How does Journalism Stay Relevant?

From Eddie at the IBR:

“A few weeks ago, Tac Anderson posed this question for us on his blog:

My question for the Idaho Business Review is “what’s next�? John Foster has made some great changes in the right direction, but I think that they need to strike while the iron’s hot. One blog is a great *start* but is not even the tip of the iceburg (sic).

I’ve struggled with this for a few weeks, but I’ve been unable to come up with a concise, thoughtful solution. Instead, in the spirit of Web 2.0, I’d like to turn the question over to our readers. How do you use the Web site? What features would you like to see us add? How should we keep the conversation going?”

My response in the comments:

“There’s a lot of buzz in journalism right now about how does the industry stay relevant. I think an industry wide shift needs to happen and reporters need to stop worrying about ‘reporting’ and be more concerned with ‘aggregating’ and delivering stories.

The key is personalization. You nor anyone at the IBR has any idea what I (or anyone) will be interested in as a reader. Provide relevant content (no matter what the source)and provide a way for me to select what news I want aggregated to me and how I would like it delivered.”

Garry Goldhammer had this to say on the Social Media Today blog:

“You don’t work for a newspaper; you work in the news business, using any tools at your disposal necessary to do your job. A print reporter may shoot video if that helps tell the story. A TV journalist can write a blog or a radio journalist can post photos to illustrate a story on his podcast.

I witnessed this struggle first hand during a recent “new media� workshop for travel writers. These were print people worried about what cameras to buy, how long a podcast should be and whether they could manage this new approach to storytelling. All they knew for sure was there was no choice but to learn and evolve.

This is not threatening but rather freeing – without conventional constraints, reporters can be more engaging and thorough. It also secures a place for print as a needed piece of the multimedia pie, instead of becoming a faded, stubborn relic screaming for dominance in a media world gone forever flat.”

So what do they do?  There is no *right* answer.  I think the answer lies in my last post.

 

 

 
on
Print this post

Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

Comments

1.
On May 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm, Chris Blanchard said:

The Wall Street Journal has an article today by the publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The article’s title, “How to Sink a Newspaper” kind of gives away his opinion, which is that the fastest way to kill your paper is to have a website! The pull quote reads “free news for on-line customers is s disastrous business plan.” Apparently the WSJ thinks so too since I can’t link to the article on their site.

You are of course right, Tac. The IBR should accelerate the use of on-line tools. I think the IBR is considered more relevant than ever now, largely because they are communicating WITH their audience. And I would bet that the better IBR web-site has actually increased circulation of the paper product.

2.
On May 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm, Jarred said:

I wonder far off we from losing the past time of having a cup of coffee and reading the paper in the morning? The only reason I buy the Sunday paper is because my wife love all those ads. I get all the news that I’m looking for from the new source’s websites.

It’ll be an interesting day when the NY Times or the WSJ announces that they will become only a weekly printed or only an electronic news source.

Like most things it is kind of excited but kind of sad at the same time.

-Jarred

Leave a Reply