Tracking the tools that decentralize the media. tools process ideas resources eventsav

unmediated

 

January 30, 2005

The language of journalism is changing. The terms that define the components of the craft are in flux. The vocabulary of newspapers is under challenge by both critics of the industry’s rigidity and by evangelists for new forms of journalism. The result: A journalistic Babel where confusion reigns.

I have been in a lot of newsrooms in the last year for Tomorrow’s Workforce, some as large as this one and some as small as this one. All desired to improve their journalism in some way, but, apart from their individual strengths or weaknesses, all struggled with two ingredients critical for change: A common definition for success and the institutional means to arrive at one.

In other words, the editors and reporters working at these newspapers want to change their newspapers, but their vocabulary – words like “story” and “beat” and “reader” – refers to forms and conceptions that, while still valuable, are ridden with journalistic baggage and lack the flexibility to embrace new meanings.

Specifically, faced with questions like “how should we ‘cover’ the city council?” or “what does the education ‘beat’ look like?’ or “what components should a news ‘story’ have?”, newspaper journalists have difficulty imagining non-traditional, even bold answers using these traditional terms.
Originally posted by Tim Porter from morph, remediated by yatta on Jan 30, 2005 at 07:01 PM