BBC Radio 4: Read all About it.

Radio 4Maybe I’ve had a long day, but I’ve just listened to the latest Read all about on Radio 4. In this episode, part of their series on the changing face of journalism, “Philippa Kennedy explores the growth in the local newspaper industry.”

She talks to regional journalists about their changing role and asks whether their increasing participation in new media has altered their relationship with the local newspaper and the communities they serve.

It should have been subbed:

Philippa Kennedy transposes newspapers and journalism at a whim.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh.

They are not the same thing!

I’m going to start a new category to post about people/programmes who think it’s okay to say newspaper when they mean journalism and journalism when they are talking about print.

Or have I had a long day?

The photographers eye or the digital mirror?

The video survey got me thinking about what defines us in journalism. Is it our skills, our job description or where our desk is in the office? Or is it something more than that?

Have a read this meditation on why being ‘brain damaged’ separates the pro from the mo photographers.

I couldn’t understand why people were putting these pictures[pictures of friends and family] on flickr, because I have a particular type of brain damage which caused me to forget that the second picture exists. The type of brain damage I’m referring to is “the photographer’s eye”.

Is the guy talking out of his proverbial or is he right?

Now if you asked me to put a cross and touch the pen I’d be voting for the ‘out of his arse’ option here.

 I know that he isn’t talking about journalism and I’m certainly not saying that all photographers are imbued with such views. But (and this may just be me) a lot of the conversation about journalism seems perilously close to using the “brain damaged” defence.

What separates the pro from the amateur becomes almost metaphysical: Journalism can not exist outside of journalism and that is only defined within a newsroom.

As Gavin O’Reilly from Independent News & Media, told the Society of Editors meeting this week:

“The USP of the newspaper of the future [will be] built upon journalistic skills that are not simply a God-given right of someone with attitude sitting in a garage in front of a computer, but rather is a skill that is learned and earned.”

So it needs to be a God-given right and then sanctioned by an even higher power then!

The digital mirror

Digital, in all its forms, is becoming the tipping point. The internet, Bloggers , UGC, video, community and CJ’s have tested the definition of journalism and journalist to breaking point.  It’s put it out of reach of the paradigm repair approach journalism has got in to (and still indulges in)

There has never been a harsher mirror held up to the industry and rather than holding others up to it we need to bite the bullet and look in it ourselves

Thanks to the venerable Batman for the photogrpahy link

WWED: What would Evan do?

Trev evan.jpg

Whether you call it citizen journalism, crowd sourcing or USG, there is always a lot of discussion about how the media’s relationship with its audience can be used to everyone’s advantage.

And it struck me that for it to work , I think, journalists need to start thinking more like Evan Davis (the BBC’s economic editor) and less Trevor McDonald (Veteran newsreader).

So when thinking about how a journalist can engage with community online and really make it work for them. I like to think that we should start asking – What would Evan do?

Is it just his easy charm, his wit and repartee we should look to emulate? No. I actually think he knows what he is talking about and would listen to what he had to say on the subject of money.

Sir Trevor is also a respected voice, has an easy wit and sophisticated charm, but would we go to him for mortgage advice?

Presenter or correspondent?
Do you want to be just a presenter of news for your community – a nice delivery but no one really thinks you really know anything?*  Or would you rather be a correspondent who people turn to for your analysis and knowledge?

Be the Evan Davis of your patch.  Make connections and build relationships with your community, online and off, and they will turn to you (and your publication) when they want the ‘expert’ view of whats going on in their community.

*not that I think Sir Trev is is clueless about news or that newsreaders are somehow a lower form of journalist.

Jay Rosen: The UK is two years behind the US

Credit where credit is dueAfter listening to a panel discussion on local journalism Jay Rosen says that the UK is two years behind the US when it comes to collaborative journalism.

It got me thinking about why.

Jay was one of the panel at the 7th Journalism Leaders Forum held at the Department of Journalism. The topic for discussion was Local Turf Wars, a look at how different media where tackling the hyperlocal problem and where the people formally known as the audience fitted in to making this happen. (you can see a webcast of the discussion here)

Jay kicked off the discussion with some insight on his collaborative journalism project Assignment Zero. For Jay it was as much an exercise in working out how elements of complex stories can be distributed to groups of experts to make better content as it was the end result. It was a proof of concept.

