Sigh. This email, from what I presume to be a desperate undergrad with a pressing essay deadline, is just in:
"The following survey questions are part of an Eastern Michigan University study of the effects of blogging on the business and practice of journalism. If you would like to participate, please email your answers to xxx@xxx.com before Saturday, August 18th. Thank you for your time, we look forward to your responses.
1. How has the news consumer been affected by blogs?
2. How has the traditional news media been affected by blogs?
3. How has the integrity of journalism been affected by blogs?"
My response, of course, is that the "news consumer", "traditional news media" and "integrity of journalism" hasn’t been affected by blogs in the slightest. We’ll see if that generates a something more than a form email in response. Since I’m a recovering sub-editor these days, I didn’t mention the comma splice at the end of his first paragraph. Shocking.
Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis finds a disturbing report today which suggests the greatest throwbacks in the industry are, in fact, the ones entering it.
“A lot of college students select their medium in high school. When
they come onto campus, they’re already a TV person or a radio person or
a newspaper person,” said Wendelken.“I’m a print journalist,” he continued, imitating the attitude of many aspiring journalists. “Why do I need to learn video?”
Again, for those at the back: if you think you want to be a journalist, I now don’t think there’s any excuse not to have a blog. The closer you get to looking around for jobs, the better it should be maintained. If you enter the jobs market without one, no matter how good your degree, you’re increasingly likely to lose out to people who better present all they can do, and have the experience of creating and curating their own site.
And, whatever you do, don’t spam people with your essay questions, sent out in the guise of a "University study"…
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « It’s hard to see the future from there
- » Running silent
- BROWSE / IN Digital revolution
- « iPhone: but what does it all *mean*?
- » NYC: Plotting the future of networked journalism
COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS
ThePublishingSpot added these pithy words on Aug 16 07 at 10:22 pmWhy Should You Blog?
Ack! Once again, I return at mid-day from my day-job with a late, late post. When life gets busy, I sometimes ask myself, why keep this blog? I love doing it, but sometimes it really gets in the way…
Suw added these pithy words on Aug 16 07 at 10:11 pmKevin and I each got exactly the same email. Kev put it down to some sort of scam, although it wasn’t clear what sort. I just put it down to stupidity. But I think you’re right - desperate undergrad with a pressing essay due.
Neither of us replied.
I fear said journalism student is going to find replies to such an impersonal and poorly considered email few and far between. Wonder if Jarvis got one too.
Craig McGill added these pithy words on Aug 17 07 at 9:45 amI don’t know about this, I really don’t, looking at it from a number of viewpoints.
As a consumer of news, yes, I’ll take everything you can give me. More is good.
On the one hand, yes, a reporter should have a blog so that he can highlight his work - but what if his work isn’t online? He can’t put it up himself (it’s not his copyright in most cases)
I remember working at a national newspaper, suggesting blogs and being told ‘what’s the point’ and when I asked if I could at least put my own stuff up online I was told ‘find your own webspace to do it in and convert the files yourself as well - and make sure you get copyright approval from legal’ so I didn’t.
Hell, the Scottish Mirror broke a lot of great stores, none of them ever ended up online, Scotland’s best selling paper at the moment is the same - 400,000 readers and not a bit of copy on the website (The Sun).
Add to that, there is this (still slighly unseemly) notion that I have that a reporter is someone paid to provide content. Will he be paid more to provide the blog content (if it’s more than just a rehash of an article)? If not then why should they blog as well?
This also strikes at the heart of the idea of training journalists up to do video as well as words and so on.
If I’m out there videoing an event, I’m concentrating on the videoing of the event, not the event itself. This may mean that I’m providing good visuals but what about later when I want to go and provide a written piece as well?
By asking journalists to be writers, audio reporters and video reporters we are looking for jack of all trades and masters of none. Now I know fine well that there will be people trained up very well - and there will be skilled people able to pull it off - but if being that multiskilled is the new baseline, there will be a lot of shoddyness as well.
