Ira Glass puts perfectly a thought I had the other day when going through a stack of columns I had written in my first year of reporting at The West Australian. Being asked to write a column as a cadet journalist is a pretty big call and I can say I failed miserably (I think I got in three columns before they killed me off graciously.) Thankfully, the humiliation was shared between a few of us. Let me emphasis – reading them back was nothing short of torture, but I had a similar sense of dread at the time they were published. I knew they were bad. Ira talks about persisting past that stage where you know that what you doing is not that good – he describes it as the gap between your taste and ability. And yes, everybody goes through it. But it’s an important process and his advice is just brilliant and inspiring.

Definitely, a must watch for all aspiring journalists, but really it relates to many fields and things. Start-ups included. In fact, I feel the whole process has started over again in that regard.

There have been a couple of interesting reports out the last few days pertaining to the state of the news media that I thought were worth pointing out:

The State of the News Media 2009 by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism delivers a fairly hard hitting view on the future of news, focusing on the US. From the overview:

Some of the numbers are chilling.

Newspaper ad revenues have fallen 23% in the last two years. Some papers are in bankruptcy, and others have lost three-quarters of their value. By our calculations, nearly one out of every five journalists working for newspapers in 2001 is now gone, and 2009 may be the worst year yet.

…

Perhaps least noticed yet most important, the audience migration to the Internet is now accelerating. The number of Americans who regularly go online for news, by one survey, jumped 19% in the last two years; in 2008 alone traffic to the top 50 news sites rose 27%. Yet it is now all but settled that advertising revenue—the model that financed journalism for the last century—will be inadequate to do so in this one. Growing by a third annually just two years ago, online ad revenue to news websites now appears to be flattening; in newspapers it is declining.

The report also had a look into citizen media, which had some insightful findings:

• Citizen news sites remain relatively rare. Among those that do exist, the range of topics is narrower and the sourcing somewhat thinner than on legacy news sites, and the content is generally not updated, even on a daily basis. But they offer richer content than citizen blogs. These are among the key findings of a new multi-university study of new and old media in 46 markets that builds on a pilot study we presented last year.
• Social networking and citizen video sharing broadened in important ways as a means of distributing news, not just for social interaction and entertainment
• Citizens also continued to engage more in aggregating news for themselves and creating sites built around user-generated news agendas, particularly at sites like Reddit, Digg and Topix.
• In legacy media, news organizations continued to experiment in various ways with citizen contributions, but most seemed to be leaning toward citizens as sources rather than as journalists, and some large experiments with citizen reporting failed.
• A growing array of alternative news sites run largely by professional journalists also emerged during the year. That is covered in another special report entitled New Ventures.

The other report is by Australia’s Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which launched Life in the Clickstream: The Future of Journalism.

While a lot in the report in not particularly new to many working in online media and focuses heavily on the union’s role in the future news industry, it’s good to finally see some analysis of the media scene here in Australia. I still feel like the Alliance needs to learn to move a little faster (remind me, but I’m sure this report was due out earlier this year.) Its hesitation might come from the fact that it’s seen its role for too long as protecting current jobs in the traditional news organisation set-up, which consequently have very little hope of existing in the future. I can empathise with its position, but it’s good to see some wake-up calls for both the MEAA and the Australian media industry in the report:

The key concern for Alliance members is how the worsening global – and sector – forecasts will affect jobs. We are hostage, to an extent, to anecdote. The number of full-time Australian journalists has, by Alliance estimates, fallen 13 per cent since 2001, from just under 8500 across all media to around 7,500. It must be stressed this is an estimate, based on data and estimates reported by Alliance staff and activists. There is little doubt the sector will continue to shrink, at least in the shortterm.

Fairfax Media has held four redundancy rounds at its Sydney and Melbourne mastheads, the most recent in August 2008 when Kirk  announced 120 journalists would be offered redundancies, mostly in production. Various sections would be outsourced to Pagemasters, while “operational efficiencies” would lead to retrenchments in several areas. This was based on the argument that a multitiered production process was outdated and new tools would obviate the need for many sub-editors. Increasing errors in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age print editions indicates that culling dedicated production staff will inevitably erode quality.

There’s not that much in the way of solutions for the industry. There is some hope in it’s conculsions of its own role in the future, but I feel a real failure to look beyond that:

Understanding how to use new opportunities for journalism is central. Employers, The Alliance and individuals have a responsibility to ensure the media community has the training necessary to deal with the changes. As a union, we have to demand employers provide adequate and appropriate training, and include these demands in collective bargaining and other negotiations.

