The Carnival of Journalism Assignment: “For December I would like you all to write a letter to your younger self. You can write about anything, no rules, no apologies. You may like to share with yourself advice, things to look out for, things you wished you did differently, regrets, hopes, what you’ve learned, about your life, choices… or just about anything that is on your mind. Ideally these are deeply personal to you and I hope it’ll be enlightening to others in its universality to the human condition.”
All of the other bloggers are writing incredibly profound and insightful comments to their younger selves. Today, you feel somewhat humbled in their company. Every time you go to craft a worthy advice column that will be enlightening to the human condition, everything seems preachy and cliche. The truth is, young Self, I could tell you all sorts of things to watch out for (editors with personal agendas, that liar you trusted on the beat, lima beans) or to pay more attention to (that HTML class you took, that stats class you took, those cookies in the oven). But you won’t really listen. In your 20s, you thought you knew everything already. (Heck, at 12 you thought you knew everything). You had travelled the world. Lived in France. Your work had been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. You knew how to do your homework before an interview already. You knew not to make stuff up. You knew how to pretend you knew what was going on even when you didn’t. You pretended so well you even convinced yourself. Youth, you thought, was not wasted on THIS youth. What could an older Self possibly have to share with you?
Self, now you’re in your 40s. I’m here to tell you: you do not matter so much. That’s pretty blasphemous both in the culture you grew up in and in today’s sticker world where your kids get claps and hugs just for not playing a video game. I’ll say it a different way: everything around you – everyONE around you – matters more.
So yes, yes, you were very prescient to be learning HTML in your 20s when most people around you thought “online” meant the wait at the movies and email was a novel phase. Yes yes, you are very brilliant. But um… Self? Why didn’t you stick with it? Keep building web pages? So that you had to relearn it again when you turned 40 so you could talk about it with these other young Selves you are now teaching so they don’t miss out on opportunities? Think of how much more helpful you could have been in your subsequent newsrooms as you watched them struggle with digital transitions.
And true, true, you and your fellow reporters thought yourselves fighting the good fight afflicting the comfortable and all that. But you shied away from chances to really probe inequities — class, racial, gender — that you saw all around you. You really spent way too much time writing about annual reports and company perspective than you had to. At some point you will finally do all the reading you should be doing in your 20s and conduct the interviews that you should have done along the way to help you really grasp what disparity looks like. You thought you knew and you did understand in an abstract way, but not really in a nitty-gritty-reality-check way. What if you had opened your eyes sooner while you were regularly reaching so many people?
And yes, yes, perhaps you were right not to take the web reporting job and stick with the safe gig at a print newspaper in Vermont; after all that .com company folded within a couple years and you thrived on the business beat with the help of that incredible staff of mentors at the Burlington Free Press. You thought yourself quite the smartie. But what if you had taken the less safe path for once? What if you had taken yourself just a little less seriously, given yourself over to chance just a little bit more, and opened yourself up much more to mistake and failure than you did?
I guess we don’t know, Self.
Somewhere along the way, Self, you finally figured out in your 40s how little you really know. And that lesson — the knowledge that many, many, many more lessons await — is probably the most important one you’ve had so far.
When people — mostly journalists who had been laid off from corporate newsrooms — started talking about entrepreneurial journalism, I worried that we were starting to embrace what I had long resisted: that is, the idea that individual reporters needed to think about how to sell their stories as a product as much as how to save democracy.
I’ve come around.
In part, my change of heart has to do with a specific kind of entrepreneurial journalism – the nonprofit news organization. Most of them have adopted a mission to save journalism, to be a watchdog, to fill a void for democracy. (Just FYI: we at UW-Madison’s School of Journalism & Mass Communication are in the middle of a giant study of them, so some of what I am writing about comes from that data we are collecting.)
This blog post is in response to the February 2012 Carnival of Journalism question: “What emerging technology or digital trend do you think will have a significant impact on journalism in the year or two ahead? And how do you see it playing out in terms of application by journalists, and impact?” I consider the recent influx of nonprofits news agencies to represent an important trend in journalism – and one that is a direct result of digital technologies, especially social media.
