Movin' Ahead

This is a follow up to an earlier post from today about SF Chronicle David Lazarus’ story “So who will get the story?” Here are some things Lazarus wrote that I think are worth looking at more closely with an open mind.

“The blogosphere – a silly term coined by bloggers to legitimize their posturing — is comprised by and large of the people whose work consists of commenting on the work of others.”

Commenting on the work of others sounds like a worthless, meaningless endeavor.  Instead, this is a heathy thing.  This is what we’re trained to do in college.  This is the foundamental act of classical education, especially in Western Europe.  And we might say the same about religions.  If we could clear the frustration clouding Lazarus’  point of view, we might see better .  Blogging is different than professional journalism.  But just after the printing press was invented, politicians and businessmen probably blurted out the same venomous despise for writers before journalism was legitimized as a vocation or profession.  This is not to say that someday people will get a degree in blogging.  But companies are developing blogging curiculums to help employees feel comfortable and empowered to join online conversations.  Journalists can see blogging as competition, but it is only a threat if the businesses that pay journalists are not efficient, effective businesses.  And keep in mind, we have the respected, publically funded PBS and NPR — hallmarks for great journalism. 

Professional journalists who blog or who have become full-time bloggers attest to the potential wonders of blogging.  People like SiliconValleyWatcher’s Tom Foremski, who is chronicling the development of new rules of communication.  Bottom line, stay on top of your game by constantly learning and keeping your mind open.  Protect what you value by making it more valuable to others, not by building walls.

“The harsh reality, though, is that most newspaper Web sties account for only about 5 percent of total revenue (of combined print and online editions).  That means a news organization that relies primarily on teh Internet couldn’t possible support a newsroom as large or resoucful as that the parid-for print product allows.”

And that means this glorious new paradign of content that’s not worth paying for would allow news organizations to be capable of doing only a fraction of the investivative and watchdog work they currently perform.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher — htat is, unless bloggers and cyberreaders are satisfied to accept the words of Washington politicans, or companies like Halliburton and Enron, as face value.”

Here’s a point that can be traced back to something I’ve heard from Tom Foremski — recent story on the topic here.  The traditional media economy will have to change.  It is changing.  It has been changing ever since I can remember.  I worked at San Francisco’s KRON-TV through the 1990s, when digital edit suites first entered the building, a local cable station was born and died and the well-respected, family-owned maveric station was sold.  I suspect that might have been the height and early decline into the ever tightening state it seems most local TV stations have been living in.  Heck KRON-TV now has v-journalists shooting video, editing and electronically submitting stories live or pre-taped over the Internet whenever possible.

The name calling is divisive — “glorious new paradigm” “bloggers and cyberreaders.”  Not everyone is using news aggregators and still many aren’t turning to the Internet for news and information, but it’s way beyond a growing trend.  Momentum is strong and growing rapidly thanks to search engines and social sites that let people embed media players, making anyone/everyone a point of distribution. 

TV didn’t kill the radio star.  In fact, I see radio stars making it big on TV all the time.  This can be true when looking at professional journalists and bloggers.  In fact, many people see professional print journalists on TV, hear them on Radio and read their blogs.  People seek comfort and when change is afoot, the perception of comfort can feel threatened.  Again, this is an opportunity to put skin in the game and passionately encourage co-workers and the powers-that-be to try new things.  Along the way, we can all live, learn and and share new examples that incorpate the old and new ways.

I can’t let this one pass by:  In a world where traditional media economics are downsized, “bloggers and cyberreaders” would have to take at face value the words of companies, employees, politicians, government workers, neighbors and family members.  That’s what we do when we face the world bravely, openly and head on.  But there is a state of reflection that blends in one’s own reason, values and experiences.  We never want to deny or diminish this right.  So the need to feed and encourage this reflection will be provided by great journalism skills from people and professionals.  Journalists get paid for devoting themselves and their skills to this endeavour.  Bloggers blog out of passion and interest.  Seems we’re better off with both!

A coment in the Lazarus story by SF Chronicle reader “dasmb” — “‘Get if first, but get it right'” is a credo for journalists…but blogging ain’t journalism and the same rules don’t apply.”

This is not such a bad thing.  In fact it’s humanizing.  Who in the world doesn’t make mistakes?  It’s said that each person’s reality is soley based on what they believe to be true.  When new information comes in, or a revelation occurs or a leap in logic lands someone on a new level of heightened awareness…we can acknoledge our mistakes or misunderstand and embrace the new understanding.  This is how we move ahead!  Newspapers and TV news play this out, too, but only in a tiny “corrections” section or in a few seconds during a newscast.  These mistakes are the best fodder for exploring and finding better understanding for everyone.

