Comment Wars: A New Hope
A few days ago, I wrote a blog post heard ’round the world about changes at The Tampa Tribune. The reactions I received in the comments were more than simply mixed. In the days since I posted it, I’ve carefully thought about the chain of events that ensued and prepared a response. My only hope is that it leads to new understanding and meaningful discussion.
So without further delay, here are the lessons I learned from this experience:
1. Specify
I should have specified in my post that I was not praising the fact that Janet Coats laid off 10 employees, but that she approached the layoffs with a plan. For those who misinterpreted my words, I offer my sincerest apologies. I could never praise someone for putting 50 employees in situations that would jeopardize their ability to pay mortgages and buy groceries, but I realize that’s not a choice that was in Janet’s hands.
The way I see it, Janet could have called a meeting to tell everyone she laid off 10 people and left it at that - a meeting that I’m sure has gone on in newsrooms around the country - but she didn’t. She held a meeting to say she didn’t want to lay off her employees, but that she had to… and that she had a plan.
Whether this plan will work, she’s still doing something about it. She’s trying her best. This is why I said Janet is my hero. It’s not because I’m looking for a good recommendation letter or trying to earn her favor, but because I admire the fact that she is trying to do something innovative in light of the layoffs and in hopes that it might lead to a solution.
A lot of the criticism involved my quick acceptance of this plan. Let me specify again that I don’t think this is THE plan that will single-handedly save journalism, but a step in the right direction. This plan is just an experiment that could possibly lead to the discovery of a better plan. And who knows where that plan could take us? I’m commending the Trib’s leadership for taking the risk to experiment, not the exact model in question.
I could never praise layoffs. I have friends in this business who are worried about their jobs getting cut while others, including myself, are wondering if there will be any openings for us. And please don’t think these layoffs make things easier for college grads; it doesn’t. Those positions are cut - not left open for cheap college grads.
2. Anticipate
When I wrote that post, I never dreamed it would result in such a rift between journalists. My lack of specifics resulted in a lot of misinterpretation, and journalists left dozens of comments protesting the changes at the Trib. Comments protesting the layoffs spurred more misinterpretation among more journalists who saw this as resisting the changing landscape.
The majority of us understand the importance of online journalism. Yet had it not been for my lack of anticipation, my blog post could have become a forum for discussion about the Trib’s plans, how newspapers can generate revenue on the Internet or anything else. Instead, it became a forum for name calling (on both sides).
I’ve learned that when I write my blog posts, I need to try to anticipate every reaction and every feeling that might be hurt, and then decide if that is a reaction that I want to provoke.
3. Spell check
‘Nuff said.
View LinkedIn profile
74 Comments, Comment or Ping
tm580xd
As a former employee–one who chose to leave well before the bloodletting started–I would like to suggest that you look for heroes elsewhere. Coats, if anything, is an anti-hero. Never in a long career in journalism did I encounter someone who says all the right things and does all the wrong things.
Jul 7th, 2008
Daniel Victor
Well said. People ought to take notice of the fact that after creating a huge shitstorm, your next post wasn’t to glow in the controversy you created but to list the lessons you learned. A lot of journalists might have enjoyed the notoriety and dug in their heels, but you looked for things to take out of it. That’s a skill that’s far too limited to interns.
Jul 7th, 2008
Tom Cheredar
I’m glad you went back and clarified because what was said, needed to be said. Rather than widen the gap between two polarized sides, you did your best to bring them together.
Jul 7th, 2008
Tom Cheredar
Also, I just got the Star Wars reference in the headline. (Nice - LoL)
Jul 7th, 2008
Jessica DaSilva
@Tom - Thanks for picking up on that.
Jul 7th, 2008
Les Bowen
This is well said. I misinterpreted your original post, and my reaction was unneccessarily visceral.
I still don’t think Ms. Coats’ “plan” offers much hope for her readers or her staff, but good luck to all involved.
Jul 7th, 2008
Blake
Jessica, you wrote: “I’ve learned that when I write my blog posts, I need to try to anticipate every reaction and every feeling that might be hurt, and then decide if that is a reaction that I want to provoke.”
Oh no, no, no, don’t do that. Seriously. You wrote a tremendously successful blog post. Was it perfect? Hell no. But it had strengths — insider reporting of a situation that companies gloss over, a personal take, and a naive recounting of the company line that allowed cynical readers to see through to the obvious truth and thus feel smarter than the author.
If you throw out the strengths in order to avoid offending anyone, what do you have left? The kind of emotionless, take-no-position crap that has bored the most recent two generations so much that they don’t read newspapers anymore.
You can’t write in fear of reaction, or in fear of being embarrassed later by what you wrote. Or in fear of anything, really. Lay it out there and take the punches.
To me, Janet Coats is just a figurehead with an unpleasant message to deliver, and at best she did a good job of sugarcoating orders from above. But do I get hundreds of journalists and journalism alumni (here!) from all over the country reading a blog post of mine? No, because my point of view isn’t unique. Yours is. Stick with it.
Jul 7th, 2008
sam
Given Coats’ heroic announcement, shouldn’t interns be focused on pioneering hyperlocal Web content, rather than tending to personal musings on a non-Tribune related blog?
Jul 7th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Jessica,
I appreciate the fact that you did take the time to think about what you can learn from this experience and that it sounds like you plan to heed the advice of myself and others when we said you need to read and re-read what you are about to post before hitting the enter button. I agree partially with Blake when he tells you not to try and anticipate or fear what the reaction might be to what you write, but it is important that your message not get lost or glossed over due to a poor choice of words, which is what happened here.
However, I still think you need to open your eyes and realize that the “plan” Miss Coats revealed to you is not innovative whatsoever. These are not pioneering ideas and “hyperlocal” is nothing new. Did you go back and read the Wall Street Journal article on the Washington Post’s Loudonextra.com experiment? What she was giving you was nothing more than corporate speak laced less with sugar and more with manure.
And no matter how much yarn Miss Coats tries to spin, there never will be enough to justify laying off a writer the caliber of Scott Carter, whose only fault was being a team player and accepting a relocation to Tallahassee rather than dig in his heels on a beat he already was doing so well in the Rays so that he could help the paper. The fact that management decided having a beat writer four hours away in the city where his school is located was now a geographic liability doesn’t excuse them from not seeing to it that Scott Carter had a place back in Tampa waiting for him as a reward for his loyalty. This is a lesson in poor management and lack of compassion that you need to glean from this entire ordeal.
Jul 7th, 2008
Colin
Andy, right on the mark once again. I would guess Ms. DaSilva has not looked at the Wall Street Journal article, nor has she given much thought to the specifics of Scott Carter’s termination and what dirty pool that was by Ms. Coats and anyone else involved. I would almost bet Ms. DaSilva doesn’t even know Scott Carter at all.
It would suit Ms. DaSilva well to start doing her homework, research some of this stuff she’s trumpeting without having done any background work on, research how and why these cuts were made, then perhaps make some much more informed — and empathetic — blog posts. In other words, start being a journalist.
