Tomorrow's News, Tomorrow's Journalists

November Topic: A million to save journalism

Who wants to be a millionaire? I do!

But let’s face it: As journalists, it’s unlikely that we’ll see more than three noughts in our bank accounts any time soon. Come to think of it, even seeing two these days is a pleasant surprise.

It’s November already, folks, which means it’s time for our third TNTJ topic. This month’s discussion is going to be fun, because I think it’ll set our imaginations raging.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I often look at newspapers, websites, TV broadcasts and so on and think “gee, if I was in charge, I’d never do that!”.

I’m sure I’m not alone in this, so this month’s question (as suggested by Adam Hemphill) is:

If you had a million dollars to save journalism, what would you do?

Yup, that’s it. You can’t ask for a more open question than that.

Now while a million dollars may be a lot of money to you and I, it’s not a limitless pot of gold. To spend it wisely you’ll need to innovate, budget and prioritise.

Do you ditch all your subs and pump the money into reporting? Or do you cut your reporters and lease out specialist journalism to specialist outlets? Do you take a risk and train all your staff as fully-fledged multimedia journalists?

Where do you make cuts? Does the print edition have no place in your million dollar masterplan?

It’s over to you.

$1 million to ’save’ journalism? Try a billion…

This is the topic for the November TNTJ debate so here’s my take:

If you had a million dollars to save journalism, what would you do?

I’m somewhat confused about the word ’save’ here, is journalism dying? Is it going somewhere? I don’t think so. Perhaps it is changing, but I don’t really understand what we are saving it from, so I’m going to substitute that for ‘improve’.

A million dollars these days is not really much in a commercial sense, especially if you are from New Zealand where one NZD equals 37 GB pence. But if I were to focus on a single outlet in New Zealand I would probably go for the following:

1) Pay journalists more. As I understand it people get into this industry for the love of it, it’s not really seen as a well-paid job and I think that deters some people who would make excellent journos. If people are paid well they have more job satisfaction so are more productive, friendlier and interested.

2) Tech training. A journalist with a smart phone, a laptop and a mobile Internet connection is a powerful thing, but many these days suffer from technophobia and are afraid to step up and try new things. I think that the days of saying “I just want to write articles” are all but gone, new journos have to be adaptable and technologically minded. So I’d put money into that.

3) Put money into the website. So many newspaper websites look just the same as the paper. I feel that a lot of papers still undervalue the web as a medium of news delivery and explanation and tend to just publish print and images. With the huge array of software, applets, services and options available to a site, why is it that some papers just stay with text and images?

4.) Up-skilling reporters. Spend money on improving staff skills, even those not directly linked to journalism. These arbitrary skills will probably help in news-gathering. Maths (commonly seen as a weak point among journos), driving (getting around town without crashing), languages (the more the better, right?), geography, cultural customs and beliefs and religion. I’m sure many will already have a mixture of these skills, but if we’re throwing money around that’s where I’d put it.

If I had a million dollars…

This might sound like the obvious answer, but if I were given a million dollars to save journalism, I would pedal it all into employing more reporters.

Journalism is a massive thing, and if we’re including national and regional papers, radio stations, magazines and TV programmes, a million dollars won’t go very far. Even if I had ten million it probably wouldn’t get out of London.

So, I’d have to focus my reporters into the places that I think need them most, which is local newspapers and radio stations.

The first time I stepped into a newsroom was at a local paper, and I was surprised at how few reporters were there. In my mind there would have been probably 30 reporters, all working on stories. They would spent a lot of their time running in and out of the office, and sometimes days or even weeks researching big stories to make sure they had the all the facts right and they’d spoken to all the people necessary.

But in reality, there was a group of just 11 very hard working reporters. Because they were often working on two or three page leads per day, they rarely had time to leave the office, and stories were rushed.

Because they were pushed for time sometimes a non-story was turned into a story, just so they could fill the pages.

