My blog has moved to a new home

My thoughts and I found a new home at rethinkingjournalism.wordpress.com. Come visit us (and comment!)

What To Do, What To Do

So these next couple of months are full of decisions for me. I am traveling to three universities for job interviews (ssshhhh). But there is still a part of me that wants to stay in journalism for a little longer. The idea of starting a teaching career as a professor without feeling like I've done all I can in journalism pains me.

If I stay in journalism, I want to do something completely different (multimedia, magazine, radio). I want to keep learning, challenge myself, better myself as a journalist. I enjoy doing journalism. It's a high for me. It's what I do and think about all the time. I'm a news junkie at heart and it's my fix. I couldn't imagine not doing it.

So here I am. At the crossroads of what I've been preparing to do for the past six years of my life: teach. And I'm not sure I'm ready to take that leap just yet. Scared? No. Not Interested? Definitely No. So what's the hang up?

As a journalist, we've heard other journalists say the reason they went into this field was to make a difference. Doctors say it. Lawyers say it. So do teachers. Unfortunately, this reason is said so often that it comes across as cheesy and that it's the "right thing to say." I want to do more than make a difference. I want to help make change happen. Do something that improves journalism on a larger scale, in the bigger picture. I want to watch that change take hold, grow, expand, deepen, have mistakes, branch off to new ideas. This is what I haven't accomplished yet, and I think this is my hang up.

Learning technology, on your own time

So I had a wonderful lunch with a colleague today and we talked about how we, as journalists, have to make time to keep learning storytelling skills using video, Flash, CSS, etc., in addition to working at our jobs. In essence, taking on more work to better ourselves.

We both agreed that it takes a passion about something (for me journalism) to put in that extra time. So I gave myself a short project today. I've never posted to YouTube. Ever. So I wanted to try it. It is so incredibly easy. 15 minutes (shooting and uploading -- tops). Why have I waited this long, I don't know. So here is my short video.

If you've never met my crazy cat samson, here he is. Enjoy.

Online news is an "inferior good"

My professor said something today that really made me think -- yes, I do that sometimes. She called online news an "inferior good." She explained that the more income a person has, the more likely they are to go elsewhere for their news -- not online, and she has research to support this. People like to go online because it's free, obviously, but if you have money, you're more likely to go elsewhere, and probably pay for it (i.e. newspaper, magazine, cable). What's not said here is that the same information is online.

I don't know why this research finding bothers me.

Memorable news with a touch of humor

I like how people can learn their news from late-night television. There's something about humor that makes things memorable. Why? If only newswriting could tap into emotions more (preferably more positive), news would be memorable.

For example, I know that Sarah Palin is from Alaska, is pro-gun and pro-hunting from reading a dozen or so stories about her. But these bullet points aren't exactly meaningful until they are spelled out in a skit, or a rap. In case you didn't see SNL, enjoy. (The moose is my favorite.)

Where did you learn that? Um, I don't know.

Do you ever find that when you're talking about a news story often you don't know where you heard, read or saw it? I'm finding this more and more with me. People are blasted with so much information that knowing the original source takes one more bit of brain power to remember. I now have to make mental notes of where I get my information. I find it fascinating how conversations have changed. For example, I read a while back, somewhere, when Expedia and Priceline were still kind of new, people no longer bragged about their vacations as much but instead bragged about the bargains they got to get there -- airfare, hotel, car rental, etc.

I just find it interesting how technology can change what we talk about and focus on -- the news story, not the source; the airfare not the vacation itself. OK. I'm off to read news somewhere.

My 15 minutes of opportunity

One night this week, a person, who shall remain nameless, asked me my thoughts about the future of print newspapers. Let's just say this person is at the highest level in a news organization. My eyes lit up, my adrenaline started pumping, and there I was with the full attention of a person who could make change happen. I had to tell this person in not so many words my thoughts -- ideas I've been kicking around, suggestions, obstacles, what young people want. Where do I begin? What do I include? How should I convey dismay? Should I be careful with what I say or be frank? I took a deep breath, looked at this person, and said:

"I think the print industry is killing itself. We aren't open to change in the newsroom. We are so busy putting out the daily print newspaper and making deadline that we don't have time to think about the future of journalism. Even the tiniest of changes are hard to do (and I give an example). It's frustrating to see and be a part of. This medium has elitist thinking, like "If you don't like us, so what" and that's wrong. We aren't listening to what people who don't read the print newspaper (especially young people) are saying. And we're not open to their ideas for improving the paper. It's not a decline in readership that's hurting newspapers. It's us."

I offered two suggestions for change (exclusive content, searchable news) but I think I rattled them off so quickly, that they didn't have time to sink in. I'm a big believer you can always say what's wrong with the newspaper industry, but offering ideas for change is more important. Also, I didn't have to be careful about making sure I used the word "we" and "us," because I did so naturally. I consider myself part of this resistance-to-change industry, even though I push for improving journalism or trying new things on what seems to be a daily basis.