Jul 7th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Colin,
Thanks for that. And now that Scott has shared with us over at sportsjournalists.com some of the specifics of his termination, perhaps Jessica doesn’t have to search too far in order to gain some perspective.
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,58169.350.html
Scott’s post is a little more than half way down page 15 of the thread.
Jul 7th, 2008
Colin
And as somebody else noted on another message board delving heavily into this issue, Ms. DaSilva stating, “For those who misinterpreted my words, I offer my sincerest apologies,” seems off-kilter for an apology.
I, and many others, don’t think there was much to misinterpret there. I think it was written quite clearly, quite plainly, and I think I got it just fine. And I think there’s been plenty of good advice for Ms. DaSilva on this thread that she should be able to interpret with the same ease.
Ms. DaSilva, don’t pass it off to misinterpretation or any other excuse. I don’t think that helps your cause. Just state it for what it was, like this: I made an extremely poorly timed blog entry, and used a tremendous amount of poor wording and poor judgment, while doing little actual fact-checking or background work, or giving any thought to how this might affect those who were just laid off. In doing so, I offended many, many people, some whose lives have been irreparably changed. I afflicted the afflicted, and comforted the comfortable. For that, I am extremely sorry and can only state that I will take this as a very rough lesson learned and attempt to be much more considerate in the future.
Something like that might go a lot further. And if you feel that way at all, I wish you luck. If not, well, I don’t know what to say.
Jul 7th, 2008
Jessica DaSilva
@Andy & @Kent - The Loudon experiment is too big of a topic for a comment. I have read the article and am planning a separate post for it.
Jul 7th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Jessica,
First off, I am one person — Andy Kent. I don’t know that was just a keystroke mishap or not.
And I am glad you read the article. I don’t think it’s too big of a topic for a comment, since at the least it should make you aware that Miss Coats’ idea has indeed been tried before without much success. Can you at least admit that fact, that her “plan” is not a new one?
Jul 7th, 2008
Jessica DaSilva
@Andy & @Colin - I’m so sorry! I meant to say Andy & Colin!
Also, I have a lot to say about LoudonExtra, which is why I’m saving my thoughts for a separate blog post.
Jul 7th, 2008
drew
Not to derail back onto misspellings or anything, but it’s actually spelled Loudoun. C’mon, Jessie, remember #3?
Jul 7th, 2008
Mike Plugh
Colin wrote:
“I would guess Ms. DaSilva has not looked at the Wall Street Journal article, nor has she given much thought to the specifics of Scott Carter’s termination and what dirty pool that was by Ms. Coats and anyone else involved. I would almost bet Ms. DaSilva doesn’t even know Scott Carter at all.”
So, rather than using your post here to enlighten her, you choose to take a nasty, spiteful tone. Very professional. And…
“It would suit Ms. DaSilva well to start doing her homework, research some of this stuff she’s trumpeting without having done any background work on, research how and why these cuts were made, then perhaps make some much more informed — and empathetic — blog posts. In other words, start being a journalist.”
Kudos for passing judgment without either writing your own piece to refute her, educate all of us, or provide more in depth coverage of this situation. At least if you’ve already written something you could provide a link. This is the internet after all. You could use your voice here to either fill in the missing pieces, debate the issue, or insert a hyperlink to someone else who has. Maybe that’s too much work. Blasting an intern with a blog and a few ideas is much easier.
Jul 7th, 2008
Colin
Mike, I think I’ve been much more conservative in my criticism than most who have posted their disagreements. I’m not saying I have all the answers, either. I’m also not the one who started this whole firestorm. I do know Scott Carter got a raw deal, and that Ms. DaSilva has been at the Trib for less than a month (at least based on her blog entry about orientation) and perhaps was unaware of just how unjustified a move that was.
That said, I’ll do what I don’t think really has been effectively done. Apologize. And I won’t pass it off to misinterpretation. I’m sorry for offending you, Mike, and for offending or passing judgment on Ms. DaSilva — who did actually respond to my post, which was only following up on Andy Kent’s.
Andy long ago provided the link that you requested I provide, plus he provided another link to a lengthy discussion that had accurate information on Scott’s dismissal. I thought those two links were quite adequate to get Ms. DaSilva up to speed and felt no need to provide those links again.
But again, my sincere (and I mean it) apologies. I’ve read all of your entries thus far on the comments section of Ms. DaSilva’s last two blogs, and you make points worth considering (minus the dinosaur comment). If you’re looking for people to provide more education, debate or solutions — which I don’t disagree with you on in any way; you make a very valid point to that end — well, no, I didn’t do that. But there are dozens more posts about her blogs that were much more venomous than mine that perhaps merit your response.
With that, I’ll take leave of this blog. All the best to all those coping with this situation at the Trib.
Jul 7th, 2008
Matt Neistein
Being a fairly recent employee at the Tribune, but not an acquaintance of Ms. DaSilva’s, sort of gives me the opportunity to see most sides of the argument here.
I think what this all boils down to is perspective. Jessica offered an effusive opinion of an extremely complicated situation, and many commenters have rightly responded by noting her nearly complete lack of research or background before offering that opinion. (My two cents on that subject is that the Trib’s “five-desk system” sounds a whole lot like Gannett’s “seven-desk system” that was implemented in the last 18 months or so. Feel free to look at Google’s stock price and employment numbers in that period and see if you think “innovation” is the solution to everything plaguing journalism.)
That lack of perspective is what’s led the “old school” her to criticize her original post, not her choice of medium. Most of us - and I’m only 30 - have been through at least one newsroom reorganization in our careers, and many of us have been hearing the call for “innovation” for several years now. And most of us have watched that call turn out to be nothing but an empty promise that dies at in the morass of corporate bureaucracy (which I think, when all is said and done, will be identified as one of the two primary causes of the industry’s death, along with public ownership of said corporations).
Thus, most of us took this most recent “innovation” with a healthy dose of skepticism, which Jessica hasn’t been around long enough to develop. Skepticism isn’t necessarily negativity. It’s just not buying the message at face value, which is core journalism.
I certainly hope Jessica has a bright future in this industry, but I would ask all those who commended her for the post, her honesty and her enthusiasm while noting she’s practicing the future of journalism: With all the page views, traffic and comments she generated - which indeed have intellectual value - how much money did she earn? My guess is nothing. In which case all defenses of her passion for online journalism and praise for blogging as the new medium ring hollow because none of it solves the fact that money must be made, period, for journalism to continue its existence.
Jul 7th, 2008
Mike Plugh
Nicely said Colin. Classy and worthy of recognition. The tools we have here are too valuable to ignore. There’s a potential out there for a communication revolution, but it probably means that we all need to wake up and recognize that what’s past is past and figure out how to integrate our traditional models into a completely new paradigm.
The key to all of that isn’t getting better at using technology, but rather the age old practice of working together to understand our environment and build rather than destroy. If you’re still out there Colin, you won a fan and I hope there’s a way to keep going on this important discussion together. Jessica is providing the forum here and a spark or two. It’s up to us to deal with the next steps as people collectively concerned with covering the world in all of its complexity to the best of our ability with whatever tools the audience is telling us they use.