I think adding extra reporters into newsrooms would give journalists a chance to actually get out on their patch and get to know their community better, which would improve the quality of the news enormously.

I should probably say here that I do also think it’s important to make local news as multi-platform as possible, but at the moment reporters barely have time to write the stories in print or to prepare them for a radio bulletin, never mind turning them into videos, podcasts and web stories. More reporters would mean more time to turn things multi-platform, as well as getting back to the basics of good journalism: telling the news that affects your community.

I have spotted the flaw in the plan. Even narrowing it down to putting reporters only into local papers and radio stations, the million dollars isn’t going to go very far. So to save money, I’d employ junior reporters who have a talent for newsgathering above everything else and some web skills if possible. And I’d look into cutting down on the number of subs. While I’d NEVER sack all the subs- it’s just too hard to sub your own work- some days it feels like there’s as many subs as there are reporters, and it might be possible to trim.

–

Katie McPhillimy is a recent journalism graduate from the University of Lincoln, where she was the editor of Bullet Magazine. She is currently on a job hunt, teetering nervously between the wonderful world of journalism, and the hellish depths of PR.

Build it up and Knock it Down

So $1,000,000 or £670,765.31.

I would spend it on an investigative website which would perform journalism in the public interest. Very much taking its inspiration from ProPublica, albeit with a much reduced philanthropic budget, our site would be able to conduct the long-form inquiries English newspapers can no longer afford.

It would have to be a lightly staffed outfit, overseen by one very experienced journalist - think David Leigh of the Guardian. This would inject our site with much-needed gravitas as well as providing inspiration for the lowly staffers. The editor-in-chief would get £75,000 and be happy with it because they want to do something innovative. I hope.

Then, beneath them, we would have a ‘words’ editor and a ‘pictures’ editor – drawn from the print and broadcast worlds to provide differing approaches. They would get £50,000 and an overwhelming sense of satisfaction to make up the shortfall in their pay-packet.

At the bottom of the pile, four reporters split equally into ‘words’ and ‘pictures’. Given the paucity of journalistic jobs I’m sure there would be plenty of bright young things willing to take the plunge. And we would exploit them, £25,000 for their entire waking lives.

That leaves us £500,000. Half would go into establishing the site, employing the technological genius to programme and equipping the team with all the gadgets they would need to conduct their work. The other half would be seed money so the reporters could investigate without the prospect of looming deadlines.

Perhaps the first couple of efforts would be offered free to the most suitable outlet, just to establish the merits of the new site and propel its profile into the stratosphere. Bob Calo from Berkeley spoke to us at City recently and highlighted that student journalism could be shown on national networks and attract fees of around $60,000. Obviously the market is smaller in Britain but it provides hope.

Perhaps a more exciting development could be to get the public involved with the experiment. An initiative such as Paul Bradshaw’s new proposal Help Me Investigate could be incorporated into our site. In fact, eventually we could just do away with the pesky reporters and only have the editors to evaluate and collate. I’m starting to think like an executive already, just think of the cost-cutting!

If I had three wishes, I’d ask for more wishes…

If I was given a million dollars to save journalism…

I would swiftly hand it over to my mate Chris, a mathematical genius and professional poker player. Under strict instructions not to get distracted or cocky, he would then invest the wonga in Lady Luck and make a sum of money large enough to actually make a difference to this industry.

If Chris came up trumps (which he would, he’s a decent chap) and made me a substantial pot of money, I would:

a) Increase the salaries of trainees/entry level reporters working for regional newspapers as £14,000 is NOT enough for anyone who wishes to be fed, clothed and alcoholed.

b) Give money to influential publications who regularly take on interns. Rather than offering ‘travel expenses’ as if pulling a rabbit out of a hat, these publications could then actually pay interns for their labour, even if it’s minimum wage. A little goes a long way, especially when you have mastered the art of living off a tenner a week as an impoverished student.

c) Invest in training within publications to make sure all staff are switched on to digital media and the importance of blogs and the online community.

d) Set up mentoring programmes so that experienced and established journalists can offer advice, support and even training to young graduates and students.

