re-engineering the newsroom
We discussed concerns such as how to overcome in the old media
newsroom the sense of fear and mistrust about new media, what
the organizational relationships should be between old and
new media, and whether new media is simply a new function
of the core product or whether it should be an entirely separate
effort.
Well, three years and a thousand news websites later, the
problems of integrating the print newsroom with the new media
effort continues to stymie many organizations. Some have taken
a definite "we must merge" stance, such as the new
media approach at the Chicago Tribune and at the Orlando Sentinel.
Others have a philosophy of separation with new media a completely
different organization such as with Cox's new media efforts.
No matter what approach is used, the issue of tapping into
the talents and resources of the vastly larger print newsroom
and figuring out ways to combine efforts at some level continues
to the source of much angst.
At the recent leadership for new media program we held at
Poynter, we asked the participants to rank concerns they have
in new media products. Concerns about developing great online
content ranked first; a close second was how to integrate
the old and new media newsrooms' efforts more effectively.
In a survey of the managers of online newspapers conducted
by Poynter Fellow Michelle Jackson of Florida State University,
only 20% of the respondents said reporters contribute special
material to the website; 31% said newsroom editors who work
on the print paper also have some editorial responsibility
for the website; and only 23% said photojournalists or graphics
designers contribute special material to the web.
When you consider that almost 60% of the website operations
surveyed have fewer than two employees, it's clear that tapping
the talents of the print newsroom to contribute to the new
online presence is going to be very important.
As one recent seminar participant put it, "We're in a
very competitive market...we have three online producers.
We have more than 200 journalists in the newsroom. We can
either hit the competition with our three people against their
20 or 25 or we can throw the resources of 203 people against
them. " But how to tap into it continues to be a problem.
Just what does integration mean...well there are several definitions.
The standard one: The condition of being formed into a whole
by the addition or combination of parts or elements.
There's the sociological definition: Ending the segregation
of and bringing into equal membership in society or an organization.
But the one I prefer is the biological definition:The sum
of the processes by which the developing parts of an organism
are formed into a functional and structural whole.
New media really is a new life form in newsrooms.
But the processes referred to in the biological definition
of integration are not adding up--evolution is stuck in many
newsrooms. Why is that?
There are a number of newsroom hurdles to integration that
have been set up by years of routines, attitudes, and protocols.
Do you recognize any of these hurdles in your news organization?
It's important to understand why you get that eye-rolling
reaction from the print editors when you suggest some great
new web feature you'd like their reporters to contribute to,
or why the reporters are not thrilled at the idea of putting
their e-mail addresses on their stories is important.
If you know about the hurdles operating in your newsroom,
figuring out how to clear them will be easier.
The
hurdles can be:
LOGISTICAL:
Someone at a northeastern website said, "Where I work
is as far back in the building as one can go. The actual building
isn't that big, so they couldn't put us anywhere closer to
the newspaper office if they tried. But, I can see how this
makes it difficult for the newspaper staffers to understand
exactly what we do back here." Logistical hurdles can
make your work invisible and it's hard to integrate with something
you never see.
TECHNICAL:
The technologies used to create a print page and a web page
are very different--there is a different language and coding.
The software and access required to even look at the web technology
is often non-existent in the print newsroom so there is little
opportunity for them to begin to understand it, much less
get involved or excited about the possibilities.
CULTURAL:
New media is all about quick changes, new approaches, on-the-edge
attitude. It wants constantly updated news, it wants fresh
and different. The print newsroom, on the other hand, has
taken years to develop the way it does things and that stability
and "write up to the deadline" style serves them
quite well, thank you very much. They don't understand your
culture and they feel you don't respect theirs.
PERCEPTUAL:
Nod your head if you have the sense that the folks in the
print newsroom think of you as some techno-babbling geek,
not a solid, reliable journalist with values and journalistic
goals. Nod your head if you think of the majority of the print
newsroom as hopelessly archaic luddites with, frankly, little
to contribute to this new world. This perception and how you
reveal it to your newsroom can be a huge hurdle. Be careful
of techno-arrogance -- the managing editor at a small newspaper
said one of his reporters had gone to the webmaster with what
he thought was a great idea but the webmaster just shot it
down, giving the reporter the sense that he was hopelessly
uninformed. The managing editor said, "Once burned, twice
shy - that guy won't be offering to work with the web staff
anytime soon."
ATTITUDINAL:
A friend who runs the library and the website at a small
newspaper told me how she excitedly told the photo editor
at the newspaper about this great panorama photo program she
got and the great new ways he could photographically report
stories for the web. "We don't do that kind of photograph;
that's not a news photograph." was his reply. That kind
of attitude is rampant in some newsrooms: "That's not
what we do and that's not how we do it" That along with
the, "We don't have time to do what we have to do now,
much less do anything new" is a real integration and
innovation killer.
HISTORICAL:
Many people in the newsroom have been through the "next
big technology" before. Many remember the move from hot
type to cold type, many are going through the agony and esctasy
of pagination. Frankly, to them, this new media is just another
technological fad that's just going to mean disruption and
quite possibly, more work for them.
ETHICAL:
Reporters see their news webpage and there's the front page--full
of ads (if you're lucky). This uncomfortable mix of crass
business and holy editorial is enough for them to think that
new media is the devil's work. The now infamous incidences
of the rush to publish before a story is fully formed because
of the pressures of the continually updated news product also
gives print journalists ethical twinges that may make them
reluctant to fully embrace the new medium. When one large
eastern news website decided to include a book ordering service
at the bottom of their book reviews area, a print side editor
threatened to quit.