BBC angle

Emma Hemmingway, academic, broadcaster and author of Into the Newsroom gave us a peak inside the BBC’s efforts to get hyperlocal broadcasting off the blocks with a pilot study for LocalTV in the Midlands.

The BBC are presenting it as a success but the evidence suggested otherwise. In working out how to ‘use’ the audience , the BBC had divided them in to

  • Can’s - Those with the kit and the know how
  • Could’s – Those with the know how and no kit
  • Cant’s. – Those with no know how and no kit

Over nine months producers battled with content and in apparent frustration with some of the communities ability to live up to BBC standards many producers ended up shooting and editing content themselves. It seems that in dividing up the audience there was one category they all fell in to – Not BBC!

Another panelist Neil Benson, Editorial Director for regionals for Trinity Mirror, thought this was the typical BBC “imposing their own standards and pomposity” on the project. Along with Darren Thwaites of the award-winning Evening Gazette in Teesside, he talked about some of their hyperlocal adventures.

He also took the opportunity to announce a new project called ‘Make the news’. Although he was light on detail (commercial reasons, darling) he says he was heavily influenced by Jay Rosen’s assignment zero.

According to Neil, journalists needed to start thinking like radio producers.

It was a point that wasn’t expanded on but one that I really liked.

Thinking like a producer

Coming from a broadcast background I’m comfortable with the idea of a producer. They are the ones driving the project, managing the team and pulling everything together to tell the story. Even though they have a firm hand on the editorial tiller, they rely on experienced researchers, expert advisers and experienced technical crew to bring the programme together.

I think Jay’s idea of collaboration is a lot like that. He said that the biggest challenge for journalists is controlling the division of labour. Working out who is best to handle that element of the story whilst keeping an editorial line.

That team effort is recognized in the credits that role at the end of a programme. The producer, director and Executive producer get to go last in the list- in UK TV that denotes that they are the most important – but everyones contribution is noted.

That’s in sharp contrast to the way things are done in newspapers.

Credit your sources?

One question from the floor wondered how we can get the specialist correspondent with 30 years experience to engage with citizen journalists to help tell stories. I responded that perhaps that was a case of the journalist recognizing that some of those ‘citizens’ where actually more experienced and knowledgeable than they where.

That wasn’t a criticism. What I meant was perhaps they needed to see their relationship with some of the audience differently and recognize a level of ‘professional equity’. They need to say, ‘we are both great at what we do. Working together we can produce something fantastic’(one of the driving aims of Rosen’s Assignment Zero) and then credit that relationship to reflect the level of collaboration.

But it was clear from the discussion and the insight Emma offered in the BBC approach that we still have a very obvious them and us mentality in journalism. If you are not a journalist, working in our organization, in the way we work, you are the audience. It doesn’t matter that you may be a nobel prize winning scientist, or a ‘person on the street’. Whenever we talk to you, you are all the same.

For me that’s the fundamental reason we are still lagging behind.

Some may see that as an positive, egalitarian approach. But if we want to take full advantage of the opportunities to connect with people that digital affords then we need to move beyond thinking of audience and contacts and seeing those we use to tell our stories, experts or not, on a more equal footing. That doesn’t mean trying to turn them in to journalist or relinquishing that term to all to use.

It simply means that we need to be more transparent, open and honest about the increasingly important role they play. But I’m not holding my breath for the day a list credits appears alongside a print story.

And if you don’t think you we have a way to go on that front, you ask any newspaper journalist if they are prepared to share their byline with any of the people they ‘crowsourced’ or the citizen journalists they used.

Get on board with your audience.

Jay Rosen ended the evening with an analogy.

To him the industry standing on the edge of digital ocean trying to work out how to get to the other side. We know that a lot of the ‘people formally known as the audience’ have already set sail.

But there is a chance that if we get on board and share with the those digital communities about to set sail, we may just get to the other side in one piece.

The problem is that journalists are still only willing to share the boat if they can be the captain. Everyone else has to be satisfied with being crew.

If we get over that then maybe we can make up some of that two years of lost time.

New funding models for newspapers?

A lot of  comment has been generated by Roy Peter Clark over at Poynter with his post, Your duty to read the paper.

