Man Is The Media.
How Many Reporters Do We Need?
February 18th, 2009 by Martin
How Many Reporters Does It Take To Unscrew A Lightbulb?
I don’t have the exact answer to this question, but as I argue below looking at just some of the trouble in today’s newspaper industry, the answer is probably ‘Too many, and too well paid’.
Steve Rubel had an interesting post yesterday, stating that the newspaper reporter of the future is already here: Someone who is utilizing all kinds of new media (Facebook, Twitter etc.) and consumer gadgets (iPhone, laptop, podcasting recorder etc.) “to build a stronger connection with their audience (and their own personal brands in the process)”.
This emerging trend tells us two things: (1) The free and connected social services are replacing more expensive journalistic procedures and making the time from event to published story much shorter, and (2) the journalist himself is becoming a medium (and perhaps even a brand if s/he’s successful).
While newspapers are complaining and some are dying, it’s often left unmentioned how easy and streamlined reporting can be today, in a world where information seldom is further away than a few links, or the citizen who recorded it all on his mobile and blogged about it. That’s why it continues to amaze me seeing the swarms of journalists gathered to cover single events.
(source)Most of the people present at the wonderful event above would tell you the same thing, “The President and his wife danced”.
The core of the journalistic practice is, or should be, connecting the dots, seeing beyond the obvious and providing brilliant writing that analyzes, contextualizes, and makes judgment on the increasing flow of data in the world. That’s one thing people will continue to pay for.
Newspapers needs to increase outsourcing the coverage of events. I know, I know. It’s called newspapers. Readers want the exclusive, the newspapers say. But in a hyper-connected world, readers are used to Googling and shopping around for their news. This fact alone has been recognized by followers of the so-called link-journalism who argues: ‘OK, if my readers are gonna go looking for news on competing sites, I might as well help them find the right links’. The link itself has become a brilliant journalistic tool, providing the readers with relevant background stories, finding the credible voices in the redundant roar of more or less obscure sources online.
I still see the relevance of a few major newspapers actually covering the news using own reporters on-site, and small-time local papers doing the same in their community where no-one else would be covering events otherwise. But every medium-sized newspaper has to realize their place in the news chain and make some tough decisions: Cut costs for unnecessary reporters, leverage social media to the extreme, buy news when they must but always consider if linking isn’t just as good. Hopefully it’ll free up resources to focus on painting that credible and thought provoking news image that people want to pay for, be it online or offline.
A few words on money in all of this
I was shocked to learn that a Danish journalist starts at DKR 30,000 a month ($ 5,000 ) after just 4 years of education. That, in combination with unions fighting for their members to stay in the job with the highest possible wages, is probably one of the most pressing problems to deal with, and I have no answer to how. Are there too many journalists in the world?
The mere fact that the government in Denmark needs to chip in about $ 1 billion to support Danish media would tell you there’s something wrong somewhere, considering all the doom and gloom you hear about in the newspaper discource. Are the Danish citizens getting enough value, when they even have to pay expensive subscriptions to get their print editions delivered on the door mat? Editions that are still full of paid advertising, I might add.
Another problem is creating new revenue from online distribution. If we kill the print edition, or, say, just bring it thrice a week, will my newspaper survive? I don’t know, but since the amount of advertising budgets and attention in the world are more or less the same, it’s hard to see the current crisis in the newspaper world than anything more than a mere (but painful) transition. And since advertising online is so much more attractive than ‘analogue’ ad types (because you get more precise data and can choose from many formats), I can only speculate it’s a matter of time before businesses are willing to pay more for their online ads, especially when analogue ads are no longer a valid option.
There’s no doubt that reading newspapers online today is not the same as reading it in print, but better digital reading gadgets and services enhancing print layout for the screen will eventually make it a comparable experience, not least considering the obvious advantages of consuming data in a digital and connected environment.
And in case you were wondering, I receive multiple print newspapers, I do not own a Kindle, but I do read an awful lot of RSS feeds on my computer and phone. In the not too distant future I’ll stop subscribing to anything print to save the trees and because “If the news is that important, it will find me” to say it with a now famous quote.
All newspapers need to do is figure out how to make money from that.
