["Why do writers write? Because it isn't there. -Thomas Berger]
Inside® by Jeff Jarvis
I wonder whether we should be teaching journalists to embed themselves
and their abilities into the world rather than always making the world
come to them. Thinking out loud…
The other day, when Amazon
peeved me by suddenly trying to sell me software – who has bought a
box of software in years? – it occurred to me: After software left store
shelves, demand for the programmers who make it has only grown. So why,
as newspapers, magazines, and books leave shelves, is there not more
demand for the journalists who make them?
Companies are clamoring to hire more programmers and investors are dying
to back what they do. Everybody wants more code inside their endeavors.
So imagine an economy in which companies and investors want journalism
inside: “We need to get us some journalists!”
It’s not quite as
insane as it sounds if we rethink what a journalist does. Journalists
and programmers aren’t really so different. In the the research on
innovation and news we commissioned at the Tow-Knight Center, Nick
Diakopoulos notes their similarity: “One of journalism’s primary raisons
d’être is in gathering, producing, and disseminating information and
knowledge…. What is perhaps most interesting about these processes is
that they can, in theory, all be executed either by people, or by
computers.” Nick’s point is not that technology would replace
journalists but instead that technology provides new opportunities for
Programmers and journalists create similar value – or they could. Each
makes sense of information. Technology brings order to the flow of
information; journalists ask the questions that aren’t answered in that
flow. Each brings new abilities to people – functionality (in software
terms) or empowerment (in journalistic terms). But programmers don’t
produce products so much as they produce ability: your ability to get
what you want. Shouldn’t journalism act like that? Shouldn’t we teach
Imagine a perpendicular universe in which an organization or community
says: “We need someone to help make sense of this information, who can
add context to it or find and fill in missing pieces or present it in a
way that will make sense to people – as a narrative or a visualization.
We need to get us a journalist.”
It so happens that our entrepreneurial journalism students just had the
treat of hearing from Shane Snow of the
startup Contently He is offering a service to companies – brands in
particular – that are indeed asking the question above. Brands, haven’t
you heard, are becoming media. Instead of placing their ads around
others’ content, brands are putting content around their ads. Contently
lets them search its 4,000 writers’ profiles and use its reputation
system to find the right writer or community manager or video maker or
infographic whiz. Contently also offers to manage these tasks.
Isn’t that just PR, working for a brand? No, Shane says, because
Contently provides writers to make content an audience will value
instead of a message a company wants to get out. Messaging is marketing.
This is more analogous to the soap opera model – or the showNorthern
Exposure: P&G underwrote those shows so it would have a place to put its
ads. Now more brands are doing that on the web. YouTube, too, is
underwriting the creation of independent content – without owning it –
just so more people will have more good stuff to watch there.
Advertising still subsidizes content but the chicken and the egg are
But funny you should mention PR. Its role, too, changes. In What Would Google Do? I
spoke with Rishad Tobaccowala, strategist for Publicis, and we thought
of a reverse world in which public relations exists to represent the
public to the company, not the other way around (a professionalization
Searls’ Vendor Relationship Management. We now see companies looking
for that skill. They call it community management but that’s a misnomer
unless you mean it in Doc’s context: that the community manages the
company (the company doesn’t manage the community).
As I wrote this, I got a lucky visit from Kevin Marks , now of Salesforce, ex
of Apple, Google, and Technorati, who teaches me much about technology.
He posed the programmer-v-journalist comparison another way, arguing
that each models the world, one with algorithms, one with narrative (and
each faces the problem of “imperfect mapping”). He called it the tension
between the storyteller and the builder.
That’s a very telling contrast for journalism schools. Many of our
students want to build things, which we encourage, but we constantly
struggle with balancing technology and tools vs. journalism and its
skills in the time we have to teach. There’s also a tension regarding
what they build: journalists
pride themselves on being storytellers but is that all they should
build? They might build visualizations of data – which, yes tells a
story, sans narrative – but shouldn’t they also build tools that enable
the public to dig into its own information (see: Texas Tribune) and
platforms that let them share their information?
These new opportunities have led some to believe we should turn out the
mythical journalist-coder, the hacking hack who does it all. I am not so
sure that unicorn lives in nature. Yes there are some; it’s possible
they exist. But I don’t think that journalists must become coders to
take advantage of new technologies. They need to know how to work with
the coders, how to spec and modify and use these tools. They need to
understand and exploit the opportunities.
They also need a different culture. Rather than seeing ourselves as the
(and owners) of products (content), shouldn’t journalists – like coders
- see themselves as the providers of services, as the builders of
platforms, as the agents of empowerment for others? That’s how
developers see themselves. They build things, yes, but no longer
shrink-wrapped. They build tools people use; they add value to
information they produce. Journalists, in addition, have seen themselves
speaking for the little guy but as Kevin Marks put it to me, that role
becomes subsumed by the network when the little guys can speak for
themselves. Still, there’s value in using new tools to help them do
that. Is that a new journalism or is that a new PR? Gulp! Depends on who
gets there first.
So where do journalists fit in in the world? And what do we teach them?
Well, we still start by teaching what my dean
calls the eternal verities: accuracy, fairness, completeness.
Implicit in that is a sense of service and given the rise of the network
we need to consider what our fundamental service is.
We teach them to gather, make sense of, present, and most importantly
supplement information through reporting – but there are now so many new
ways to do that, so now we don’t just teach reporting but also data skills.
We teach them to build – yes, stories, but now in more forms, and also
more than stories: tools and platforms.
We also teach them to build
businesses . We teach them sustainability.
We teach them to go out into their communities, but now I say we need to
make them see that they are a part of and not separate from those
communities, no longer envisioning ourselves at the center, gathering
everyone’s attention, but instead at the edge, serving their needs,
elegant organization. This is a difficult skill to teach. Since
starting what we call interactive journalism
(not “new media”) at CUNY, I’ve struggled with finding ways for the
students to have a public with whom to interact. One way we’ve done it
is The Local
with The New York Times, but we need more ways.
If we consider the programmer worldview, then we need to teach
journalists how to fit in to the world differently, to spread their
skills and value (and values) out into other enterprises, institutions,
and communities rather than making the world come to us for journalism:
Need some reporting, some editing, some sense-making, some empowerment,
some organization, some storytelling, some media making…? “We need to
get us some journalism!”
Now, of course, the journalists will worry that when working in the
employ of others, they lose the independence that their journalistic
institutions afforded them (so long as those companies were rich
monopolies). That is well worth the worry. But again, consider the
programmer who brings her skills to an enterprise but still must decide
whether the enterprise is worthy of them. Consider, too, how programmers
work in open-source to spread their value – and grow it – among anyone
who sees fit to use it. They don’t own coding the way we thought we
owned the news. They spread it.
Shouldn’t we spread journalism out beyond our walls as not only a skill
set but also a worldview, getting more people to see and create a demand
for the value of accurate and reliable information (“trust is the new
black,” says Craig Newmark), organized information, context, and so on?
Shouldn’t we want to embed journalism the way programmers embed code?
Then we wouldn’t just teach journalists to go to work for news
organizations – or, for that matter, start them – but also to organize
news everywhere? Whether and how to do that, I’m just beginning to