This person was stunned, it seemed, a bit silent, and then confided in me some business model changes that will soon come to be, which was prefaced with, "You probably won't like." I listened and this person was right. I was disgusted.

I left this 15-minute conversation with mixed feelings. Happy that here was someone generally interested in my thoughts about the newspaper industry as a researcher and that I could share my opinions and ideas, but then overly concerned about the direction of newspapers. I can only say that I will keep working on ways to improve journalism, maybe somewhere, some day it will pay off.

Young Adults Aren't Political Engaged (because they have a life on Friday nights)

I thought of this as I watched the presidential debate last night without sound at a pizza parlor in Austin. This is why I'm a research nerd.

My ultimate question: Why was the presidential debate shown on a Friday night?

The background:

1. One (research) question often used to determine if someone is political active is to ask how many debates they've watched.

2. Today's young adults are less politically active than older adults, numerous studies have shown.

My if-then statement

3. If the presidential debate is on a Friday night, and young adults, who historically are out on Friday nights, are asked how many debates they've watched leading up to the election to determine their political engagement, then wouldn't this measurement be out of whack.

Grumble grumble.

Resistance to Change, Arggghh

In reading this book chapter, I ran across a quote from 1994 by media critic Jon Katz in Wired Magazine.

Sometimes I have difficulty articulating the thoughts in my head about my frustration with this industry. Give me a sheet of paper to write on, and you will see my passion. Katz does exactly this, but in a way that grabs me, holds me and leaves me angry:

"The newspaper industry has never liked change, viewing it rather the way a Temperance Lady viewed speakeasies. For a long time, papers have demonstrated an unerring instinct for making the wrong move at the wrong time. At heart, newspapers are reluctant to change because of their ingrained belief that they are the superior, serious, worthwhile medium, while things electronic are trivial or faddish.

Over the past decade, newspapers have made almost every kind of radical move except transforming themselves. It's as if they've considered every possible option but the most urgent - change. Times Mirror Co., publishers of the Los Angeles Times, bought newspapers, magazines, cable systems, and TV stations. Recently, the company appeared to be returning to its printed roots, selling off its cable properties a year after selling its TV stations.

That makes newspapers the biggest and saddest losers in the information revolution. With the possible exception of network-TV newscasts, papers are now our least hip medium, relentlessly one-way, non-interactive, and smug. We all know the formula: Plopped on the doorstep once a day. Breaking national and international news up front, local news next, stories broken up and jumping inside. Grainy, mostly black-and-white photos. Culture, features, TV, listings, recipes, and advice columns in the back. Stentorian voices on the editorial page. Take it or leave it, and if you don't like it, write us a letter."

-- So true.

All-in-one devices? Or separate technology?

My professor posed an interesting question in class the other day.

Do you want technology that is all-in-one or do you like separate devices?

For example, why do we have iPods, cell phones, portable DVD players for flights, Blackberrys and digital cameras? Granted, the device that can do all of these things may not be out there. Or is it? Or do we like our separate devices? Something to ponder.

Yes. We are font nerds.

Thought this would make some of you laugh.

The font conference

Century Gothic is my favorite character. Who is your favorite font character?

Making time to talk about journalism

So I met with the Society for News Design crew tonight for our first meeting of the fall semester. There were a handful of excited first-timers at the meeting and some familiar faces, too. There was also a number of no-shows. I started to think about how more and more people are too busy these days to be a part of any club or an organization of some kind -- especially one dealing with journalism. This depressing truth reminded me of why I chose to go to graduate school in January 2001.

And so my story goes.

I was working in sports as a copy editor / designer in 2000 in South Florida. One afternoon, I sat in my sports editor's office for an hour talking about the future of newspapers, in particular sports. Anyone who knows me well, knows I enjoy these types of conversations immensely. I asked him why we still run game stories in the paper. Don't sports fans already know who won by the time they get their paper? I asked, then answered my own question. They will have 1. watched the game. 2. Watched Sports Center. Or 3. Read it online. And if they really want to know the play by play, they can get it from the agate. Why don't we run features or sidebars from the game, something that's exclusive to us? I asked. The sports editor nodded and entertained my thoughts, shared his opinions, and the conversation felt like one of those brainstorming sessions where any idea is possible. It was quite the rush for me for I had the attention of someone who could make change happen. Then, after an hour or so, he looked at his watch and said, and I quote, "Amy, this is all well and good but we have to get out a newspaper. Let's talk about this at a later time." There was no later time. Like any news organization, we were busy getting out that day's news. No time to talk about the future of journalism.

A few months later, I left - so that I could think about the future of journalism as a full-time job, in graduate school.

This year, in 2008, my old paper has changed the way it covers sports. Now it doesn't run game stories in the paper but instead feature stories or siders from games. The game highlights run in a box, versus play-by-play stories. How do I feel about all of this? Well, I am happy to see my old paper experimenting with content. As for me, I can't help but smile because I feel like I'm ahead of my time.

