What a NEW news organization might look like
Mark Glaser of Online Journalism Review wants someone to start the media company he would like to work for. In a guest post at Jay Rosen's PressThink blog, he talks about what such an organization might look like and how it might function. Because he talks a lot about emphasizing the needs of the consumer/reader/viewer, I thought I'd throw out some of his bullet points to see whether you, the reader, think this, or something like it, might be a news organization whose work you would like to see:
A news outlet that creates new content, aggregates the best outside content, and makes sense of everything, presenting it in a clear, simple format for the consumption of everyone. A company founded on the values of serving the public and allowing the public to serve journalism by participating in all discussions of mission and direction. A company that answers directly to its readers and consumers and doesn't talk down to them from editorial ivory towers. A company that is focused on the value of journalism, the practice, and not only of marketing and stock dividends. A group of like-minded people who are willing to start from scratch and build a new way of doing smart, groundbreaking citizen journalism. Not too amateur, not too professional but something in between. A company that is flexible and knowledgeable, with people who "get it" and understand how they can tap the latest technology to improve the craft of journalism -- and help it survive. These new journalists would blend the research done online via search and databases, the production process of a content management system, the community involvement of bulletin boards and wikis, and the delivery mechanisms of RSS, blogs and mobile platforms. Rather than teach old dogs new tricks, employ techno-literate people from inception. The "everyone gets it" company. A commitment to provide more transparency for all writers and editors, including political leanings, conflicts of interest and other details that will help readers know who they are. A balance of privacy for journalists with the public's need to know who they are and where they come from. A staff and board of advisers of englightened media people and bloggers such as Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Elizabeth Osder, Susan Mernit, Matt Welch, Howard Owens, Robert Cox, Steve Rubel, John Battelle, James Lileks, Bob Somerby, Dan Gillmor, and many others who walk the talk. A company where journalists follow the spirit of the rules and ethics of journalism -- and not the letter, as fundamentalists would. A company where people realize that the Web audience is potentially global and therefore work together to create stories and packages that cross national and cultural boundaries. A place where news will be a conversation and not a one-way lecture. Where the readers will also report, edit, fact-check and photograph the world around them.
Some news organizations, including this one, are doing some of these things now, or moving (comparatively) rapidly in that direction, but his whole point would be to accelerate that movement to, basically, instantaneous change.
I'll leave it to you readers to say whether this is something you'd like. As a working journalist, however, I'd say it looks awfully attractive.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
A lot of it sounds great, but I doubt any of it would work. Journalists only get ahead by being serious Journalists (and that is Journalist with a capital J).
This entirely "new" media company would need to figure out how to reward people completely differently than other media companies. (In other words, the person who got the big city council scoop would not necessarily be who "gets ahead" -- that person would NEED to be valued equally with the person who does great community journalism.)
The real trick comes with the journalists at this theoretical company and how they want to move up the industry ladder. Their skills and things that -- in theory --- should be valued at this "new" media company won't be valued elsewhere, so how do they advance their career (and more importantly their pay -- since that is how journalists typically get raises that allow them to feed themselves) will be critical to the whole equation.
Of course, to me, the original post is already flawed: the main problem with current media companies is the hubris that exists in the cult of personality that is built around reporters, editors and publishers. By mentioning a few such "experts" in the original post, I'm afraid this "new" media company is already headed down the wrong path.
Posted on December 2, 2004 2:06 PM
Jim, I'll take your last point first: That issue already was raised in the comments on the original post, and Glaser quickly clarified that he wasn't just trying to create a different cult of personality; he was just trying to point out an incomplete list of some people whose work suggested some understanding of and sympathy for the idea.
As for the pay issue, and the larger issue of what the business model would look like, that's a tough one. I've had some friends who've worked in organizations where everyone got to decide how much everyone else got paid, and as one of Glaser's commenters said, that's a pretty fast way to learn why communism died. I suspect the right business model will turn up after a few wrong ones have been tried unsuccessfully, but I'm also going to devote some time to trying to figure one out that might work from the git-go. Another possibility might be launching a beta version as a nonprofit if you can line up significant funding up front, then experimenting with what would and would not constitute a workable business model.
Finally, in response to your comment that "the main problem with current media companies is the hubris that exists in the cult of personality that is built around reporters, editors and publishers," I would say that companies vary, that a cult of personality is neither inevitable nor necessarily harmful given adequate peer and public review, and that in any case, every media company I know of has far bigger problems than this.
Posted on December 2, 2004 4:12 PM