You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘media’ category.
This post is more of a transcript of a conversation that started on Facebook late last night and ended with a phone call earlier today.
I asked friend and former colleague Rod Overton about his job search and whether or not anything was in the hopper. He’s been out of a job since June and I’d been seeing a lot of his comments on the blog LostRemote. My question opened the door for a really good chat.
He answered with this:
“The real problem now is that media companies simply don’t want the truth or common sense. Sizzle, pizzaz and not examining what is not working (and then cutting that) is what they want (sorry for the double negative, but you get the point — they don’t want anyone to look behind the curtain or say the emperor has no clothes.)”
I then asked Rod to tell me more and indicated that I was interested in posting some of what he was writing on my blog. He was happy to oblige:
“The common thread to most of my messages on Lostremote is that during this upheaval (TRB bankruptcy, Belo bankruptcy and McClatchy at 73 cents) publishers and editors (and to an extent TV GMs) are not taking advantage of the environment to make (what is to them) serious changes.
Instead they seem to hope to skate through it as unchanged as possible not realizing that the situation itself is showing them they need to change.
A selfish case-in-point: Someone with my skills goes unhired while people with skills that are quite easy to come by are retained and — in some pathetic cases — shifted to new media roles they will ruin just as the legacy product was ruined.”
Still with me? There’s more.
I called Rod this morning and we spoke a bit more about some of this. He told me some stories about his interviewing experiences and organizations so resistant to change I thought I was sitting in 1987. I knew it was true though because one of the most profound statements he made was this:
Newspapers are stuck on a singular solution!
He says no one wants to overhaul everything and create systemic change.
What he’s referring to is initiatives like writing shorter stories, or adding more color to the front page or including more photos and a digest of what else can be found inside.
Short-sighted solutions that tackle maybe one issue that are seen as the one solution that will change things for the better.
What are your thoughts on this? Are any other organizations or industries focusing on a singular solution? And is the emperor wearing anything at all? What do you think of Rod’s rant?
Thanks Rod, for the interesting conversation. And I hope you find something soon.
*If you’d like to connect with Rod, you can find him on Facebook and LinkedIn
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed
Stumble It!
I am all about breaking new ground with social media and finding new ways to embrace the concept. I’ve been known to sing it from the mountain tops, particularly when it comes to traditional news media.
I feel that news organizations need to find new ways to reach their readers/viewers/users and prove their worth in the space. Many are doing it and that excites me. I am cheering them on and watching everyone I can. I’m proud to be part of an organization that’s doing it and leading the charge.
That said, I was a bit miffed when I read about a news organization twittering the funeral of a 3-year-old.
Twitter a hurricane? YES.
Twitter a court case? YES! Ron Sylvester of The Witchita Eagle and Kansas.com does a heck of job with that.
But a funeral of a 3-year-old who was killed at an ice cream store?
Seems a bit insensitive to me. Others clearly agree.
Michael Roberts: “After all, Twittering a child’s funeral is a mission more doomed than Jimmy Carter’s attempt to rescue those hostages from Iran back in the day. The results are self-satirizing in the most morbid, inappropriate way possible.”
Cara Degette: “Whatever their rationale, it’s unconceivable. Utterly, and unforgivingly, unconceivable.”
On this one, I would have to agree. What are your thoughts?
You can view all updates here, on the Rocky Mountain News’ website.
I am going to use this space to share a comment I posted on a South Florida blog I frequent, called The Daily Pulp.
It essentially characterizes my thoughts on the resistance to change in the newspaper industry, which I do know something about having worked at a newspaper as part of a department charged with introducing new ideas and incorporating multimedia and news partnerships into the daily culture. We asked reporters and editors to step outside of their comfort zones on a daily basis. That was part of the job.
On the day I made my initial comment, my former paper had just launched a redesign that was not very popular throughout the comments area, and I chose not to bash them and simply offer mild praise for the fact that they tried something new.
My comment prompted a response from someone within the organization, which The Pulp’s author, Bob Norman liked so much, he posted as a single blog with that comment being the focus.
There are some good ideas there. Really good ideas. But the author is so frustrated with the politics of the news organization and the industry as a whole, he or she may never share them, and I think that’s too bad.
Here’s my comment:
Those are awesome ideas. I’m lucky that I now work for a place where we really try new things. Things that are out of the box, and things that might not work, but then again they might. And that’s enough. But that is not the newspaper culture. Should it be? Yes, but it isn’t. That is why I chose not to criticize the redesign that day and simply offer up mild praise for trying something new. You’re right, there have been lots of ideas tossed around the SS for years that could have been implemented. Heck, I worked for the man who brought many of those to pass and anyone can tell you that we pushed and pushed the multimedia wagon with some success but there was a lot of resistance. What’s important here is the resistance was tolerated. It was an option. It should not have been an option. For too long, innovation has been optional. Now it’s required and that takes a different mindset.
Have you all followed the big whoop about the Philadelphia Inquirer’s decision to hold all enterprise, investigative and trend pieces for the paper only? The backlash they’ve received in the blogosphere is crazy. But a few have spoken up and said, “Hey, at least they’re trying a new model.” I was one of those people who thought it was totally backwards initially and blasted them for it. Part of me still has my doubts because on the surface it is. BUT–they are trying to have exclusive content in the paper and they are going to publish simultaneously so that readers can expect something different in the paper, that hasn’t already been out for a full day. So, again I say: At least they’re trying something. My suggestion to you is to see if you can get someone to listen to those ideas. Speak their language. Put it in a memo, draw up a proposal. If you really care and want to be part of the change you have to keep trying. It’s better than doing nothing. And when you quit and move on to greener pastures..you can say: “At least I tried.”
So, I say you have to share those ideas. Tell someone. Even if you think they’ll be shot down, it’s worth a shot. Change will never, ever come about it if the people with the best ideas remain silent.
It’s Never Too Late to Start Moderating Comments
August 7, 2008 in Community Building, comments, media, user generated content | Tags: comments, online communities, twitter | 4 comments
While catching up on my twitter reading tonight, I came across this comment from Patrick Thornton aka jiconoclast:
I have to disagree with that. Now, I’m the first person to rag on newspapers for moving at a snails pace, requiring that even the most minor decisions are made by committee and for blatantly ignoring the obvious for years through institutionalized denial and arrogance.
But, I’m not sure that many news organizations were aware of, or expected the kind of drama that comments connected to news stories would bring. Yes, it’s ugly and it will only get worse before it gets better. But it can be done. I know this for a fact.
We moderate comments on news stories at WRAL.com and as the Managing Editor of User-Generated Content, I am largely responsible for the policies that come along with it. Comments weren’t always moderated, but we took control of the content associated with our brand, made the change, and we’re still going strong. Do we get complaints? Yes, but not nearly as many as you would think and most importantly, people also know that they can come to us and engage in civil conversations about the issues that affect them and the community they live in.
So, is it too late? No! I think all news organizations should moderate comments, and the sooner the better. Would it have been ideal to start from the beginning? Possibly. But, you may even score points for changing the situation for the better.