Cheers.
Mike.
Jul 8th, 2008
Veteranjournalist
Interns should be seen and not heard. You need a helluva lot more experience than you have before you’re remotely qualified to comment on the state in the industry.
Jul 8th, 2008
Chris Nolan
Don’t let the bastards - and I mean that literally - get you down:
http://www.spot-on.com/archives/thugs_in_the_newsroom.html
//cmn
Jul 8th, 2008
Colin
Hell, Mike, as I’m sure you and everyone else on here knows, this business, these issues and these discussions are like a freakin’ drug. Terribly addicting. Thanks for the follow-up. That said, I probably will just try to read on with this blog as developments warrant and step away from posting — if I can. Cheers as well.
Jul 8th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Chris,
Way to hijack the blog with that link to your blog claiming sexual discrimination. What you have done is only cheapen the efforts of Jessica over here by ignoring the fact that a number of us have posted civil and enlightening comments designed to help this young intern.
Nice job.
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
Chris Nolan performs a neat trick, throwing a grenade on his own blog, where comments aren’t allowed and page views, I’m suspecting, aren’t what they are here, and then running back to this one, ripe with eyeballs, to announce the posting.
An even neater trick is his introduction into this mix of yet another element of the absurd, the notion that Jessica DaSilva is somehow a victim of sexism rather than just plain dopiness.
(That he lumps Ms. DaSilva, with her one month of experience, and Maureen Dowd, one of the most distinct voices in newspapers for decades, into the same boat, the U.S.S Victim, is almost surreal. Maureen would be laughing, if she knew.)
But the greatest feat of all is that Mr. Nolan manages to make Ms. DaSilva into a victim of sexism by virtue of the comments on her blog, without ever mentioning why folks were peeved in the first place. It’s like going straight to the closing argument without ever having presented any evidence.
According to Mr. Nolan, Ms. DaSilva is a victim of sexism because the comments of her colleagues, “…offer an insightful look at how the mostly male news establishment goes about silencing enthusiasm and optimism.” Forgetting for a moment that the meeting that started all of this (and the firings that came out of it) was led by a woman, one can’t help but scratch one’s head at this ridiculous leap.
Do you really think that folks had a vendetta out for Ms DaSilva’s optimism and enthusiasm? That somehow a bunch of old fogies, one week shy of a nursing home, got together and decided to squash a young journalist’s dreams, all because they had nothing better to do? On the internet, if you say something long enough it becomes true, and that’s what’s happening with this notion that Ms. DaSilva was ganged up on by a bunch of old farts who don’t know how to use a VCR.
No, people were pissed because Jessica DaSilva, who currently occupies the lowest rung on the Tribune ladder, took it upon herself to thrust herself into a very tense and touchy situation–one in which people were losing their jobs–and make blanket statements, incorrect suppositions and incredibly inappropriate remarks on her blog. People were pissed because her blog, with its lack of fact-checking and over-abundance of hyperbole, seems to represent much that is wrong with journalism today. People were pissed because in a situation where the youngest or newest or least experienced employee of an organization should have been soaking it all in and asking lots of questions, Ms. DaSilva proclaimed herself as having figured it all out. People were pissed because her declarations of adoration for her editor, an editor who for right or wrong was the one making these layoffs, came across as remarkably ill-timed. I can see this and I don’t live anywhere close to Tampa.
As I said previously, it would be like the bat boy for the Yankees blogging about a closed team meeting. Or, as bad analogies go, like leaving a wake–a wake in which you barely knew the deceased–and immediately going home and writing about what the cause of death was, never having spoken with the family.
Jessica will, no doubt, have learned a great deal this week about the future of journalism, the differences between blogging and reporting, and the importance of restraint–the ability to not post something until you’ve done your research. But her biggest mistake was one of simple courtesy and sensitivity, and sexism is not to blame.
Jul 8th, 2008
B
Interns being seen and not heard leaves us with listening to the folks who got us into this mess. New input is needed here, not heroically remaining at the wheel of the Titanic, sure that the iceberg will blink first in that particular game of chicken.
Jul 8th, 2008
Sheila Scarborough
Jessica, hang in there, and thanks for circling back and posting a follow-up. You’re not perfect, but certainly neither are some of the folks who are commenting, and most importantly you’re learning how to navigate as a modern journalist.
It’s interesting to note which comment authors appear to have a blog of their own, and which do not.
I would love to know how many of these journalists know how to blog, how to shoot video and upload it to YouTube, how to interact on Twitter, how to shoot photos and upload to Flickr, how to conduct an interview using a cell phone and then upload it to Utterz, how many have a LinkedIn profile or a Facebook page….
Does any of that matter, you say? Only if you want to be competent in the tools of current and future journalism.
Yes, clearly, good investigative reporting and fact-checking and followup and clean copy delivered on time, spell-checked, yes, yes, yes.
It ain’t enough anymore.
At least this person is working to figure out the new stuff, on top of trying to figure out the bedrock stuff.
What have YOU done lately, journalist reader, to enhance your professional expertise, your professional tool bag, your skill set?
Jul 8th, 2008
sam
Wow, B. Jessica’s self-proclaimed hero is one of the old folks who is responsible for getting us into this mess. So, the problem with your argument is that you want to have it both ways. How does Janet Coats’ input classify as “new,” when she and her husband are clearly riding high at the wheel of the Titanic? That’s who Jessica was listening to. So as you suggest, if we’re to listen to interns as experts, all they’re doing is espousing the beliefs of the people who are responsible for this mess. Janet Coats presented no new ideas. In fact, the ideas have already been tried, and they resulted in failure.
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
In the interest of turning this into something positive, Sheila S. raises a good point that might provide a neat and innovative way out of this mess.
She says, “I would love to know how many of these journalists know how to blog, how to shoot video and upload it to YouTube, how to interact on Twitter, how to shoot photos and upload to Flickr, how to conduct an interview using a cell phone and then upload it to Utterz, how many have a LinkedIn profile or a Facebook page….”
Perhaps the Tribune could indeed enlist the help of Jessica and others to conduct lunchtime brown-bag seminars on these topics. (I was five of seven, missing the Twitter thing and not ever having heard of Utterz.) And on the flip side, some veteran journalists might conduct similar mentoring sessions for younger folks on journalism basics, specifically some of the issues Ms. DaSilva’s blog posts have brought up.
Too corny?
Jul 8th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Well Sheila, since you asked and were so quick to jump to your own conclusions, perhaps I can enlighten you on my credentials:
I happened to author one of the most successful hockey blogs in the country from 2004-07 — a blog that was written about and referenced by a number of papers nationwide — at my last stop. I’ve been uploading and posting audio clips for almost the same amount of time and also did regular podcasts and vodcasts at the same paper.
Currently, I am doing quite well as an Internet writer for an NFL team, where I also co-host a three-times-a week Internet radio show and regularly conduct on-camera interviews for the video portion of our site. I also write a weekly blog for another site and have carved out a niche in this market as a reliable freelance writer across all platforms, even shooting my own digital photos for a golf publication. And yes, I do know how to shoot video and upload it, although I have chosen not to jump into the YouTube foray.
