The journalism bubble: why the newsroom and reporting will never be the same

Came across a thought provoking piece on the state of journalism today, penned by none other than Jeff Jarvis, the prolific and insightful media blogger who is constantly challenging the "mainstream media" to change or risk total irrelevance. (see the entire take on Jarvis' blog here) Jarvis argues - and I agree here - that old media is dying because most mainstream journalists spend their time "churning commodity news" that is of little value to readers. Journalists hate this of course, because most have an "inflated" view of themselves and their work. From Jeff's blog, quoting another blogger Robert Picard:

"Well-paying employment requires that workers possess unique skills, abilities, and knowledge. It also requires that the labor must be non-commoditized. Unfortunately, journalistic labor has become commoditized. Most journalists share the same skills sets and the same approaches to stories, seek out the same sources, ask similar questions, and produce relatively similar stories….

Across the news industry, processes and procedures for news gathering are guided by standardized news values, producing standardized stories in standardized formats that are presented in standardized styles. The result is extraordinary sameness and minimal differentiation."



Well said. Here's my take on this: back in the day, when advertisers and readers had fewer options, it was okay to churn out endless streams of agenda-driven city council or government stories, or soft features, because readers had no choice. Or it was okay to view the world - and write stories - about what interested you because you (the reporter) thought it was important. No one paid attention to marketing or reader interests because you didn't need to. You got paid and rewarded anyway. And, the process dictated sameness. But now the market demands expertise, impact and content targeted at specific interests. Journalists hate this because it diminishes what they do, what they find interesting, but readers have already voted - by going to sources where they find value. Some of this stuff is simple: when dad eats his son's eyes out in a drug crazed stupor, that's news. Burying it inside because you don't want to sensationalize it and then running commodity wire copy on the front - when reader interest dictates otherwise - is simply suicidal. Short of that, a city council "advance" story written just to fill the pages is also commodity drivel that has little or no value. Just because you cover city government and know people, and you have an interest in it, doesn't mean it's interesting or has value to anyone else. More from Jeff:

"People — particularly if they’re under 40 — have news priorities other than those of the editors of The New York Times or producers of the “NBC Nightly News.” A new tablet from Apple — or last night’s episode of “Gossip Girl” or the adventures of the hipster grifter — is a bigger deal than the latest petty scandal in Albany. You think that’s a damning indictment of modern society and a recipe for idiocracy? Fine. Start a nonprofit to cover all the local-government news you think a healthy society needs. But don’t expect advertisers — or commercially-minded publishers or readers, for that matter — to share your interests. . . .

"When Gawker started, there was a surfeit of information and not nearly enough context — so we provided that, in the form of links and occasionally snarky commentary. But now the balance has shifted. There are pointers to articles on the blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Digg. And all these intermediaries are looking for something to link to. If a good exclusive used to provide 10 times the traffic of a standard regurgitated blog post, now it garners a hundred times as much. That should be reassuring to people. The content market is finding its new balance. Original
reporting will be rewarded.

So where does that leave old school journalists? Some tips:
* Get over thinking that the work you do is important. It is only important if the marketplace values it.
* Stop writing for what interests you and write for your readers.
* Ask yourself: how well do I really know my market and my readers?
* Please, no more hiding behind "awards" from your local or state press clubs. These are given out by your peer groups that often have little relevance to readership or impact.
* The old days of writing "DBI" stories (dull but important) are over. If it's really important, it won't be dull. Dull and sameness equate to death.
* Recognize there will be fewer of you and you will have to become more specialized. And that doesn't mean you "specialize" in city government because you like it but rather you specialize in finding content that has real value to your readers. Your work must have impact.
* And lastly, accept the change or find other work.

Morning report: short takes around town

Cleaning out the cupboard this morning and found some nuggets to share about our community:
* A group of equestrians have formed an organization to lobby for the preservation and improvement of horse trails around town. They're fond of the network of trails along the Kern River near the Panorama bluffs. Check out their advocacy website here.
* Steven Mayer has a wonderful piece on an act of heroism by a Bakersfield soldier in Afghanistan. Read Sgt. Robert Fortner's story here.
* Those college acceptances are arriving and local kids have until May 1 to make up their minds. I'll be compiling a list to celebrate those kids moving on. If you have a name, shoot it to me.
* Media analyst and author of "What Would Google Do?" author Jeff Jarvis takes newspaper publishers to task in a scathing diatribe that has a lot of truth to it. Read his post here.
* Ray and Lisa Karpe of Karpe Real Estate spent yesterday in Fresno at a White House Regional Forum on Health Reform. They were there as directors of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Southern California Chapter.
* The Women's and Girls Fund of Kern County will be handing out new grants on April 29 at Seven Oaks Country Club. This is the fifth annual event for this worthy group that promotes women and girls locally. Call 325-5346 by April 22 for infomation to attend.

If Jeff Jarvis thinks content should be free, why does he charge $27 for his new book?

There's a healthy debate about the future of newspapers and what constitutes "free" content in the age of the internet. One of the biggest proponents of free content is Jeff Jarvis whose "Buzzmachine" blog is always thought provoking. Now comes Alan Mutter, whose "Newsosaur" blog has its own following, challenging Jarvis and some of the assertions he makes in his new book "What Would Google Do?" Mutter writes:

Given Jeff’s deeply held belief that content should be free, why is he charging a retail price of $26.99 for his new book?

The central thesis of Jeff’s book, “What Would Google Do?”, seems to be that music, news stories, legal advice and other types of intellectual property should be free to roam the web to create links and communities which, somehow, Providence eventually will monetize.

So, why is Jeff charging $27.99 for the audio version of his new book?

A New World Order

Jeff Jarvis (a link to his buzzmachine is listed below) is one of our great thinkers and today he puts forth a good argument linking the current economic upheaval with the maturation of the internet. I lifted this straight from his blog:

Fred Wilson says what I’ve been thinking: That we’re in more than a financial crisis, we’re in a fundamental restructuring.

Clearly the economic downturn is the direct cause of most of these failures but I believe it is the straw that broke the camel’s back in most cases.

The internet, now closing in on 15 years old in its mainstream incarnation as the world wide web, is in many cases the underlying cause of these business failures.

Bits of information flowing over a wire (or through the air) are just more efficient than physical infrastructure….

This downturn will be marked in history as the time where many of the business models built in the industrial era finally collapsed as a result of being undermined by the information age.

Fred outlines fundamental changes in retail, banking, and auto sales, to name three industries, and then is kind enough to plug my book for more.

I also argued in a recent Guardian column that not only will specific industries be overtaken by this change but so will the structure of the economy as - post-crisis, post-Google - companies and sectors will no longer grow to critical mass through vast ownership funded by vast debt but instead, Google-like, by building networks atop platforms. Industries will change and so will the structure in which they operate.

The point in any case is that it would be a mistake to think that we will come out of this financial crisis soon wounded but still seeing the world the way we saw it before. In the graveyard of camels with broken backs, we will see a new world newly structured and we’re only beginning to figure it out.

In this sense, media - music, newspapers, TV, magazines, books - may be lucky to be among the first to undergo this radical restructuring. Communications was also early on because it - like media - appeared close to the internet and Google (though, as I say in the post below, it’s a mistake to see the internet strictly as media or as pipes; it’s something other). Other industries and institutions - advertising, manufacturing, health, education, government… - are next and they, like their predecessors, don’t see what’s coming, especially if they think all they’re undergoing is a crisis. The change is bigger, more fundamental, and more permanent than that.