I have a very real fear that we will see a generation of trained journalists doing all these tasks - piling on the workload - instead of us
And I find it very surprising that most people are backing the idea. After all, any time in the past it was suggested that a reporter take a camera with him - instead of an actual photographer - there’s usually outrage.
Or are we saying it’s not that hard to do video and audio? And will the day come - like it has at some TV stations - where the reporter gets the copy, audio, visuals, edits it all into the package and then puts it out. That’s one person doing the job of about 10.
Shaun added these pithy words on Aug 18 07 at 11:22 amSurely blogs are there to be embraced by the writer? In the newsroom is it not now an extension to the once coveted art of having your own column and a good thing to be asked to do with the future opportunities it may bring?
The benefits of providing video/audio as part of news coverage of an event are also clear in that they should enhance the experience greatly for the end user while making it more accessible and possibly growing the potential audience.
But Craig (dare I admit this) does make a very valid point. Where do you draw the line in what one journalist is expected to provide?
Press conferences and similar organised events aside how is a hack - no matter how multi-skilled and talented - supposed to concentrate on the core job of getting the information and developing the story quickly and accurately while faced with so many different delivery demands?
I can think of many instances where information would be lost to the reporter as they twiddle with buttons and zooms instead of concentrating on the basics of actually interviewing people on and off the record.
Surely the question should be will media companies now provide the extra investment the brave new world demands for such cross platform coverage, making sure there are extra feet on the floor, ensuring quality and making best use of the potential.
Or will they simply see it as a way of squeezing more from a potentially resentful workforce for less, even if it is to the detriment of the news coverage it was originally supposed to enhance?
xxxx xxxx added these pithy words on Aug 19 07 at 1:58 am[Note from Neil: I removed this contributor's name from this comment and replaced it with xxxx xxxx because I didn't name him in the original post, and having this comment - or my post - attached to his name by Google may cause him problems in the future. I also have no way of confirming it was sent by him, and not a playful student colleague, although I suspect it is genuine.]
Of course you are correct to assume that the survey you received was from a desperate undergrad with a pressing essay deadline. Of course you have far better editing skills than I do, since I am a first year English student. Certainly you should be concerned about the future of journalism in the hands of people like me.
You are right on all counts, but did you give journalism the benefit of the doubt with your smarmy non-answers to my three little survey questions?
Were you so eager to wipe my face in your superiority that you forgot that you could have actually taken five minutes (like many other people did) to send me back your real thoughts about the effects of blogging on journalism?
I would never fault a blogger who received my survey and then instantly deleted it. I have no problem if the people I contacted didn’t want to respond. I am a nobody in the world of letters, but I feel that your response to my questions was pointless and mean spirited.
At least I know that to be a good journalist, you should first try to be a good person.
Neil Mc added these pithy words on Aug 19 07 at 9:38 amxxxx xxxx - is that really you? I didn’t name you in my post - now *that* would have been mean - but you’ve gone and unmasked yourself in the comments.
I’m not sure if you’re really that stupid, or if another reader is being mischievous, but I’m anonymising your comment just to spare your blushes. Otherwise, it’ll be the only thing that shows up in a Google search for your name, which might be a little harsh.
Now, to your comments: mean spirited? Yup - it’s like I’m dead inside. You’ll meet a few of us should you ever get a job. “Smarmy non-answers?” No, they were *facetious* non-answers. Am I concerned about the future of journalism in the hands of people like you? For the first time, you’re damned right.
I speak to dozens of students a year - talks, emails, phone calls. I enjoy it - I learn things, and enjoy having my assumptions tested. But let’s not pretend your messages were sent in the spirit of earnest academic enquiry - you lazily spammed a group asking its members to write your essay for you, under the misleading cover of a “university study”.
Never mind bleating about being a “good person” - to be a good journalist, first care about being straightforward with people you’re trying to get information from. Then they might help you.
And go get your own blog.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
Your comments