Lazarus brings his article to a close by advocating that the newspaper industry ought “to safeguard its output until a more suitable means of electronic distribution comes to light.”

OK, so we shut down access like the record industry did to Naptster and wait for another Steve Jobs to come in on a white horse to save the day.  Possible, sure!  Workable models exist.  But this feels like backwards thinking, light on details and facts.  The record company is still struggling.  We’re seeing the video wars spark up with billion dollar lawsuits.  This is all still being defined, just like the movie industry, medical field and many other industries. 

The Internet is changing so many things.  Can’t we put our collective minds and spirits together and focus on the advancing the best possbilities?  Along the way we can hold wide open our eyes, blinking oly to share our opinions and to breathe as we stay committed to moving ahead and making things better for people and economies.

Link to the San Francisco Chronicle story for March 23, 2007

SF Chronicle columnist David Lazarus is at it again, moving ahead the conversations about newspapers — journalists that create valuable, reporting based,  fact-checked content — and their fight for survival.  His March 13 column, “So who will get the story?” is both provocative and defensive. 

This is great!  This makes it real.  If he was “so right” about everything, then the discussion might be over. 

To be fair, this discussion is really about journalists vs. bloggers.  It’s about finding a sustanable business model for traditional media — the forefathers of content creation — in a new world running on new technology that empowering people to get information and entertainment in new ways.

Anyone who has been reading Lazarus’ spirited stories on this topic can tell it won’t be over for a while.  By exploring this further and engaging readers, he is really helping to deepen the discussion and quicken the pace for finding some helpful solutions.  Most will agree that free rides are paid by someone, somewhere and once they go away…all of us who’ve become dependent on what’s being given away will suffer somehow.  In a capitalistic economy, we’ll suffer and move to the next best deal or free ride. But in the end, people help push the best to the top.  This is a right worth fighting for whenever we’re exploring new models and understanding new paradigms.

Like most great discussions at the dinner table, this one comes down to values and how they improve or impair an economy.  And now this is exactly what Lazarus points out: 

"Newspapers to the digging that most bloggers do not.  The blogosphere — a silly term coined by bloggers to legitimize their posturing — is comprised by an large of people whose work constists of commenting on the work of others.”

I can’t really argue with that, but it’s plain to me that Lazarus has fallen into a trap and is feeling attached and frustrated and even despises blogging.  The blogosphere is "silly" and later he says that bysuspending antitrust laws and allowing newspaper owners to unite in charging for online content:

“…would be to collectively demonstrate to online news agreegators, bloggers and various freeloaders that this industry intends to safeguard its output until a more suitable means of electronic distribution comes to light.”

Wow:  freeloaders, safequard.  Sounds like hate and fear.  Sure you want to fight for what you have and fight for what you believe is right.  The reality is we live in a civilized society…at least we aspire to.  Waging war,  spreading hostility, name calling and safeguarding seems so defensive.  It feels stuck in the mode we’re all trying to escape after our country’s reaction to 9/11.  It’s tough to heal and move ahead to a better way of living while perceiving things as threats rather than opportunities. 

Cut the name calling and real talk and understanding is allowed to happen.  I like nothing more than getting into a heated Italian dinner discussion.  It can get vulgar and radical, but hateful and name calling is not furtulizer for negotiation.  Not one, but both sides have to win…or there’s less chance for advancing together.

What I like about Lazarus’ approach is that he criticizes AND offers ideas to fix the problem.  It’d be great if the reporter could investigate the ideas and undercover new ideas rather than stay trapped in the cheap thrill of name calling.  Let the bloggers do that if they want.  As a blogger, even I am trapped by the cheap thrill of “commenting” rather than “reporting.”  Blogging has bad or worthless value but it’s open, accessible, sharable nature is something that can tremendously improve understanding — of each other and of ourselves. 

A reporter has an opportunity and platform to rise these cheap thrills  and bring people together.  That’s the power of great journalism.  And that skill and service will always be in demand in a society that to continuously improve.

In my next post, I will dig into some of the paragraphs from Lazarus’ story.  Parts that make me pause.  Parts that could be looked at in other ways to actually help rather than divide.  The full column by Dvid Lasarus here.