PROCEDURAL:
Sure, put e-mail addresses on the reporters' bylines, but
has anyone figured out what the guidelines are for answering
the e-mail they get. Journalists need to know what they need
to do, and often no one has figured it out, or if they have,
they haven't told the journalists yet.
GENERATIONAL:
Headline for the generation gap between new and old media:
"Gen X meets Woodstock." The average age of the new media
staff is considerably lower than the average in the newsroom.
Ageism on both sides can be a real issue.
MOTIVATIONAL:
And just what is in this for me? You are going to be fighting
an uphill battle unless you can help the newsroom figure out
how contribution and collaboration with the new media effort
can help serve their individual journalistic purposes.
SCHIZOPHRENIC:
Do any of you work in an organization that has decided not
to put browsers on the reporters' and editors' pcs? "The
web is just a big waste of time. If we put browsers on their
computers they will just be out there playing." This,
of course, is coming from the same newsroom pumping money
into creating an invaluable information service for their
readers. What is going on there?
BUDGETARY:
The perception in the newsroom is that new media gets the
great computers: We're still banging away on crummy machines.
They see you adding staff (and don't really see what you're
doing with it) and they know you're not making any real profits
yet. They resent the money going to new media.
ORGANIZATIONAL:
Job titles and descriptions in new media operations just don't
correspond to print newsroom titles, nor should they. The
whole organizational structure can be mysterious to the print
newsroom people. Newsrooms with the guild can have another
level of difficulty integrating new roles. And then there
is the fact that in some organizations the new media operation
is an entirely separate company, so even if the "old
media" newsroom wanted to get more involved there is
no organization pipeline to new media.
A reporter at a large newspaper in the south I was talking
with said their newsroom wanted to produce some packages for
the web but that the website people were only interested in
developing entertainment resources, and since they were, in
essence, a separate company, there was no way to get them
to help make the story packages a reality.
TERRITORIAL:
They can see you as invaders of their space, their scoop,
their jobs. People get defensive when they don't understand
what is going on and the lack of communication and understanding
about the place new media is playing in the organization can
create severe territorial issues.
DIRECTIONAL:
In a message thread about web staff / newsroom relations someone
wrote. "How many ceo's / publishers are regularly online?
It's a lot easier when it starts at the top, or has reached
the top of the organization --as decisions, like other things,
tend to run downhill. " Ultimately, the most important
foundation for integration is a clear mission. The mixed or,
often, missing messages about the vision of new media can
only lead to scattered efforts. In that survey I told you
about earlier, only 30% of web editors said that senior news
executives were involved in the website - but these are the
very ones who must be involved because only they can ensure
their troops will get involved.
So, do any of these sound familiar? Hopefully these have helped
you have some insight into what might be going on in your
newsroom. If they have, then now you know, and, as GI Joe
says, knowing is half the battle. But the other half is doing
something about it.
Here
are some suggestions:
Have
a clear mission.Make sure someone is guiding and communicating
just what you all are about in this new media effort.
Provide
rumor control Have an ear out for what the current misconception
is in the newsroom about new media, the Internet, and what
you are trying to do.
Help
ease techno-angst. Some of those who have been most successful
in getting their print side colleagues interested and involved
in new media attribute it to a constant and ongoing evangelistic
role. They provide training to help people understand.
Raise
their consciousness. Part of the easing of techno-angst
is helping them to see just what new media can do for them.
Finding
out what motivates them will help in the raising of their
consciousness. Are they frustrated by the limited space available
in the newspaper? Offer them the expandable space. Can't get
all those photos in? Here is an opportunity for an online
gallery.
Establish
clear procedures / guidelines Help ease the angst and
confusion by helping them to see that guidelines they've used
in the past still work and for those new procedures or modes
of working make sure that clear guidelines are developed.
Be
their technology advocate The more literate and comfortable
the newsroom is with the technology, the more of a basis you
will have to build on. Help the newsroom by using your expertise
with technology to build their access.
Let me read you the vision for the future written by one of
the participants of our last new media seminar:
"What
I'd like in the future: The new media and old media staff
are working closely together, with the folks in new media
creating compelling packages that take advantage of the new
storytelling devices the web makes available while utilizing
the incredible amount of reporting and information gathering
that occurs in the newsroom. "
"I'd
like to see our print columnists develop web personas by hosting
chats or forums. I'd like to see our print product promoting
the online product, and the online product returning the favor.
I'd like to see us viewing the web not as something totally
different but simply a new way of providing information to
our audience."
Is that a future you'd like to see? Getting to that future
is going to require a lot of changes.
So, for a final piece of advice, consider the little phrase
I've got on the front of the handout--I saw it on a bumper
sticker.
"Change
is good. You first."
If you are going to integrate the old and the new, someone
is going to have to start the process.
If not you, who? If not now, when?
If you want to read more about the online ethical issues that
are of such concern to the print journalists, the recent issue
of Editor & Publisher has an article, teased on the cover
"Internet Eroding Newsroom Standards" -- but called
a little more positively inside "Upholding journalistic
standards online." It has the musings and thoughtful
comments of Philadelphia Online general manager Fred Mann.