Ok so there is a slight bias emerging here in terms of helping those at the bottom of the food chain such as myself but we are the future of journalism and are therefore highly deserving!

With any remaining money I would buy myself a mac laptop since a recent job application I filled in cited ownership of one as a vital job requirement.

There is a pleasing symmetry to this unjustness: I have no laptop, so can’t get the job…I have no job, so can’t get the laptop. Catch 22, journalism stylee!

Sarah Jappy’s blog, http://fledglingjourno.blogspot.com/ documents the trials and tribulations of trying to become a bona fide journalist.

The Power of Experience

I believe that nothing beats professional experience. I’ve been fortunate to have two internships so far in college and plan on getting two more (hopefully!) before I graduate.

Unfortunately, life as an unpaid intern is not an easy one and despite the fact that I had adequate money saved up that I could live off of when I had my unpaid internships, a lot of my friends have not been as lucky.

If I had a million dollars to save journalism, I would put the money into some sort of trust to distribute to journalism students who wish to take on unpaid internships.

Internships are extremely valuable to the publications who are slowly dwindling in funds and for the students who are desperate to learn more about the industry they wish to enter. Having some sort of fund in place that will give a stipend to unpaid interns will help to encourage, not only those who would not have the resources to keep one themselves, but would also give them the resources they need to generate ideas and further understand journalism, reporting and multimedia tools. Internships will also help further their connections and help journalism students to advance their careers.

Spending a million dollars to distribute to journalism students with unpaid internships will not only help to encourage their skills but will enable a trickle-down effect that will help advance and encourage journalistic skills in the younger generation.

(Emily Kostic is a junior journalism major at Rowan University in NJ who blogs at Journalism 3.0.)

If I had a million dollars to save journalism: I’d invest it in people

First off, I’d rather have a million pounds (British Sterling) than dollars to save journalism with. But exchange rates aside, let’s get down to business.

My strategy would be to invest in people. Invest in getting journalists to do that saving. You can’t do things alone, you need a good team with good people. I’d probably shed some dead wood from the news room, maybe coax a few people to leave early and get some fresh blood in.

I’d keep the subs, but expand their role to include a lot of backroom stuff - like picture uploading, digital media production, video editing. I’d keep the print edition but I’d make it follow online’s lead. Maybe just have one good strong print edition per day, and throw everything into online.

I’d develop strong supplements based around local issues, and not be afraid of trying something new. I’d link these supplements with mini-sites online built around that issue.

I’d invest in training for my staff, I’d employ the Google technique of 10% time for my reporters. i.e. 10% to go off and cover what YOU want and what YOU think needs covering.

I’d put a bit of money towards having trainees in. Not expecting them to pay for everything. There would be a pot of money so that kids can come in and get experience, learn about being a journalist, in a good environment, and not be skint afterwards. You never know, they might even bring a good story in with them - and that’s got to be worth the money.

I’d invest in a CRM (customer relationship management) system for my newspaper, logging user comments, offering them personalised news updates, and beginning to build an idea of who my readers really are. So I know that Joe Bloggs in the North of the city responds well to this type of news. Then I have something to sell, I’ve got proof of effectiveness, readership and grabbing people’s attention.

So to sum up, good journalists, probably better paid, more of them, getting some 10% time, with a good online setup.

—————-

Ed Walker blogs at www.edwalker.net/blog

A Newsroom Golden God

In his recent Carnival of Journalism post about fueling change within media organizations, Journerdist Will Sullivan offered the following among his ten tips:

Culture change is hard to pull off in one swooping move. Find your curious, early adapters and make them into golden gods in your newsroom. They’ll influence others and help push the change with you.

Upon reading this bit of advice, I immediately knew what my answer to this month’s TNTJ question would be: as my ideal journalism job, I want to be that guy.