I have no desire to interact on Twitter or to have a Linkedin or Facebook page, and if you’re using that as a basis to criticize me or anyone else for that matter then yours is a helpless cause.
Should I go on?
Oh, and by the way, I haven’t lost the ability to accurately report, research and investigate.
So before you come here and stand on your soapbox, I think you need to learn the valuable lesson that Jessica supposedly has about thinking and re-reading what you type before you hit the enter button.
Jul 8th, 2008
Veteran journalist
To Sheila:
Woodward and Bernstein didn’t have computers, cell phones, video cameras, facebook, Twitter, You Tube, etc., and they brought down a corrupt administration.
Those things and tools you mention might be useful, but I don’t see very many young reporters using them for much more than getting the lastest dirt on Britney’s latest hot tub hijinks or LiLo’s most recent table-dance at a club.
Maybe some of us don’t know how to use You Tube and Twitter and Facebook, etc. But do you know your way around the public records laws in your state? How about the government in the Sunshine Laws? Whistle-Blower Laws? Any of that stuff?
Do you have enough sources to get a cop to give you some good stuff in a murder case, or a state employee to cue you in on corruption or government waste? Do you know your newspaper’s sourcing policies? What about Shield Laws? Heck, do you even have a working knowledge of the First Amendment (and how long would it take you to find it if someone handed you a pamphlet of the Constitution and Bill of Rights)?
We know journalist is changing and we’re doing our best to adapt. But being tech-saavy doesn’t automatically make you of Jessica good reporters, nor does having a lack of tech saavy marginalize those of us who have years in the business (31 for me, starting with a full-time job at the age of 19).
What we do know about you and Jessica, based on your posts, is that you’re self-assured, self-absorbed (really now … “the lovely and talented?”) and positive you know it all. I may have felt that way at your age but I knew enough to shut up and learn from the experienced people.
PS: Loved your line: “How many journalists know how to blog?” Anyone with a computer, internet connection and cozy spot in their mother’s basement can blog.
Grow up young lady. You and Jessica really need a dose of maturity.
Jul 8th, 2008
Vader
Wow.
Jessica, you’re an idiot.
Try covering some true community journalism like chamber of commerce meetings and other associated bullshit before praising the concept of hyperlocal.
Enjoy the dog and pony show.
Jul 8th, 2008
Sheila Scarborough
Hey Andy Kent,
Boy, you’re a hostile type. Chill out. Hit your own “enter” button and reset your head.
That’s great that you do all that, but I would submit that not enough people in purely print/newspaper journalism have your skill set, so their chances are thereby reduced of taking an important institution into the future. Got any “old school journalism” friends/colleagues who could use some of your knowledge? Go teach them.
And, hell, eat some chocolate or something. You need endorphins.
Hey Matt Mendelsohn,
That’s a good idea, and hope it comes to fruition.
And now, back to regularly scheduled programming, since this is, after all, Jessica’s blog.
Jul 8th, 2008
Paige
Sheila,
I believe most people in the newspaper business now are well-trained in how to use the Internet. Most papers have blogs, and I doubt even the smallest paper isn’t using the Internet to assist in their product. However, is that at this point, the newspaper is still our bread-and-butter, and that to many people, getting accurate information and presenting it in an intelligent, sensible way is still important. Credibility is a huge issue in this medium, and I assure you it won’t be helped by using Facebook, Twitter and the like as news sources. And it may be that young people less than a month into their first newspaper gig don’t have all the answers, despite all their technological knowledge. I haven’t heard anyone here argue that we don’t have to change how we do things. My argument is that we can’t risk losing credibility, accuracy or lower our standards in the process.
Jul 8th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Sheila Scarborough,
You see, that’s your problem right there. You come on here with your know-it-all opinion, bragging to the world about all of these technological tools you wrongly assume most of us don’t have in our “tool box”. And then you issue a hostile challenge of your own that has absolutely nothing to do with the lessons some of us have tried to impart to Jessica, and when we respond — not in a very hostile manner mind you, even though you chose to take it that way — you come back with yet another immature post that only does more to show your true colors through and through.
Yep, you offer so much for the future of our industry with that approach (hopefully you noted the sarcasm there).
I would echo Veteran Journalist’s last line in telling you to grow up but I already see that it’s too late.
Jul 8th, 2008
Chris Nolan
Uh. I am not a man. And even though I live in San Francisco, I have no plans to become one.
I, am advised, however, that I may have gotten the mysterious “Jamie” tagged with the wrong gender and have subsequently amended my post to reflect that feedback. I suspect Mr. Mendelsohn is making that point for me.
A few other points: Spot-on.com isn’t a blog.. We haven’t used that phrase to describe our work in some years for a variety of reasons and if you came to my comments from Jay Rosen’s site, I refer you to the post I did some years about about “stand alone journalism” a phrase I coined to describe, more accurately, what we do. It’s referenced in Jay’s post today as well.
Spot-on is a web-based syndication service designed to help papers - papers like the Tampa Tribune as a matter of fact - expand their commentary and features sections by providing them well well-written interesting and, dare I say, it controversial commentary on a range of issues. Looks like we’re doing something right….
An no, page views aren’t high. They’re not supposed to be. Our site is a boutique shop for editors to look at, buy and select what they want to make their pages better. We aren’t on the web to compete with folks with huge ad departments, we’re here to help. That’s also why we don’t take comments. The job of managing community is one that is best done in that community - the outlet where our writers appear. There’s also, as I’m sure Jessica can attest by now, a manpower issue involved.
All of this information - include my proper gender as well as a history of commentary on feminism, politics and the absence of women’s voices in political discourse on and off-line dating back several years - is available on our website under the “about us” button. That’s here
Thanks for your time and attention. Please, come by and visit.
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
>>Uh. I am not a man. And even though I live in San Francisco, I have no plans to become one.<<
Finally, a bit of levity. I stand corrected, though I don’t retract much more.
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Neistein
It seems the blogging advocates want to have it both ways. They want to present blogging as a saving grace of journalism and one of the pillars of the future - “Do YOU know how to blog?” seems to be the way to determine who’s on what side right now - but when people criticize blogging as being weak on journalistic principles (like Jessica’s post was) they backtrack all over themselves and remind everyone that blogging is only a medium, not a whole new way of doing things.
I’ll note, for the record, that I am a staunch advocate of the medium, although I’m not so enamored of it that I believe it is the guiding light out of the mess we are in. It’s simply another tool.
Anyhow, the fact remains that the problem with Jessica’s post is not that it came on a blog, which is, in fact, just a medium. It’s the content of the post most of us have a problem with. I could care less how she transmitted her sentiments publicly - she could have shouted them on a megaphone in front of the building, handed out Xeroxed copies of a typewritten statement or hired a skywriting plane. That’s not the point at all.
The point is that she said what she said in a public forum, and she was off-base with most of it. If she’d confined her sentiments to watercooler discussions or debates over a beer at the local watering hole, she wouldn’t find herself getting blasted the way she did here. If she had, she probably would have found the reaction far more muted, with a great many more veteran journalists politely challenging her assumptions and “guiding” her, as some commenters have requested.
