During last week’s Editorchat, we discussed training the next generation of writers; would-be journalists who are learning on the Web, in the short form, via blogs. We asked what the long-term implications for newsrooms would be.
“Storytelling typically takes time, i.e. longer pieces, that people need to invest in, but the Internet teaches us that less is more, because people don’t want (or, moreso have the time) to devote to reading,” wrote participant Marc Hertz, a freelance writer and editor who operates out of the San Francisco Bay Area. “When I’m reading a piece and I actually manage to scroll down, then see there are multiple pages, I’ve been known to get antsy, so I can imagine what the average reader might do.”
At its root, last week’s thread had us wondering whether blogs had already become the New “New” Journalism. But of course we’re not alone in thinking about this. These related links were posted by our chat participants:
- Columbia Journalism Review Features the News Literacy Project. Posted by Becky Gjendem, this piece summarizes a cover story in Columbia Journalism Review about activist efforts to educate young people about what journalists do, and why they do it.
- Tommy’s Table: Some Questions for Readers. From Andria Krewson, this blog post by Charlotte Observer columnist Tommy Tomlinson asks the paper’s readers to weigh in on content. What do they like? What do they not like? And what would get them to read more often?
- McSweeney’s launches San Francisco Panorama. From Hertz, this full-color beast may be the most awesome paper we’ve yet seen. Or at the very least on par with The National Sports Daily, which Tim still mourns — almost two decades after its demise.
Stay tuned for the next topic, and be sure to tune in each Wednesday at 8:30 pm eastern on FriendFeed.
Whether he meant to or not, Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, eviscerated freelancers over the weekend.
“These cases illustrate how hard it is for The Times to ensure that freelancers, who contribute a substantial portion of the paper’s content, abide by ethics guidelines that editors believe are self-evident and essential to the paper’s credibility but that writers sometimes don’t think about, or don’t think apply to their circumstances, or believe are unfair or unrealistic,” Hoyt wrote in explaining why The Times had recently severed relationships with three freelancers over accepting freebies, mostly outside their work for The Times.
Is it really so difficult to abide by ethics rules? We don’t think so, but together we have more than 30 years in the journalism business. We’re old school. We didn’t train on blogs, where writers routinely accept freebies that are verboten by The Times and many other news organizations.
To Hoyt’s credit, he understands that these two worlds are colliding. “These cases keep coming up with dismaying frequency. That could be because the system is so elaborate — written booklet, written contract, written questionnaire — that editors take false comfort and neglect the most important element: constant conversation with freelancers over every assignment about the paper’s expectations. Then, even when considering asking someone else for free air fare or taking a junket, a freelancer would know better, or stop and ask.”
We agree, but we also think this is more than a present-tense problem. Tomorrow’s journalists are training not just at J-schools, but on the Web, in blogs. They’re witnessing and often participating in stories that are opinionated and which may involve sponsorship — a very different idea from the detached journalism that The Times preaches and practices. So while we believe Hoyt is right to raise the issue, we also wonder if it’s naive to think better guidelines and open communication are enough when there are real questions as to whether journalism itself is changing.
What do you think? Join us tonight at 8:30 at Editorchat on FriendFeed.
Are breaking stories breaking the publishing business?
We’re wondering this in the wake of the Falcon Heene -better known as Balloon Boy- hoax. A few days after reporting live from the scene of the Heene family’s weather balloon’s crash landing, CNN deemed the event a stunt. Nevertheless, it was one in which Gawker paid dearly for an exclusive insider’s testimony that the entire thing was a not-so-well-orchestrated publicity stunt.
Earlier today we saw a false report that rapper Kanye West had died. (Thanks to Twitter’s new trending topic functionality, they reported: “Kanye West is not dead, but he did pull a surreal Spike Jonze directed video off of his website..”)
We are beginning to think that accuracy too often suffers at the altar of speed and we wonder if this gotta-have-it-now obsession is becoming tiresome, like Sanka for readers who long for a steaming hot cup of good coffeehouse brew. Specifically we’re wondering:
Writers: Is it time to lay down the pen and wait for the events to unfold before rushing to report?
Editors: How damaging is getting an erroneous scoop if you have to back-pedal because of a hoax?
Publishers: How far are you willing to go out on a financial limb to secure an exclusive?
Join us tonight at 8:30pm EST to discuss these questions at www.friendfeed.com/editorchat.
We’ve known for years that a blurry line separates bloggers and journalists, but now the FTC has drawn the boundaries in pen with new rules that govern disclosure for bloggers. Here’s the jist: “Bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization.”
The results could be far-reaching. According to a CNET news report by Caroline McCarthy, “Prominent users of Twitter and Facebook won’t be exempt from controversial new Federal Trade Commission guidelines that keep tabs on blogger freebies and giveaways.”
We all know about the importance of truth in advertising, but we are wondering if this is fair, or if taking it to this level goes too far. Specifically:
What equals proper disclosure in the new world of 24-hour-blogging and ever-present social media?
How does that relate to content sharing and attribution?
Let’s talk about the limits of disclosure on tonight’s #editorchat. We’ll be at www.friendfeed.com/editorchat at 8:30pm EST.
Too often, when writers talk about the tools of the trade, we refer to software, nifty calendars, space age pens, crisp portfolios, and all other manner of gizmos that matter little for the task of writing. This week we want to focus on two tools that really do matter:
- The language.
- The heart.
First, let’s talk language. William Safire, who died on Sunday, made a career of writing about it, and the many of us who read his work and observed the speeches he wrote for others are better off for having seen him in action. Safire assured us that we could play with the words we use as tools. And he knew that the right combination of words could stir emotions as well as any picture — sayings be damned. Yet as we remember Safire we wonder if creative use of language is a dying art form. We wonder if, in the age of instant books and throw-it-on-the-Web-and-see-if-it-sticks reporting, evocative language matters as much as it once did. We also wonder if busy readers hunger for exactly this sort of prose, the sort that Safire prized and singled out in Lend Me Your Ears, a book that collects his favorite speeches from history.
We think Safire appreciated great speechwriting not just because it was his chosen profession for a time, but also because he saw the value in writing from the heart — a place where fact mixes with analysis, opinion, and hyperbole. Untouchable regions for the unbiased reporter. But is this really fair? We’ve seen much debate about this on Twitter and elsewhere this week, in the wake of a new Washington Post policy that asks reporters — we’re paraphrasing here — to refrain from using social networks such as Twitter to offer opinions on news. The fear: Unfiltered participation in conversations wilding about the Social Web could impact the WaPo’s journalistic integrity. We wonder if this policy goes too far, or if it’s a needed change — a way to protect the members of the Fourth Estate from accidentally harming the institution.
So, to recap, our questions for you writers, editors, and publishers who choose to join us:
- Is evocative use of language in writing a lost art form, or as crucial as it ever was?
- Is it ever okay for reporters to have opinions?
Join us to discuss these and other questions on www.friendfeed.com/editorchat tonight at 8:30pm EST.