I don’t necessarily need want to be regarded as a “golden god” within my organization, but I very much aspire to influence others and help push change. I want to evangelize new media in a setting that needs help but is willing to take the steps necessary to make it happen. (Step one: hire me.)

Of course, finding such an arrangement is easier said than done. Outside of a handful of organizations that “get it,” I fear that many news outlets will have to fall down completely before they can be restructured to suit today’s demands. If I can help a company avoid its darkest day, however, I’m all for it.

In the meantime, the strategy for achieving my goal remains unchanged; it includes networking, trying new things, making mistakes (and learning from them), and participating. My hope is that if I follow these tenets and come into a bit of luck, I will soon be in the newsroom with enough pull to enact crazy ideas that just might work.

Adam Hemphill is a multimedia journalist who has helped enact crazy ideas at outlets including CoPress, EveryBlock and Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive.

My dream journalism job… simple really

Mine would be to take a struggling local/regional newspaper and turn it around. Not by making it completely online but by having a brilliant converged newsroom, with hungry reporters (for stories, not food) and a paper that worked well with the online product. And be in a position to take a few risks with coverage, developing new audiences and working hard on the business side to create new opportunities for advertisers.

I’d also work hard to establish trust between the news provider and the local/regional readership/usership.

—————————————–

Ed Walker blogs at www.edwalker.net/blog

New media is the place to be

What would my ideal journalism job be? The question takes me back to elementary school composition exercises. What do you want to be when you grow up? I pretty much knew I wanted to be a journalist for most of my life. There was a period when I thought I wanted to venture into genetics or architecture but my less than stellar aptitude in Science, Physics and Math pretty much negated those options.

I never gave much thought about what kind of journalism I wanted to pursue till a few years ago. If you’re English educated in India, the only place you can be is in the national press. For those who get their liberal higher education in the metros of the nation, writing in local vernacular papers or magazines is unthinkable. It’s not something we do. So we slog away in colleges and journalism schools hoping to say someday that I am from Times of India or The Hindu or some other equally illustrious metro based national daily which is read by about 3-4% of the country. The phenomenal growth of 24×7 news channels in India in all the Indian languages and especially in English and Hindi changed that to a great degree. Aspiring journalists switched their preferences over to television which is currently, more prominent and better paying in India. Not me though. I can’t think of a job in television. It’s repetitive, highly monotonous and limits creativity.

Like most aspiring journalists, I do have the one paper or magazine I absolutely must work for before I die and that is The Hindu, one of the finest newspapers in the country. But it doesn’t have to be a long gig; a brief internship stint would be just fine. I want to be on the inside of a newspaper that I love and admire and see why they are the way they are. If I could stretch the limits of my imagination and capabilities, I guess being part of the foreign correspondence bureau of The Hindu would be awesome.

But on a more long term basis, I think web journalism is where I truly want to be. Like most people of my generation, I think new media is where the future lies. It’s nascent and not institutionalized in the way print or television has been. That is what makes it that much more exciting to work with. It’s a chance for one to change traditional ideas about how journalism should be. To break down the old understandings about news value or narratives and  maybe even invent new ones. My ideal job would be having my own website with maybe a small scale staff and finding that middle path between news and feature writing. To achieve the balance between hard hitting stuff and infotainment like Salon.

But on the whole, it’s not something I plan on doing right after college. Ideal jobs are ideal when you get them at a stage in your life when you feel you’re ready. Before that you must pay your dues, gather much needed, valuable experience, take what comes your way and branch out into different fields and finally settling down where you think you belong. I believe that any job in journalism has a lot to teach us - about good and bad content, about principles, about realizing what we’re good at and zoning into what we really want to be doing. To be steadfast to an immature dream that we chart out at 16 or 18 and not let the profession change us for the better is a great disservice we do to ourselves. We shouldn’t be putting up with any job but rather try and enjoy it , do our best with it and take from it whatever we can to something better as and when the opportunities come along.

Deepti Bharthur- http://deeptispeaks.wordpress.com