Davemolloy.net

(This entry has been cross-posted at Tomorrow’s News, Tomorrow’s Journalists.)

Bankruptcy, business models, downsizing, start-ups- they’re all I’m getting in my RSS feeds. And yes, it’s important for young journalists to stay on top of these developments.

But let’s get some perspective here- that’s business, not journalism.

Equally, in discussing how new technologies such as Twitter and blogging and user-generated content can make journalism better, it’s far too easy to (erroneously) jump to the conclusion that they are making journalism better. It’s not a given fact. It’s all about how these new technologies are applied and utilised: the simple action of using them in an unintelligent manner doesn’t help readers, and it certainly doesn’t help reporters.

What this boils down to is that “new media” is not really about content, but it’s a delivery system for content. That’s an important distinction, because the nature of modern media is such that anyone can make use of these delivery systems. The advantage of the professional press lies in the ability to generate cutting-edge, professional content using skills specifically honed for that purpose. I guess what I’m saying is that the ability to propagate content instantaneously world-wide is being used as a crutch- the focus is no longer on generating the best content you possibly can, but on publishing that content in the most effective manner possible. And what we need is some balance.

So, with this in mind, what do I think the skills we’re ignoring are? There are two big things that are annoying me: the loss of personal contact, and the loss of “low tech” skills.

Face-to-face interviewing

This is the journalist’s bread and butter. The ability to seek out reliable information and extract it from often reluctant sources is what has traditionally separated the professional press from the casual observer of events. But I’ve noticed an alarming trend among young reporters to use e-mail and other internet mediums to interview sources or find facts. And this is just plain wrong. Impersonal, non-vocal interviewing should be a last resort, never a first port of call.

Think of the last time you carried out an interview by e-mail. How soon did you get a response? Minutes, or hours? Either way, the interviewee had ample time to construct their answer carefully to reflect their chosen stance. You didn’t have the chance to see the hesitation, the nervous twitches, or the unsure tone of voice that might have prompted you to ask a question you never considered important before, but might just be THE question to ask. Because you weren’t there. Hell, you might not even be able to be 100% sure you were actually interviewing the individual rather than their secretary.

Use your feet and pound some pavement. Knock on doors, ring some bells, meet your people. If we’re going to see a movement towards hyper-local journalism, as some commentators have argued, then you better know your locals. Build trust. If that’s not possible, use the wonderful invention known as the telephone, where you can react to the situation immediately, as things progress. Your last resort, when you have absolutely no other option, should be internet correspondence.

The ultimate example of this, of course, is the recent attempt by ABC to interview Senator John McCain by Twitter- limiting both questions and answers to140 characters. The transcript is farcical. Of course this wasn’t going to work. Who ever thought it would? Someone, apparently, who decided that new technology inherently meant better journalism.

For any of you professionals out there, this is probably obvious. But for some of you, and for some student journalists writing for their college paper while juggling assignments and classes, who “just don’t have time” for a face-to-face: I cannot count how many times this has given me a new angle or new insight, from even the most basic of stories up to the front-page stuff. Don’t be lazy. Be smart.

Pen and paper skills

I know this has been done to death decades ago, but your voice recorder is not omnipotent. You can’t use it in court (here in Ireland anyway) and it can run out batteries, get wet, get broken, and takes a hell of a long time to transcribe from. Worse, it can intimidate sources, particularly in sensitive stories, who may not tell you everything they normally would.

Learn shorthand instead.

This is something I genuinely believe in, despite the fact that I’ve never formally studied it, and it’s actually been dropped as a compulsory module in Dublin’s main media university. Not only is it more reliable than digital media recorders, to the outside observer it simply looks like you’re taking casual notes. It’s a highly employable skill and one which too many students these days see as too difficult or too outdated to learn. It’s functional, it’s reliable, it doesn’t intimidate, and the ability to take non-verbal notes alongside transcripts in a single location is invaluable. Get a free online course here. Now.

And this point about pen-and-paper applies to editing, too. Maybe it’s just me, but I find I edit to a much higher standard when I take a pen to paper and cross things out, circle things, and scribble in columns. It’s easier to spot errors in clean, white, matte print. If this describes you too, then just do it. The amount of paper you use won’t make a difference to the planet what with all the print editions going bankrupt these days.

One more thing: reader interaction is all well and good, but bear in mind that every journalist represents their news organisation. And as such, reporters are expected to be unbiased, balanced and fair. Columnists can probably jump in to debate, but hard news is built upon the idea that journalists can leave their baggage at the door, and this to me means that we should stay out of the comments area. I’m concerned that the the breakdown of the barrier between journalists and their public may lead to less professional standards: should journalists be allowed discuss their views or comment on stories they’ve written?

In terms of changing these trends and reminding ourselves of what’s important, I really think it’s a matter of waiting. As internet and new media become more accepted, and eventually (most likely) the mainstream form of content delivery, the over-enthusiasm for technology over technique will fade. The problem is that in the time it takes for this to happen, standards will drop significantly. So what can we do? Nothing, except to constantly remind ourselves that high-quality reporting tomorrow will be rather similar to high-quality reporting today, and it’s just the method of compilation and delivery that’s changing.

Just a few thoughts. I’m not against new developments: I just think it’s too easy to write off important skills as “outdated”, when, in fact, they’re as valid now as ever.