But when you put an entire staff on blast in a public forum, there isn’t going to be a whole lot of hand-holding.
Jul 8th, 2008
Paige
Chris,
I find that using a blog written by an intern on the future of journalism and the comments that veteran journalists made to disagree with her, and turning it into some kind of perceived sexist plot does nothing to help journalism or gender equality.
Jul 8th, 2008
Danny Sanchez
Keep on truckin’ Jessica. Right or wrong, you’ve sparked a helluva discussion. Congrats.
Jul 8th, 2008
Suzanne
I am a 20-something journalism student. I have a blog, a twitter, a facebook, a myspace, a fill-in-the-blank new online doodad or another. I use those tools often to inform me (and bring me to blogs such as this one).
That doesn’t matter one bit. And I am tired of those of us who use their knowledge of these online tools to lord over someone else who doesn’t.
I do not tell my little sister when her car breaks down, “Well, do YOU know how to change your oil, fix your carburetor, use your spare tire and rebuild an engine? No? Well HA! Tough luck for the future!” No. I either teach her what I know, or I call a car repairman.
My point is, some people’s brains are just not wired for that sort of thing. They have other skills they’d rather focus on. Yes it’s good to know what a carburetor IS, and it’s good to know what Twitter is too. But some people have more important things to do. Let the Twitterers do their reporting using, amongst all things, their Twitter contacts, and let the investigative journalists do their investigating in the ways they know how. Sure, share in the skill sets, by all means — both groups can learn a lot from each other. But do NOT act all high and mighty just because your brain “gets tech” and someone else’s doesn’t. It’s pure discrimination, and I would argue that it’s a biological discrimination. I stand firmly in the “tech” camp and even I realize this.
By the way, Veteran Journalist, I agree with much of your second post (your first post was awful). But Woodward and Bernstein didn’t bring down the presidency, Deep Throat did. Not to disrespect their reporting by any means, but the way Watergate was romanticized as the pinnacle of journalism is overblown; uncovering the My Lai massacre was much more difficult to do. (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/06/05/wtrg_js.html)
In the end, it’s all about who you know and what you can find out. In 2008, that means being connected to the Internet IN ADDITION to pounding the pavement. The younger and more tech-savvy generation could learn a lot by practicing some of that good old-fashion shoe-leather reporting. And if it needs be, using Facebook to find which pavement to pound.
Jul 8th, 2008
Chris Nolan
Well, thanks Matt. But I guess you weren’t making a point - at least not the I thought you intended to make - but rather proving mine, huh?
Paige: I’m not saying it’s a plot and, to be fair, some of what I’ve posted is an indirect reference to an on-line controversy that developed about oh, 4 years ago, when a bone-headed (that’s a technical term) blogger wondered “Why are there no women bloggers?” and got hit with more email than, well, Jessica’s gonna see all year. You can read one post here and another here.
The point I’m trying to make - and I think with some success if you read the post not about Tampa but about the status of women particularly young women, in news organizations - is that there is a culture that proscribes their speech and involvement.
Do we really - really and truly - think that Johnny DaSilva would be getting the mail Jessica’s getting with the “praytell young lady”? I don’t think so. I think he’d be getting the “well, young man, a fine effort, but, you’re a fine writer, please come see some time.” That’s a substantive difference in tone and it can be chilling, particularly when it’s delivered, as the comments to Jessica were delivered, anonymously and in public.
Also, I’d note to the folks who talk about sexism and equate it with some sort of victimization, that’s not an accurate description of how I view things. You - I - can encounter sexist behavior and fight against it, note it and move past it. It’s when you let sexism or racism or whatever tell you how to behave, when it’s your excuse, not your motivation, that you’ve become a victim. There’s a difference and it’s a big one that’s often misconstrued by people who would like to think that any woman who mentions “sexism” is somehow claiming a special status. If my point had a point in linking Down and DaSilva THAT was it.
//cmn
//cmn
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
Oy vey iz mir.
Suzanne, you almost had me going with that whole carburetor thing. I was thinking, okay, she’s making a good point. And then, kapow!
“Not to disrespect their reporting by any means, but the way Watergate was romanticized as the pinnacle of journalism is overblown.”
Overblown? I say this half jokingly, but do you 20-something journalism students ever hold anything back?!? Like Ms DaSilva, you might want to hedge your bets just a little and leave some–some!!–room for error or debate.
Again, I’m just tweaking you here, but tell me you’re not going to start knocking Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting?
What’s next? D-Day wasn’t really the turning point of WWII it’s cracked up to be?
Matt
p.s. Chris Nolan: With respect, one person out of hundreds used the expression “praytell, young lady.” I’m not sure if that truly qualifies as smoking gun material with regards to sexism, and it’s certainly no more injurious than Ms. DaSilva’s own description of herself on this website: “the lovely and talented…” I’d like to hear your thoughts on that moniker.
Jul 8th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Suzanne,
Now that was a refreshing post, and I would say the same thing whether you were a 20-something journalism student or a 50-something veteran of the newspaper biz. Kudos to you for coming on here and demonstrating precisely what I have been trying to point out with an entry that was fair, well-written and clearly involved some thought before making it public.
Chris,
For the record, a lot of the comments on here have not been made anonymously. Being accurate would go a long way toward helping you make your point, which again is off base because I submit that had the original entry indeed been made by Johnny DaSilva, the tone of the comments would have been nearly identical. No way would you have seen a “well, young man, a fine effort, but, you’re a fine writer, please come see some time,” because the poor choice of words, lack of research and, yes, like it or not, the misspellings, would have generated the exact same criticism.
Your attempt to broach the sexism argument is beyond a stretch and you are making it in the wrong arena. It’s the same thing as if you were at a baseball game shouting at the umpire for not calling pass interference on a particular play. Wrong argument in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
Jul 8th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Matt,
Since you were all over the Woodward and Bernstein remark I chose not to pile on. Yeah, over-the-top but Suzanne doesn’t sound like the type to make that leap to the D-Day argument. I kind of understood the point she was trying to make about the role Deep Throat played in that story, but she does need to realize that the reporter had to cultivate that source.
Do I wish she hadn’t said it? Yes. But the rest of her post was spot-on.
Jul 8th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
No need, no need. I was really kidding here and perhaps I didn’t make that clear enough. I though Suzanne’s post was very good. I was just joking a bit with that one line.
It was a good point, Suzanne. Truly.
Jul 8th, 2008
Sheila Scarborough
The nugget, the lede, the important issue that is rapidly being buried here is that when I walk out to my driveway in the morning and pick up my nicely rubber-banded and bagged print newspaper, there is no one else out there in bathrobes to join me.
No one.
I am the only house for BLOCKS that gets the daily newspaper.
Where are people getting their news, then? If they’re getting it online, my question is, do journalists have mastery of those multifaceted online publishing and communications tools, so that they can continue a proud profession in a medium other than print, should it come to that?
Here in her blog posts, Jessica seems to be saying that the industry better figure out another way to operate, because the current one doesn’t seem to be long for this world.
