looking for, they’re gone. You can change that. Make things easy to find, and shout it. Don’t feel like you’re breaching some journalistic ethos by bragging. If you whisper, no one will hear you.

9. Brand yourself: It used to be that journalists, at least at newspapers, were anonymous almost. Sure, they had a byline, but who read that expect pundits, other journalists, and angry government officials. TV reporters got recognized on the street, but those with a face for newspapers didn’t have to worry about that. Today, journalists must create their own persona online. They need a blog, a Facebook page, a Twitter account. They need to use their real name and picture. Yes, support the news organizations’ brand, but journalists also need to develop their own brand on the Web.

Why? The Web is based on what Wired editor Chris Anderson calls “reputational currency.” People gain believability on the Web as they build their own personal reputations. (Not just the reputation of their employer.) R. David Lankes, a Syracuse University professor, writes the people view others as credible on the Web today based on reliability, not authority. So you believe blogger A because she says the same thing that four other bloggers you like says, not because she’s a bonafide expert. Tom Kelleher and Barbara Miller, professors at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that the people see online communications that use the “conversational human voice” as more trustworthy than more static communication.

To me, these concepts converge. To be seen as credible, journalists need to have their names out there so they can build a reputation. They also need to use the conversational human voice and fit their message into the context of online communities. If they do that, people will feel like they kind of know them, so they’ll trust them more.

10. Have fun again: It’s been a tough year. It’s understandable that journalists feel beaten down, bewildered, angry, confused, bitter, ambivalent. The list could go on and on. But being a journalist is, as a friend’s father told her when she choose the career two decades ago, a noble profession. It still is. And it’s fun. There’s nothing like the adrenaline rush of breaking a big story, beating your competition, standing up to authority and making changes. I know in the past year, it was hard to remember this as it appeared the floor was collapsing beneath you. I know because I lived it, too. Newsrooms are full of sadness today, for lost colleagues, a lost way of life. That’s normal. But, please, remember why you got into the business. Rise to that occasion. Have fun again. Your readers need you.


Like what you’re reading, subscribe

14 thoughts on “Hopes for journalists in 2010

  1. Those are good goals for media, but to tell you the truth, the one thing I wish online newspapers would stop is allowing people to comment online without revealing their real names. I check out some news online and see some of the rudest comments on serious news stories and just want to smack someone. If people want to be anonymous on commentary, that’s fine. But on serious stuff, they should remove the stuff or make people use their real names and verify those people are who they say they are, just like they’d do with commentary in the newspaper.

  2. Crazy commenting is a big problem. The crazies take over and end up driving anyone with something cogent to say out.

    You’re right. That needs to be fix. I think the fix is to monitor heavily, and journalists need to engage in the comments — not just let the crazies go wild. At too many news sites, comments are just left to anyone, and none of the journalists chime in, set the tone, make it clear that garbage won’t be allowed.

    Honestly, I’m not sure making people give their real names would solve the problem, but, you’re right, it may deter some people. It’s a start.

    – Gina

  3. You’re also right, seeing some reporters come back and engage people would be a good thing as well.

    I actually do believe real names would civilize what some people will say. If you know people will know who you are, you’ll probably behave because you never know who’ll see it. Kind of like what we tell young people about Facebook.

  4. Awesome website. I’m a student journalist and I definitely agree with your goals for 2010. I’m doing my best trying to brand myself for the future, because lets face it the internet is changing everything.

    I’m going to add your blog to my favorites! Happy New Year!

  5. @Joe

    Great to meet you, Joe. Good luck on your studies and on branding yourself!

    Happy new year!


  6. These are fine ideas, and I may indeed be a dinosaur… But going over this blog post, I find a need for an 11th entry:

    11. Get a copy editor.

    Old media or new, grammatical and style errors damage the credibility of the journalist. Or MI rong 2 say that lol?

    I’m trying very hard to learn, adopt and adapt to the new methods of journalism. It would seem to me that the new generation of journalists would be well served to embrace some of the old tenets — most notably, respect for and attention to correct grammar.

  7. Pingback: This week in media musings: Tablet madness, and ideas for Sunday talk shows | Mark Coddington

  8. Social problems such as injustice, pollution, violence, poverty, crime, and discrimination, suppression of human rights as well as gay marriage, religion, gun control and abortion, are very common in now days.

  9. Hi Gina,
    Am taking an online journalism course with the ICFJ (http://www.icfj.org/). I recently subscribed to your blog as a result of this course. I like the way you analyse both traditional and social media from different perspectives. I find myself reading your posts not only for the purpose of the course but also to educate myself. Given that I only started using social media recently, you’re such an inspiration to me. Keep up the good work, keep blogging and I’ll keep reading it..
    Terry, Toronto

  10. Pingback: From social media skeptic to fanatic « Terry Mutuku Blog

  11. @hinty

    I appreciate your comment, and I’d love a copy editor. But as a student who blogs on her own, I can’t really afford that luxury.

    With that said, I spent 20 years in the newspaper biz, as an editor, copy editor, reporter, so I feel your pain. I appreciate the value of careful editing. I do my best, but in editing myself, sometimes I miss some things.

    I hope that you will get past an occasional missing comma, though, and focus on the content of what I have to say.


    – Gina

  12. Dear Mrs. Gina,

    This is Jing Deng from China,I am globe news reporter in China(newspaper).

    Thank you for your great & excellent article for journalism.I really love it.

    I hope to meet you in China one day.

    Best wishes.

    Your Sincerely,
    Jing Deng

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>