I’m  paraphrasing  it a bit but in general he thinks that no matter what medium we work in, as journalists, we need to buy and read newsapers. He notes:

Until we create some new business models in support of the journalism profession, we’ve got to support what we have, even as we create and perfect online versions that may one day attract the advertising dollars and other revenues we need to do what we do well.

When I added this to technorati I noted that perhaps we should simply dock a percentage of journalists pay to keep papers going. A kind of old media tax. And that got me thinking that this really is a financial model that newspapers haven’t considered.

I know that there is a kind of tacit tax in terms of pay and working conditions but lets take this seriously.

Perhaps we could try:

  1. A profession wide paper tax (say 3%) to keep newspapers going. Let’s call it a multi-national insurance contribution.
  2. A share scheme where the share certificates come in an attractive array of wall charts.
  3. Putting a free newspaper in with every CD sold at HMV.

Or, maybe, people like Roy Clark could spend a bit of time encouraging everyone to fund, support and engage with creating more engaging content and we could invest that ‘currency’ in saving newspapers.

In the meantime, any other ideas for generating money from the staff creating your product are welcome.

The appropriate eye.

It’s a common bit of advice round many offices (and the halls of academe are no different) that you should always have a bit of paper in your hand to make you look busy. And it seems to be increasingly true that many people feel that you have to have a high-quality, often large, camera in your hand to make you look like a video journalist.

That doesn’t just extend to our own personal confidence. A newspaper VJ I know recently reflected on the time he wasn’t allowed through a security cordon with his little Panasonic camera, despite having a press pass, but the local TV crew just walked straight in.

Looking the part is often as important to some as actually doing your job.

‘Now, Andy’, I hear you say, ‘don’t kick up this whole quality kit debate again’. And I promise I won’t, at least not yet. The reason I’m raising it is that it the whole idea of how journalists are perceived and how the technology changes that , especially when you shoot video, took a different direction for me this week.

The right tools
That thought process was started as I caught up with my feed reading and came across a bit of cross posting by Mindy McAdams and Angela Grant questioning why some talking head video interviews are so dull.

I commented on a couple of my own theories why and a possible solution that involved shooting two interviews. One to get the story straight and one to get the interview to tell the story. Mindy responded:

Some people have suggested that you should do the complete interview the way you would for print — with your pen and notepad in hand — and only afterward, turn on the camera. Only then will you know the right questions to ask for the video.

Reflecting on that I thought, why bother with pen and paper. Shoot the video – tape is cheap – and you have more footage to play with. But I also have to admit that a pencil is less daunting for the interviewee than a video camera.

(added later: Just to clarify, in the light of some comments, that I was thinking about that in the context of gathering content for an interview that was usable in the editing process. I wasn’t dismissing pen and paper or note taking as useless in the face of video. Although I appreciate it can be read that way. I suppose I should have said why not pen and paper and video as well.)

Mobile

This got me thinking about a conversation I after the official ceremonies at the Manchester Meld event . I was talking to one man video whirlwind David Dunkley Gyimah and Fee Plumley , director of the phone book ltd, who has been experimenting with content for mobile phones since 2000 including their latest looking for ‘Portable Electronic News Gatherers’ (or ‘PENG’) – nice phrase.

We where chatting about the role mobile phones and mobile content had to play in the growth of video online. In particular we kicked around the idea that the next generation of phones will have such good multimedia that they become an instinctive choice for filmmakers and journalists. If that sounds like a simple proposition, just try kicking that one round a room of journos, technologists and photographers and see how long you sit there.

One of the many points that came out that gave me food for thought was that idea of the level of permission a camera or microphone gives you as a journalist. And it reminded me that the technology creates a fine balancing act for journalists.

Opening doors
Sometimes the technology opens the door, like the TV crew, and other times, like an interview, it closes it. When choosing technology we should be thinking about the door we want to open as much as the way we are perceived.

Consider the stories, in the aftermath of the shooting of Rhys Jones, about the about the way Liverpool Gangs are using youtube to flaunt guns and crime.

Okay, so it’s an extreme example. But there are many environments where even a cheap camcorder would single you out and change the way people react to you. But a mobile phone is an acceptable piece of technology in many communities. You have permission to get a mobile phone out to film.

It’s an appropriate technology for that environment.

I’m not saying this to promote the use of mobile over other kit. A mobile phone won’t get you through a press cordon. But it may be invisible enough to get you the video you need to tell the story and that’s what it’s all about.