Paige, you wrote, “My argument is that we can’t risk losing credibility, accuracy or lower our standards in the process.”
I absolutely agree with you, and never said that I didn’t. What I did say is that bedrock journalism principles and print-based skills in and of themselves are no longer enough to ensure one’s success as a journalist.
You should be able to go where your audience is and converse using the tools and lingua franca of the day, and I don’t have confidence that enough journalists can do that. This isn’t a binary, either/or problem. As Matt Neistein said, it’s “simply another tool,” but it’s also a mindset, and dismissing blogging and other Web 2.0 tools as somehow the province of only pajama-clad nutcases in Mama’s basement is short-sighted and inaccurate.
Many of these online tools/apps might save the profession, because they help to make your audience care about you and connect with you. Right now, many don’t seem to care or connect, so what’s your plan to grapple with the problem?
You can be a rock-solid, Watergate-worthy journo and still be quite tech-savvy, and in my opinion, you should be and must be both to survive.
Veteran Journalist - you are very sweet to hector me with the term “young lady,” since I’m 47. My day is made! I’m afraid your lecture has fallen on deaf ears; it must be my advanced age.
Andy Kent - sure, I have strong opinions about these issues - I would hope that anyone who cares would feel strongly. I’ve worked very hard as a writer to acquire a skill set that is applicable and relevant to the 21st century, because I think it’s that important.
I’ve seen this movie before in a former life, when I worked very hard to understand the implications of network-centric warfare and Cooperative Engagement Capability missile defense when I was a Naval officer in the seagoing Fleet. I could either get with the program, try to look ahead and figure it out, or be consigned to the Buggy Whip Brigade and hope for the return of “glory days” battleships, long-range naval gunnery and other ideas that were much beloved but past their time.
If you aren’t the lead dog, the view never changes.
Jul 8th, 2008
Mike Plugh
@Jessica The curmudgeon class that’s railing against you are simply displacing their anger at seeing a professional spin away from them as the entire communication paradigm shifts. I can’t really bother to read all their angst at this point, but one thing stood out that I wanted to hit on.
“Veteran Journalist” blasted you by saying the following:
“Woodward and Bernstein didn’t have computers, cell phones, video cameras, facebook, Twitter, You Tube, etc., and they brought down a corrupt administration.”
Flawed logic and a set of false choices worthy of the Bush Administration’s spin machine. If W&B had access to those forms of media, perhaps the story would have gained traction more quickly and Nixon would have been forced to resign immediately. It’s comparing apples and oranges beyond all that. The communication environment of a given time can’t be directly overlapped onto another in that way.
“Those things and tools you mention might be useful, but I don’t see very many young reporters using them for much more than getting the lastest dirt on Britney’s latest hot tub hijinks or LiLo’s most recent table-dance at a club.”
Well, this tells me a lot more about “Veteran Journalist”’s news habits than it does about the industry. Completely unscientific analysis here. If you know where to look on the net the stories are out there in greater detail and complexity than they are in print anywhere.
“Maybe some of us don’t know how to use You Tube and Twitter and Facebook, etc. But do you know your way around the public records laws in your state? How about the government in the Sunshine Laws? Whistle-Blower Laws? Any of that stuff?”
One doesn’t equal the other. I appreciate the point here, as hard work has to go into research, but a blogger with those tools reaches a far greater audience than a newspaper journalist. Instead of waving this in Jessica’s face, maybe you ought to pool your resources to provide top quality journalism to the broadest possible audience. There’s a thought that might save the profession.
“What we do know about you and Jessica, based on your posts, is that you’re self-assured, self-absorbed (really now … “the lovely and talented?”) and positive you know it all. I may have felt that way at your age but I knew enough to shut up and learn from the experienced people.”
I doubt that. Youth is youth. You were most assuredly cocksure at some point in your life. You probably resented your elders telling you what a snot-nosed punk you were and now you’ve become one of them. Congratulations.
“PS: Loved your line: “How many journalists know how to blog?” Anyone with a computer, internet connection and cozy spot in their mother’s basement can blog.”
Ah…and there it is. The standard story of the traditionalist stuck in their ways, unwilling to find the bridge. The blogger in their mother’s basement is the sociological symbol for the curmudgeon’s wrath against the new communication paradigm. You can find it operating in the bowels of comments sections from here to “Fire Joe Morgan” to [insert progressive-thinking new media outlet here]. All bloggers are dim-witted losers operating out of their mother’s basement, presumably because they don’t have a life otherwise. They aren’t out in the world doing anything, but they have opinions galore about everything.
Jessica, you’re going to find that this is the standard story of the curmudgeon. It isn’t limited to journalism, but finds it’s most vocal manifestations here. The same grouchy attitude applies to the “gut” crowd when it rails against the statistical modeling of modern sports analysis, for example. It goes, “I didn’t need any new fangled computers to tell me that Mickey Mantle was great. Bah. Go back to your mother’s basement bloggy guy.”
Jul 9th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Sheila Scarborough,
So it took you three posts in to exhibit a maturity befitting your age. Perhaps if you had put as much thought into your first two posts as you clearly did into this latest one, the resulting dialogue might have been that much more productive. Unfortunately, what you claim to have said in your earlier posts was not what was presented, at least not in a clear manner.
I hope you have learned by this point that there are a number of us “old-timers” who have not dismissed and are not dismissing the advent of these new tools and platforms and their role in furthering the industry. What we are objecting to is the irresponsible way in how these tools and platforms are being put to use and the danger that arises as a result.
To borrow your Navy analogy (and in the interest of full disclosure, I spent five years in the Navy as a jet engine mechanic and flight engineer apprentice from 1987-92), what is being done at a lot of newspapers today is akin to sending out a squadron of B-2 Stealth bombers on a live mission without having done any test runs and using pilots with zero combat experience. There has been a lot of just “let’s throw it against the wall and see if it sticks” type of approaches with some ill-fated and bloody consequences.
If I read your latest post correctly, then I believe we are actually on the same side in this debate. We have just taken two different paths in order to make our argument.
Jul 9th, 2008
Chris Nolan
Andy, I bow to your expertise when it comes to sports commentary. I know, as Col. Klink would say “nut-tink.” But I stand my ground on the girl/boy thing. Let me repeat: To diminish charges of sexism as irrelevant is to, for instance, say steriod use is not a problem because everyone’s doing it. It’s an argument dismisses the premise without addressing the cause of the problem.
Matt, as to “lovely and talented”, that’s an ironic reference to the ironic reference that Pat Sajak (please note his tone as he says this almost every night on WOF) makes to the “lovely and talented Vanna White.” Meaning “Yes, she’s lovely. Yes, she’s just flipping letters but if you think I could do this job without her, you’re very much mistaken.” Kinda like Ginger Roger’s comments about Fred Astaire. He was, she said, a great dancer but I’m doing the same steps, backwards - and in heels.
“Lovely and talented” is what the young people (and I’m not one of ‘em) refer to as a “meta” reference, which is as new way of saying “inside joke”. Jessica may be lovely and talented - I’m sure she is - but what she’s doing is poking fun a particular way of seeing her by claiming not to have other “serious” attributes when, of course, she does.