We need to develop and implement the training working journalists need. If we don’t, noone else will. Members must embrace training opportunities and be eager to apply the skills in their daily work. Work intensification: Employers cannot continue to expect working journalists to carry the load of change by working harder and doing more with less. Inevitably, we will end up doing less with less.

The Alliance has the responsibility for campaigning to end this imposition. And members must learn when to say yes or no: yes to embracing the opportunities but no to overwork and the damage it does. Freelancers and contingent work: The Alliance recognises the changes have a major impact on the structure of work and particularly affect people working freelance, casual and on fixed contracts. Many of these changes are positive – they provide openings for more creative use of our craft and ways to communicate directly with our communities.

I don’t want to be too harsh as there are some good intentions and the Alliance has also set up a facebook group The Future of Journalism Project that “aims for the culmination of industry research and regular events involving executives, journalists, academics and commentators, and aims to build an accurate picture of the extent and pace of industry change, to manage that change for the benefit of the whole industry and journalists in particular.”

I doubt many working in the media industry ever thought they would see a major city without a daily paper in their lifetime, but that is the scenario Seattle is facing in 2009.

Across the US, the outlook for many newspapers is grim, highlighted by this interactive graph in The New York Times, which itself has borrowed $225 million against its mid-Manhattan headquarters building, to ease a potential cash flow squeeze.

Leonard Downie, VP at Large The Washington Post was recently quoted [video] as saying the business models of media “are beyond broken, it’s completely shattered … newspaper companies as we know them are going to disappear.”

Indeed, the business of model of newspapers in a digital age, coupled with the crashing economy do have a lot to do with the current media crisis, but I also think it’s ignoring what has been a growing disillusionment with modern journalism.

The latest Pew Study showed that many people would shrug their shoulders should their local papers die.

As many newspapers struggle to stay economically viable, fewer than half of Americans (43%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community “a lot.” Even fewer (33%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper a lot if it were no longer available.

Can we be so quick to blame the business models of newspapers (selling advertisements) when people won’t miss the service (news) they are providing? For years journalists have been regarded alongside used-car salesmen as the least trustworthy profession and every journalist has certainly experienced the polite disdain from strangers when you tell them what you do.

There is something very wrong with the media and the quality of journalism has a lot to do with it. “News” has become so devalued that people are not willing to pay for it.

So while news corporations run around trying to breath life into the heavy carcass of their dying mediums who is nourishing new opportunities in journalism. It depresses me that the fascination we have with new media lies so heavily in marketing and new ways to advertise. Have we forgotten so quickly that news existed long before newspapers and that the modern industry was only born once we got the content right? It’s easy to blame the forces like the internet and the economy for which the media cannot take responsibility. But it’s time to face the music before all we have left is the Emperor’s New Media.

Who is going to be the first to yell that so many do not have real news and very little journlaism on their websites?

Or are we all going to pretend they are still enriching our lives for fear we might be accused of being the ignorant masses?

We have an opportunity for change, let’s not let it pass.

I spoke on a panel yesterday at the MEAA’s Future of Journalism summit in Brisbane on, “Tools or toys: techniques and technology for the digital age.” Margaret Simons opened the conference with some very straight-shooting talk on where she saw the industry heading and it looked vastly like unexplored territory. What makes her points so interesting is that she is one of the few journalists I know who is trying to forge a living from journalism outside of established media companies and she is very frank in saying that she is still trying to find out how to do that exactly. As Cameron Reilly pointed out the economics of media have shifted fundamentally and its time we looked for new models, but we are not going to find them by relying on the old way of doing things. Margaret said she believes the most exciting journalism in the future will not be happening in traditional media – something I agree with wholeheartedly. It’s not happening often yet, but it is starting to happen and there will come a time when traditional media is not the place where the most interesting stories are happening or even where most news is made.

The other point then is how do we find these stories? I like Jay Rosen’s video on “How to Digest News“, which goes some way in explaining why crowd-powered aggregation sites are so important. You can’t assume that on your own you can find the best news out there – finding a trusted site that filters news for you makes more sense.