The evidence suggests that the organizations, which are incredibly diverse in both their funding sources and methods, are proliferating, collaborating, and becoming a significant part of the emerging media ecology right now. In 2009 they banded together into their own trade organization called the Investigative News Network, which formed with just 20 groups. Just two years later more than 60 ventures have joined INN — most of them brand new. Although I haven’t been able to find any hard statistics (anyone out there have better luck?), most anecdotal reports show a giant spike in news nonprofit births since 2008.
They assume as their platform the Web, evoke the new “mass self-communicating” citizen (a Castells term), and depend on the new network society (this one is Benkler) for their existence. Many of them utilize crowdsourcing as a reporting technique, employ data-visualization experts and populate email list serves, twitter hashtags, Facebook groups, blogs and all sorts of digitally enabled forums and venues.
To be sure, controversy, cynicism and doubts dog these groups. Many are funded by foundations or the generosity of wealthy patrons – how sustainable is such a model? Some decline to disclose where their money comes from – how can we trust the veracity of their information and the altruism of their agenda? Many have very little readership – how can a group with so little content and so little marketability hope to survive midst the glut of the information age? (In other words, the very digital technologies that enable these groups to produce and disseminate news might also be the undoing of these groups?).
These are good questions. I attended a panel on the different models for nonprofit organizations at the Wisconsin News Association conference on Thursday in Madison, WI, where we discussed all of this. Stephen Greenhut of the conservative Franklin Center had this to say (in between his defending of the Franklin Center, which refuses to say who funds them and declares itself to produce “news” from a libertarian perspective):
“We are hiring right now, but the question is long-term: I don’t think anyone knows what the new model is. The money has got to come from somewhere.”
(And then a giant question mark exists from the Internal Revenue Service, which is threatening to restrict the 501c3 nonprofit status for these organizations. This would, of course, devastate many of their operations.)
But my point is that none of these groups could even begin to offer an alternative to mainstream media without new technologies and particularly the networking effect of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. (Rr at least, it would be much much harder; I should note here that of course we have had grand, often government-subsidized nonprofits such as NPR and the Center for Public Integrity thriving for decades, but I am talking about a different, digital-dependent animal.) This ability to bypass the printing press gives someone like Andy Hall, who quit his reporting gig at The Wisconsin State Journal, the opportunity to start up a group like Wisconsin Watch. WisconsinWatch (which is housed in my building at UW-Madison) now employs four people full-time as well as three paid interns and had produced 65 major investigative reports since 2009 with a budget of nearly half a million dollars. Said WisconsinWatch’s Money and Politics Project Director Bill Lueders at Thursday’s panel talk:
I think what the Center is doing is exciting because there is both an old and a new component. This is the cutting edge of journalism right now. But I am also attracted to it because it is very committed to a very old kind of reporting… according to the standards that have been established through decades of practicing these crafts.
One audience member asked about whether the spike in nonprofit news orgs represented just another niche trend, pointing out the recent death of the Chicago News Cooperative that lost a MacAuthur Foundation grant and then had to suspend operations (among other issues, including the IRS situation). Lueders suggested the key is to attract a diversity of funders and develop multiple revenue streams.
Our research backs this up. Foundation support is not the only kind of money for these groups, who are being very creative in developing alternative sources – from contractual project work to media-market collaborations to website advertising. I predict we will see even more networking and collaborating among these new players in this industry, and better and more stable business models as they mature.
I suggest that they consider calling on the technologies responsible for their very existence in seeking those alternative funding sources in addition to other, more traditional sources. I can think of any number of digitally based funding opportunities, including: adopting a a spot.us model where audiences can elect to give money for developing investigations; an Ebyline setup where people and other media organizations can bid on finished packages; community-based models where citizens pay for access for evergreen products like some of the database work being done for these organizations’ sites.
