Brief update and other thoughts
We’ve been bad bloggers so I apologize to three of you who read us. Annie, David Calvert and I, with the amazing help of Donica, are working non-stop to apply for the Knight Foundation’s News Challenge grant in an effort to save journalism in Reno.
Until the applications are filled out and sent and the deadline is hit, we don’t want to publish anything about it.
Our visit to IDEO went well, we had 13 hours together to brainstorm and redraw, redefine and focus everything about our concept. IDEO taught us to think of “Bob McGregor” and reconnect with readers emotionally. Instead of thinking of demographics, think of how people intersect and use news throughout their daily lives. Then form a product around that person, not around an 18-25-year-old middle class white male with 2.5 kids and a wife going through school in Reno.
IDEO’s work environment also further inspired us. We are the Google generation, not the cubicle generation. One answer to new’s future involves Nerf finger rockets – 100s of them – a Volkswagen Bus with a drum set on top of it and a drawer full of weird junk. Not even kidding.
Which leads us to believe even more than ever, that traditional newsrooms are not going to be able to find an answer. They are simply too incompatible with the present and the future. To steal a metaphor: it’s like trying to use ductape to fix a leaky transmission instead of building a new car.
Current stream of consciousness:
- People can only remember 7 to 9 bits of information in short term memory
- Therefore, too much news is a bad thing – media proliferation is problematic
- News judgment is more important than ever and people aren’t getting enough <<< My political science classmates agree
- Information is valuable, the right information is profitable, the right information with the right frame, filter and context is paramount
- There is no one answer to solving journalism. Quote: “The changes in this organization are multifold!”
- Each answer is solely dependent on the area of coverage, the people/community and the location. What’s right for San Francisco is absolutely wrong for Reno is absolutely wrong for Indianapolis
- Moreover: What’s right for Northwest Reno is absolutely wrong for Downtown Reno is absolutely wrong for Sparks
- Moreover: What’s right for Bob McGregor is absolutely wrong for his neighbor is absolutely wrong for his coworkers, etc.
- News is in motion, information is relevant only to those who want/need it even if that is an audience/market of one
- Mass media has its place and is not dead, but it does not belong in a niche location with a niche audience
- Strict ethics limit journalism
- Strict methods limit journalism
- Strict business standards limit journalism
- “No” limits journalism
- Quote: “The First Amendment is not a suicide pact” <<< Supreme Court Justice Jackson
Your post coincided nicely with Amy Gahran’s pointing to Michael Specht’s presentation of the Cluetrain Manifesto, a declaration that inspired many almost 10 years ago. She suggests substituting “community” for “market” and “news provider” for “company.”
See how these theses amplify the points in your post — for example: “Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound flat, hollow, literally inhuman.” This is a critical point of reflection when thinking about how to design the post-industrial newsroom.