My own advice for journalists on how to prepare for the future is to start investing in themselves and to experiment in online participation. Going from writing news in a straight non-personal style to writing online is quite confronting – I remember it took me some time to find my voice and gain some confidence in writing from a personal perspective. The best place to start to learn the nuances of online communication, in my opinion, is Twitter – and the key is not then to just create content, but to participate as well – a point Jean Burgess from QUT made during the day. It’s those who start taking the risks now that will be better off in the future. I know it’s a confronting situation, but it’s time to face reality – things are not going back to what they were.

UPDATE: You can find more coverage on the seminar on Lavartus Prodeo,  and Wooly Days.

Thought it was worth pointing out a great piece in Crikey today by Dr John Cokley from The University of Queensland  about the MEAA’s role in the Fairfax sackings.

I’ve been having similar thoughts – I’ve yet to see an MEAA event advertised that seems to have any grasp of the changes taking place in media – other than to point out that its happening.  Dr Cokley writes:

The future of journalism rests with journalists, not with the owners and managers of the processes of capital designed to deliver journalism. This is the incredibly simple distinction which MEAA officials have failed to make explicit – perhaps even to realise – in the current stoush (and in all previous ones I’ve witnessed since I paid dues from 1981-1995).

You can read the full piece here.

If you are one of the journalists standing in a picket line outside The Age and SMH, I have to ask – do you realise how pathetic you look?
If there was a journalists equivalent to the forlorn lovers “He’s not into you” I’d be suggesting you read it. It’s time for some straight-talking, so forgive me if my words sound harsh and unsympathetic, but it’s not like the writing hasn’t been on the wall for some time now. Break-ups are tough, but you can get over this and move on to better, brighter things.

Let’s start with the basics. Fairfax and other news monoliths like it cannot survive in the future. I almost feel silly having to say that, but there it is. Fairfax made a bold first move by being quick to get traditional reporting into an online format, but I guess they took it for granted that the memory of those early days would sustain the audience. Seems like you may have as well. But it’s crunch time and you have some choices to make. The good news is there is an opportunity to redeem yourself.

David Kirk has made you an offer and is calling for volunteers before compulsory redundancies. Your relationship is clearly strained and here he is giving you a dignified out and you choose to beg him to take you back? Where is your backbone, your fire, your passion for news? Has Fairfax got you so wrapped around its finger that you think the only way you can be a good journalist is to stay with it? Guess what – people produce good news outside of news corporations everyday. And you can too. Take the divorce settlement and learn to stand on your own feet again. You are better off investing in a relationship with your audience – you’ll find it infinitely more rewarding.

Flickr and Getty Images have announced a deal where Getty Images will peruse Flickr images looking for anything that can be used in magazines, newspapers and other publications. If they find any suitable images Getty will contact photographers directly and share any revenue with them. As far as I have read there is no financial arrangement between Flickr and Getty. It’s a really interesting arrangement and anyone who has spent time (I can get lost there for hours) looking at Flickr “interestingness” photos will know that there are some amazing images out there done largely by amateurs. This is a great example of the internet opening up opportunities for content creators and producers outside control media. Ironically though those images are being sold back to control media

So I wonder then what this will do for creative commons – if people release photos under a full creative commons license then it’s a good assumption that those images will be discounted by Getty as they have no “intellectual property” which can be monestised . There are a lot of amazing images that people share under cc – most images on this blog I source through Flickr cc and it would be a step backward if these stopped being shared. I guess the opportunities and number of images that can be used by Getty will be limited, so the impact might not be that great. There is still no news on what sort of payment photographers will get, and that could also factor how many images remain copyrighted on Flickr.

I’m interested to see how this develops and what other people think about this.

Some months I feel like a sad excuse of a blogger and this is one of those months. My excuse – time, travel and a lot on my plate. But it doesn’t help shake that feeling of regret that I don’t make a bigger effort. So before the timeframe to blog about Pubcamp really becomes embarrassing, I better stop with the excuses already!