As we are all demonstrating, aren’t we?
//cmn
Jul 9th, 2008
Sheila Scarborough
Andy Kent,
At this point in the thread and this hour of the night, we could both probably use some more fair winds and following seas.
Jul 9th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Sheila Scarborough,
Thanks for reminding me of the hour and the fact that I have to get up bright and early to take my 4-year-old son to day camp. With that, have a good night.
(Darn, I can’t find that smiley-face key. It really must be getting late.)
Jul 9th, 2008
Darren Cronian
I am a blogger not a journalist, and I’d hate to be classed as one. I make spelling mistakes, my grammar isn’t perfect, but I write about things that people want to comment on and discuss.
Read blogs written by journalists and it doesn’t work, no one comments because they do not have a personality, or the skills to be able to work with a community of travel readers.
Journalism is certainly changing with technology, and they’re some great journalists out there, but I am afraid, reading some of the content out their, especially in travel, journalists are struggling to produce actual news, with facts, a lot of is marketing tripe.
I hate the discussion “bloggers are the new journalists” because we aren’t, and I think the majority of us don’t want to be neither.
Jul 9th, 2008
Darren Cronian
Apologies for my spelling mistakes, and grammar. As a blogger I’m not a copywriter and I forget to check my comments before posting.
Jul 9th, 2008
Veteranjournalist
Suzanne:
Read All the Presidents Men. Hell, watch the movie. Woodward and Bernstein did a lot of ground-breaking work on Watergate and the entire package of corruption before Deep Throat became one of their background sources.
Jul 9th, 2008
Charlie Beckett
Jessica,
Here’s the view of all this from London:
http://www.charliebeckett.org/?p=746
I run a media think-tank at the London School of Economics.
You might be interested in my book which is all about how journalism is changing:
http://www.polismedia.org/publications/savingjournalism.aspx
the foreword is by Jeff Jarvis which gives you clue about it’s thesis,
cheers
Charlie Beckett
Jul 9th, 2008
ANDY KENT
Darren,
You have successfully taken this blog off course with your assertion that you have no desire to be a journalist. There are plenty of full-time print journalists who have managed to transition to blogging just fine and who have found a significant audience. Try expanding your database.
Jul 9th, 2008
Nance
Hello, Darren. I’m a journalist, and I have a blog, and I get plenty of comments. Plus, I can spell and write and all that boring stuff. There goes your theory.
Here’s what happened with my blog: I started it in January 2001, before most people had ever heard of blogs. My editors were wary, but supportive. (I was a columnist at the time, so the usual concerns about conflicts/bias didn’t apply.) Then there was a management change, and the new regime started bitching about it. Then there was another management change, and those folks tried to drive a stake through its heart; suddenly there was a policy that required my personal blog content to be governed by the same uptight rules for the newspaper (no-no words included “hell,” “damn” and “butt”), not to mention giving blanket shutdown authority to the editor in chief, who openly despised me.
(There’s more to this story; I’m condensing.)
If journalists are bitter and “whiny,” they have good reason to be. Many of us have sat through dozens of staff meetings, making suggestions, offering ideas, only to be told “that’s too expensive,” “that could alienate readers” or “it would draw readers away from something else we’re trying to sell.” Excuse us if we lost confidence in our management teams’ ability to adapt. For every story you can tell about an editor who couldn’t get a reporter to get with the blogging/twitter/whatever program, I can tell you five about editors who flipped out over the idea of taking risks and fostering real change. Their sole response to the oncoming wolves has been to throw people out of the troika. Now they’ve run out of people, and the wolves keep coming. Bad plan.
All this bitching is just that, however. The Tampa editor doesn’t have the solution, and neither does young Jessica, nor does anyone else here. You could give every reporter a blog, a smartphone, a video camera and, what the hell, let’s throw in a personal jetpack, and it won’t matter. The business model is in ruins. Most papers are lucky to put out one decent story a day; when it’s free on the internet, who can blame a reader for choosing to read a dozen good stories from a dozen different papers, assembled in less time than it takes to page through the old one at the breakfast table?
We live in interesting times, in the Chinese-curse sense of the word. Pointing fingers is just about the least productive activity there is. And with that, I’m back to work — freelance writing/editing, if you’re interested. And I still have a blog. Last year my total Google ad revenues were a whopping $236 or so. Not that I am whining.
Jul 9th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
>>I am a blogger not a journalist, and I’d hate to be classed as one<<
I think your secret is safe, trust me.
Jul 9th, 2008
Veteranjournalist
PS to Sheila:
Glad I made your day by thinking you were just another 20-year intern who believes all fundamentals of journalism have to give way to Twitter and Facebook. Perhaps my misconception is a clue that you think we should all turn our newspapers into TMZ.
Jul 9th, 2008
Veteranjournalist
Yo Matt …
If you’ve admitted that you’re a blogger and not a journalist, don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Jul 9th, 2008
Matt Mendelsohn
You know, the arrival of Nancy Nall on the scene (the above poster “Nance”) is a fortuitous thing. Though I have never met Nancy, I admire her blog a lot and find myself drifting over there quite often to see what she’s up to.
I’m a pretty decent photographer but I’m not an authority on very much more. Having said that, I would urge everyone here to read Nancy’s blog at http://www.nancynall.com. Man, can she write. And she really exemplifies to me what a great blogger can do. She is playful, smart, biting, hysterical and more. The kinds of things you don’t see in a newspaper much these days. And yet she does all of these things within a self-imposed (I don’t want to speak for you, Nancy) journalistic ethic that dates back to her days in newspapers. Meaning her posts are well researched, well written and effect change. In a big way.
Nancy single-handedly brought down a presidential adviser who spent a lifetime plagiarizing other people’s work. Read it here:
http://nancynall.com/2008/02/29/copycat/
More recently, Nancy was one of the first bloggers to really expose Lee Abrams, Tribune Co.’s Chief Innovation Officer and winner of this years’ Nobel Prize for Stupidity, as a guy who–well, let’s be kind–should still be in Top-40 radio. That post is here:
http://nancynall.com/2008/06/18/i-are-an-elitist/
As I said, I don’t know Nancy and don’t get any percentage of her $236 for boosting her here. But she really is a great blogger and she deserves an ever-increasing audience. Her blog is loosey-goosey but her writing is most definitely not.
Finally, for those who didn’t catch it on Romensesko, Lee Abrams came out with yet another of his Ted Kaczynski-esque memos yesterday, this one raising the possibility that book reviews are too darn intellectual and elitist and maybe newspapers need to start reviewing more celebrity or Christian books instead. (I’m not making this up.) It reminded me of of a great scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
The People’s Front of Judea and their hated rivals, the Judean People’s Front, are both on a mission to kidnap Pilate’s wife. They bump into each other in the aqueduct and begin fighting tooth and nail. Finally someone yells, and I’m paraphrasing, “We shouldn’t be fighting each other! We should be fighting a common enemy!”
Someone says, “The Popular Front of Judea???” and Brian laments, “No, the Romans!!!”