Another key activity we are going to see more and more of is the willingness of traditional media publications to publish and disseminate the work of the nonprofits in a much more prolific manner. On the one hand, this is great for nonprofit org’s visibility; on the other hand, I worry what impact that action will have on commercial news companies’ justification to keep what investigative reporters they still have on staff.
I know many legitimate questions swirl around the agenda and the sustainability of these new business models for news. But I can’t help thinking about the words of news futurist Clay Shirky, who wrote in a 2009 blog post about the uncertainty during the time of the printing press compared to the current revolution and the next business model for the news:
We’re collectively living through 1500, when it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it…We just got here. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen…For the next few decades, journalism will be made up of overlapping special cases. Many of these models will rely on amateurs as researchers and writers. Many of these models will rely on sponsorship or grants or endowments instead of revenues. Many of these models will rely on excitable 14 year olds distributing the results. Many of these models will fail. No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the journalism we need.
I think when we look back at this time period, we will see that the nonprofit news organization served as the foundation for a significant component of watchdog reporting in the United States — thanks to these early entrepreneurs who risked their professional reputations and their livelihoods to learn and adopt the innovative digital tools to do old-school journalism in new platforms and models.
The coming digital journalist will mean refined ways of researching stories, knowing who is where at news events, easier source identification through face-recognition software and digital note-taking.
Oh and by the way? That digital journalist is now here.
Amy Webb, a technology guru whom I revere, offered up her annual 10 tech trends for journalists at the Online News Association conference in Boston in September 2011. The trends come from the work she does through her company, Webbmedia Group, which is basically a digital-strategy consultant business that tracks techy trends through research, interviews, networking, focus groups and observations.
The top trends to be aware of in journalism, according to Amy Webb, are the following:
- Refined Search: New kinds of search engines can help you target your research findings much more precisely than just Google or Yahoo. Take advantage of the “smart” functions of features like “Google +1” that help the engine know your preferences. See: Google +1, Google Related, Heliod, Greplin’s app.
- Topics: New software is arriving that allows us to conduct topic-focused dynamic curation. This all goes WAY beyond aggregation. See: Twylah, Klout, Scoop.it, Google Propeller. (Some of these are still in private beta, but they are coming, says Amy!!)
- Inner Circles: Features like Google Circles are allowing you to curate conversation around specific topics and groups of people. So for journalists, consider exploring these new programs to conduct focus groups, organize key influencers and keep up to date on product launches and other industry-specific news.
- Social-Proximity Networks: These show you who else is around you when you are at a conference, in a meeting, or just out and about. Besides Foursquare, there is also: Nerd Nearby (and a bunch of others but I can’t seem to verify on the web, so I’m going to have to get back to them later when I make sure I’ve written them down correctly).
- Face and Iris Recognition: Face.com and Facebook are helping us identify and tag people in images. Creepy, right?! But imagine as a reporter taking a picture of someone on your phone and finding out who they are in a few seconds. Great for those of us who can’t remember people’s names for the life of us. See: Viewdyl. A bunch of others are coming too.
- Digital Note-Taking: The Livescribe, ABBYY, and Wacom Inkling mean you can take notes (and comment on your notes) digitally by hand.
- Quick and Long Reads: Consider marketing that long piece to byliner or longreads, which show the reader how many minutes it would take to read the entire thing. And for that shorter stuff, check out Amazon Kindle Singles and Apple short-reads content.
- Gestural Interfaces: This technology will enable people to interact with a digital device without touching it. (I had to wikipedia it while she was talking.) Not a lot out right now, but she says to look out for: Kinect, Android@Home, and stuff from Apple, MSFT, and Primesense 3D.
- Pre-cognition reporting: Data visualization tools that can predict where trends are heading (in other words, to see the future!). Check out the Terminator Vision app and Recorded Future.
- Ethics in Digital Journalism: Amy ended with a caution about digital technologies taking over the world, and more importantly, our souls (my words, not hers). She reminded us that just because you CAN use digital tools to do just about anything, doesn’t mean you SHOULD (again, my words, not hers but this was the basic takeaway).
(*** ALL OF THIS COMES FROM WEBB’S PRESENTATION!!)