Pubcamp was an event put on by itechne, of which I know very little about other than it took the initiative spear-headed by my Twitter associate Jed White to put on an event to discuss the future of media. The event was held in Sydney and then Melbourne and I was lucky enough to be invited to both to debate the subject that: “The world of new media choice is a dagger to the hearts of content producers and creators alike.” You can guess that I was for the negative. The topic came about through a discussion with my opponent Richard Walsh who firmly believed this to be the case. Actually, less so by the time we got to Melbourne as we had been trading emails on the subject and I made some inroads to his thinking. Jed also invited me to give a presentation at the Melbourne event and I’m told they should be available online shortly. I did have grand plans of writing out my talks here, but I’m afraid that may take a while

But I did want to mention one of the terms I coined in my presentation. Whenever I hear the term “mainstream media” it’s always fallen short for me in regards to what it describes. In fact a lot of online media sites, some not considered “mainstream” still operate under the same principals of what we are trying to break away from. It occurred to me the difference between media as we know it and the media we are trying to foster in the future is about control. So I prefer now to talk about “control media” over “mainstream”. Control media seeks to “control” content distribution, information, its audience. Its journalists even I guess the alternative term for new media then could be “free media” – it works on lots of levels, but I haven’t fully thought that one through yet.

I also just wanted to add some thoughts into the ring about the event. For me it was a great opportunity to get together and put the future of media in the spotlight – outside of overpriced and often stuffy conferences that really don’t open the issue up for anyone to contribute to. Both events were free – and I’m sure they would have not been cheap to put on – which meant that every day people genuinely interested in media could come along. And come they did. There was a great Twitter turn out and really I think the Twitterati added the edge to the event. It’s not important to me that we didn’t really leave with any real conclusions, but rather that there is an obvious and passionate desire to reconstruct and improve on media as we know it. I’m sure answers will flow as we move forward, but I do hope that we leave some of the shackles of the past in the past. There’s no point in trying to control media in a free media world and the sooner we let go, the sooner we’ll start to find answers. I’m happy to be one of the first to jump, hopefully I’ll land before the others – either that or be splattered on the ground. Care to join me?

Image found here and used under Flickr cc.

YouTube has long been the soil bed of many budding citizen journalism initiatives and now its taken steps to recognise and encourage the efforts of those users with the launch of a Citizen News channel. They have employed a news manager to locate and bring together citizen journalism efforts around YouTube and pull them into the news channel.

According to the YouTube blog:

Thanks to better, cheaper, and easier access to video equipment, there’s an amazing amount of news being reported on YouTube every single day by citizens in all corners of the globe. You’re conducting interviews with local community leaders, doing weekly reports on the latest campus news for your school television station, and investigating untold stories you think the world should know about. This stuff is fantastic, but we want to see more from you all and to bring more citizen journalists into the fold.

It will be interesting to see how the channel is used by people – I can’t imagine it being used as a news destination site because the breadth of news interest is just too wide and a lot of citizen journalism content is very localised (hence my decision to launch local norg sites). But, it’s definitely going to be an interesting showcase of how people are using online media to produce and distribute content. The possibilities are endless – at the very least it should help people recognise the potential that we all have to create, distribute and engage in news.

Here’s an introductory video from the YouTube news manager Olivia:

I read last night that Scott Karp received US$2.75M funding for his company Publish2, which is described as

An online news aggregation platform, designed to empower journalists to discover, organize, and rank the most important news — to benefit their own reporting, their newsrooms, and all news consumers on the web.

I like Scott’s thoughts on media and hats off to him that he’s done more than just dwell on ways the media landscape is changing, but taken those ideas and is doing something with them.

From what I’ve read Publish2 is a tool for “professional” journalists and I was intrigued to read this on the Publish2 website, describing how it works as a news aggregator:

The emphasis, by the way, is actually theirs. Things is, I have a couple of problems with a few of the concepts behind Publish2 and admittedly it is only from my limited understanding about what they are trying to do:

1. If news organisations are using it as a guide to rank importance and emphasis on a story or even do research it is just further diluting the different perspectives/voices or alternate concerns of a particular issue. If information is “easily accessible” then it’s just likely to be rehashed. If wrong information is easily accessible, it just becomes an accepted truth.

2. The point about “taking back control” is SO problematic – in fact, there’s a little WTF? that goes off in my head every time I read that sentence. So journalists set up their own “digg” to decide what’s important – so what? What does that add to anyone outside of being a journalist and then again – so what? Unless journalism has been about writing stories for other journalists and I’ve missed something, then again – so what? Isn’t it much better that journalists understand what is important to their AUDIENCE – the amateurs.

The pressure on journalists to be better at their job is greater than it’s ever been before, but the key to improving the media landscape is not to add to the false kingdom of journalism, but for journalists to go and and get dirty with the amateurs. Publish2 sounds like it’s just adding to “professional” media’s problems.