Lee Abrams, I propose, is the Romans, whilst we slug it out in the sewer.
(disclaimer: Monty Python fans, don’t write me telling me I got the words messed up. I was doing it from memory.)
Jul 9th, 2008
Jim Ogle
Keep your chin up! But make sure you continue such thoughtful and comment creating posts. We haven’t seen the light at the end of the tunnel. It is only going to get darker. But what we do have is a way to communicate good ideas across the globe. You help do that through your posts.
I’m someone that has to make those kind of layoff decisions. No one wants to do it. But the trend is inescapable, there is not the $ support to maintain how we do what we do in newspapers, radio and television right now. We need different ideas. New solutions.
You are making that possible with what you post.
Jim
Jul 10th, 2008
LOHENGRIN
Long before there were blogs, one of the masters said something — a lot of things, actually — about media. The most famous observation, though, was that the medium is the message.
Marshall McLuhan, these past few days have done you justice.
There is something strangely amusing about two sides virulently debating the importance of the Web and blogs … ON A BLOG!!!
On many blogs, actually.
Funny enough, those branded as curmudgeons and dinosaurs and ink-stained wretches somehow managed to bumble on to the Web and get involved in the argument. Obviously, they are watered-down curmudgeons and dinosaurs. A real dyed-in-the-wool wretch wouldn’t be on a blog in the first place, would he/she?
It’s important, because the remarks made by Jessica caused a firestorm on the Web in large part because they were made on the Web.
If Jessica had written a guest column for E&P, or even The New York Times, I imagine many of us wouldn’t have ever noticed it. And how many of us would have then written letters to the editor about it?
She could have called Rush Limbaugh. She could have done a master’s thesis on the subject.
In any of those cases, the falling tree would have been heard by a relative few.
But because she did it on the Web, it became a Web sensation. The reaction, as has been stated many, many times here and elsewhere, was over the top on both sides.
Again, the Web and blogging created that environment. All the vitriol would never have survived any other medium — save perhaps a gathering in some bar somewhere.
The Internet has changed all of our lives. But it isn’t the first and it won’t be the last technology to do so.
About a dozen years ago, if you were trying to get a designer or copy editor job in newspapers, the words “pagination experience preferred” or, its sibling “pagination experience required” were seared in your brain.
Editors threw around the word “Quark” as if it was a beach ball at a Dodgers game. It was the toy of the 1990s, and you were considered a buffoon, an “ink-stained wretch,” in fact, if you didn’t have that magic gift.
I’m still convinced that the vast majority of those requiring such experience couldn’t have paginated their way out of a paper bag.
Still, it was the brave new world for that time.
Now, I see people walking around a newsroom saying things like “the Internet is the future.” No it’s not. Something else is. We don’t really know what that will be yet.
As has been said many times on here, when Jessica is 45, the Internet will quite possibly be what punch tape is now.
No doubt, people have relentlessly piled on over simple things. In these times, I guess a sense of humor (i.e., the “lovely and talented” thing) and understanding (the much-maligned typo) seem to be in short supply.
But she seems like a smart young woman. The Web swallowed up her message a bit this time, but we all have to learn by doing.
If she stays in whatever journalism is in the decades to come, I think she will be able to adapt to whatever comes along. I can’t say the same for some of those who have “defended” her on here.
I think they will be walking around longing for the good old days of blogging.
Yep, McLuhan probably would love this argument. And I think he would have laughed, not because either side was “right,” but because while he thought the medium was the message, he never said any particular medium was necessarily ever going to get the last word.
Jul 10th, 2008
Digidave
The important thing is that you learned. That’s what journalism needs: Young people to go out there, try new things and come back with a better sense of what went write (hehe) and what went wrong.
If you came away from it all without learning something personally - that would be the failure.
You should continue to rock on from here on out.
Jul 10th, 2008
ANDY KENT
DIGIDAVE,
Why don’t we tone down the “rock on” cheer for now. In case you haven’t been reading, it was the “Amen,” and “You go girl!” remarks that begat a lot of this firestorm to begin with.
Jul 11th, 2008
Wendell Barnhouse
To Chris Nolan: That was Sgt. Schultz, not Col. Klink, who would say, “I know nut-ting, NUT-TING.” Not that it takes away from anything you said or your credibility.
To Sheila Scarborough: First of all, sincere thanks for serving our country. Second _ and I hope you don’t find this hostile _ but from visiting your web site, I can ascertain that most of your writing is for magazines. While you’re entitled to your opinions about newspapers and new media and while those opinions might be bracketing the target, most of us newspaper veterans would say your background and experience doesn’t support being able to make those comments.
And regarding Jessica DaSilva’s “lovely and talented” tag on her web site. Oh, so it’s a JOKE, an inside joke that only tech-savvy TwentySomethings get. That’s the problem when you write (or try to write) like you talk … sometimes the meaning and inflection is lost, flattening the humor/sarcasm/flippancy.
Jul 11th, 2008
Dan Thornton
Two great and interesting posts by Jessica, 100s of comments split into pro and anti new/old journalism, and a few personal attacks.
Shows pretty much the reasons why, as a journalist, I gave up reading newspapers about 2 years ago!
Blogging and microblogging (e.g. Twitter) are two tools for being able to publish and distribute content, just as print, TV, radio etc are.
But in that they are different and distinct tools, they do tend to display certain characteristics, such as linking to sources, and being based on personal opinion. Blog posts can be incredibly well researched, or a one line remark linking to a post on another site - and both can be of equal value.
(I do love the idea that traditional reporters spend months researching every article etc, particularly on a weekly or daily. I’ve seen horrendous spelling mistakes, print runs recalled, legal action, and a large number of stories almost copy-and-pasted from press releases).
The simple truth is that there are good reporters, who use their skills to maintain contacts, investigate stories, and attempt to educate and illuminate their readers via whatever medium.
And there are bad reporters who simply publish whatever comes their way with minimal work.
The different today is that a good reporter now has many more mechanisms to maintain contacts (e.g. Twitter), and to promote discussion (e.g. a blog). I doubt anyone, including Jessica, would have envisaged putting her original blog post on the front page of a newspaper, and it’s idiotic when anyone (particularly anonymous snipers) treats it as such.
Oh, and when it comes to driving revenue through blogging, it is possible to be highly successful (look at the revenue figures published somewhere like problogger.net), but these are vary rare occasions, much like finding a profitable print product these days!
It is possible to make a reasonable income, but it requires a knowledge of the commercial opportunities, and tweaking adsense, affiliate programmes, and selling your own advertising etc.
The funniest thing is that the disagreements here are effectively pointless. It’s not worth discussing whether the internet will change things - it already has. And spending time on anything other than experimenting with the best way to use the internet to serve readers of journalism, and to find ways to allow for journalism to continue, is utterly pointless.
Jul 13th, 2008
Gerry
hey jessica,
when you get a chance, you should check out http://www.ourblook.com - its a collaboratively written blook that explores the relationship between journalists and politicians.
- g
Jul 22nd, 2008
Reply to “Comment Wars: A New Hope”