Exclusive content?

Should print newspapers or television produce exclusive content and not post it online for 24 hours? This is a question I posed to a manager at work last week. If everything is posted online right away, what reason or purpose would be left to actually read a print newspaper or watch a newscast or listen to NPR? That's not to say I don't think this exclusive content shouldn't go online. It should be online, ideally in a complementary form. I also understand that not everyone gets their news online. But when will this shovelware online go away. Enough.

Embrace your downtime

I heard piece of advice at the Society for News Design conference that I wanted to share, from a workshop on "stuff no one teaches you."

Embrace your downtime. Got out. Do things. Be active. Do all the things you've been wanting to do. Why? It's healthy. But two, experiences make you a better journalist, producer, editor and designer.

SND: 3.0 Design Yourself

Another post from SND, this one scares me.

Dale Peskin, a media visionist, said something today at SND that made me, well, quite frankly, scared. He said, and I quote,

"The image may have surpassed the written word."

To hear this makes me cringe. I understand what he's trying to say. I do. Journalism is indeed changing and becoming even more visual. But the written word hasn't gone away. If anything, every word counts with shorter copy and less attention from readers -- unfortunately, we don't think this way when writing. We write and edit in the same old same old fashion. Just as visual journalism is going through this "conceptual age" so should reporting and writing for online and print.

Other less-scary point from Peskin:

We should be thinking about "experience" when designing and presenting news. What is the experience someone is having reading the paper or news site. Laughing? Nostalgia? Sadness? Empathy?

Lastly, he showed this hilarious site about ugly Myspace pages. Thought I'd share.

The winner is ..

Action Scripting: Wow.

Got to play in code all day, and let me tell you. My head hurts, but what a wonderful class. Here's me learning action scripting in Flash at SND. I'm staring at my screen for a missing quote mark. I'm in the background.

Check out this Las Vegas Sun project, a recent example of the beauty of Flash. This interactive timeline shows Vegas hotels during different decades, with descriptions and archived stories about each hotel from that time period. Nice.

This is what I love about journalism and reading -- the learning that comes from it. I think we tend to forget to ask this in writing -- what are readers learning, in addition to the news peg? If I can say, "I did not know that" out loud as a reader or user, that's a damn good piece of journalism.

SND: Remaking your news site or print newspaper

This post is live from SND,too. This post is on where our focus should be as journalists.

Rob Curley of the Las Vegas Sun, who headlined this year's SND on Sunday, gave this advice.

1. Focus on people's passion in your community online and in print. If that's Longhorns, music, high school sports, as it is in Austin, blow it out. Don't downplay it, ever. Feed readers' passion. Always. Not just some of the time.

2. Think alternative media, all the time. Are we texting high school football game scores?

3. Build useful evergreen stories, not just fluff or filler. Don't waste readers or users' time.

4. Complement the print edition better. If an online site can say only 1 of 10 most read stories on our site was published in the print newspaper, that's complementing online with print.

5. Higher, much higher, commitment to breaking news online. Still not enough.

6. Instead of focusing on the what, when, where, why and how. Focus more heavily on the why and how in stories. It's a different way of writing.

SND: Breaking Down the Myths of Change

These thoughts came from Lee Abrams, who heads Tribune Co.'s innovation efforts. He was the keynote speaker at this year's SND in Las Vegas (on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008)

In his words, with some paraphrasing and my comments to people who say them:

A. Have you heard any of these myths in the newsroom?

1. Change means dumbing down our product. (Seriously? Is that what we're doing?)
2. If we change we'll piss off readers. (Not exactly in the big picture.)
3. Any change means skewing toward the young. (Is that a bad thing?)
4. You can't touch such-and-such (i.e. logo of company), it's sacred. (100 years ago?)
5. We can't do creative things like that because we don't have the staff. (Economics is not an excuse for not being creative. Find some way.).

All are simply not true, he says. The media, especially print, have been leaning on them too long. I couldn't agree more.


B. His suggestions for change:

1. Make content FEEL local. Does the newspaper or Web site you work at FEEL like the community it's in? Does our site feel like an Austin site?

2. Give more incentive for readers to continue a story online from print. Promos need to be written better, enticing. Coach Mack Brown sounds off over latest arrest, see newspaper.com

3. More urgency is needed in getting things done. Not thinking about ideas for days or weeks, but implementing them. Experimenting. Stop wasting time.


C. He also described 3 types of journalists in the newsroom.

1. the person who isn't willing to change.
2. the person who says, "what's this person talking about?"
3. the person who is open to change (70% of the newsroom, he says)

Know any of the above people?

Rethinking Journalism, how so?

I started this journal as a way to write down ideas for how journalism can change for the better in this increasingly changing, digital media landscape.