Social media and journalists: a lot of evangelizing to do

March 7, 2008 by Kurt
Filed under: general 

I attended a luncheon sponsored by the St. Louis Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists on Wednesday. A couple of highlights left me concerned about the pace of evangelizing to our colleagues.

During a discussion of the topic, “Getting it right or getting it first,” a colleague brought up the Dallas Morning News’ decision to release a load of newly discovered JFK documents to the public, inviting readers’ input on their news value, leads and tips.

Given the volume, we haven’t been able to review most of the files. That’s why were calling on you. Here’s your chance to review never-seen-before materials related to the JFK assassination.

Take a look, and let us know if you see something interesting.

Upon mentioning this, the room erupted with laughter as if it were the silliest thing the assembled newspaper and television journalists had ever heard.

The second anecdote involves a question about whether readers are savvy enough to know the difference between what they read on a branded newspaper or television web site versus some guy’s blog — or a branded buzz blog (with a huge following) such as Deadspin. A lot of agreement around the table that readers aren’t.

Yet there was also agreement that television and newspapers aren’t “appointments” anymore — that readers want news when they want it. Seems at odds with with idea that readers aren’t savvy. They’re savvy enough to look for news when they want it, but not to know how credible the sources are? In fact, as we know, some of them may be reading a wide variety of sources and testing them against each other.

Related Posts:

Tags: , ,

Comments

  • Kurt
    Many still ignore the relevancy of new media - despite the amount of stories broken by places like Powerline and Drudge.


    I don't dispute that at all. Take it from someone who has been working in "new" media since 1991 (when do we get to stop calling it that? *wink*): The number of people ignoring it is dropping fast -- largely because of the market pressure you cite.

    Everyone is too worried about protecting their bottom line and until that feeling subsides I think that disparity will continue to exist.


    Caring about the bottom line isn't going to stop. Making money isn't bad. The business model is changing and everyone's trying to figure out how to adapt.
  • No, and I would not suggest that all those in print media are. I would think that your post refutes that idea. But it still remains that many in traditional journalism - print and broadcast - underestimate their readers. Social media was born partly as a result of that. Many still ignore the relevancy of new media - despite the amount of stories broken by places like Powerline and Drudge. Everyone is too worried about protecting their bottom line and until that feeling subsides I think that disparity will continue to exist.
  • Kurt
    Dana: Good points, but I would hope that you wouldn't paint everyone in the so-called "mainstream media" with a broad brush. I do not take my audience for granted; I don't know any journalists who do.

    While some are struggling to adapt, I do know journalists who are keenly aware of how social media changes the playing field for their work -- and want to be on the field, somewhere (and that doesn't mean they want to own the field!).

    There are lousy journalists and there are good ones; there are lousy bloggers and there are good ones. The good ones need not be at odds with each other.
  • Kurt
    Hey, Liz. Thanks for the question. It's a good one. I don't think anyone had any data to back up that contention -- not unlike the contention that mass media isn't as credible as it used to be.

    I think people have anecdotal experience that leads them to that impression. As I said, it's not an impression I share.

    The point I made was this: There are now, and have always been, readers who do not discern the difference between news and advertising in the newspaper. There are also extremely savvy and sophisticated news consumers. And all readers exist somewhere on that continuum.
  • "Seems at odds with with idea that readers aren’t savvy. They’re savvy enough to look for news when they want it, but not to know how credible the sources are?"

    I appreciate the question. Many traditional journalists view themselves as the gatekeepers of information and that the readership is, for the lack of a better word, the clueless proletariat. The truth of the matter is that print media needs its readers so as to remain relevant, not the other way around as many assume. Nothing kills progress like elitism. This is an attribute of traditional journalism's postmortem status: they underestimate and disregard their readers; they have outlived their original purpose and thus gave way for social media to become the new penny press. Your colleagues reactions seem to confirm that.
  • Liz
    Mass media isn't as credible as it used to be. I would have to say that readers ARE savvy enough. I'd be curious to hear why many of the people in attendance thought otherwise?
blog comments powered by Disqus