On Campus - by Jessica Roy on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:52 - 8 Comments - 53 views
Last night a few members of the Local staff joined me at a panel in the Kaufman Center entitled “The New New Journalism.” Slated as a discussion of how the internet has influenced journalism, media darling Rachel Sklar moderated, and NYU Local crush and GroundReport.com CEO Rachel Sterne was so articulate I wanted to cry. But surprisingly, I didn’t learn anything new from the discussion! And y’know what? I am so fucking sick of these panels.
Hot lights, stuffy room, awkward stuttering: these panels are all the same. Sometimes the crowd gets irritated, but mostly everyone is subdued. Sometimes speakers are legitimate victims of media cutbacks (like one of last night’s attendees, former Portfolio editor Matt Cooper), but mostly the panelists have already made it, so they can’t relate to me twisting around uncomfortably in my chair, consumed with doubt about my future as a journalist.
The topics are all the same: Oh, no one gets paid for journalism anymore because the internet has made us all citizen journalists! Oh, but where will our ethics go? Oh, but the New York Times is in so much debt and no one is willing to pay for a subscription! And did you know print is dead!?
I am tired and I am frustrated because I am studying to be a journalist and when I graduate there will still be people sitting on stools in front of bored, aging crowds lamenting the current economic crisis and the sad, empty future of journalism instead of actually doing something about it. Just think of what could happen if the greatest minds in journalism stopped gravely shaking their heads and muttering “I don’t know, I don’t know!” in front of desperate crowds and actually got together to brainstorm business models, solutions, tech ideas.
I get the meta quality of it all: as journalists, we have a nearly biological need to ask the big questions. “People like to talk about what they’re afraid of,” said National writer Suri last night, when we all complained in the elevator that these panels weren’t actually solving anything.
Well I’m talking about it now: I’m afraid that a year from now, when I graduate in May 2010, people will still be crying about the degradation of the media elite, and the Times will still be fumbling for a successful business model, and I’ll be getting paid less than $50 a week for freelance work. Because these discussions are not actually helping to solve the problem! We can write about this, and we can talk about it on self-congratulatory panels, but until someone actually sits down and says, “Here’s an idea. Let’s implement it ASAP,” nothing is going to change.
I’m just so tired of lamenting the death of print. All of you established, hyperintelligent, successful journalists who look down on me because I study new media instead of ethics: why are you so immobile? We journalism students are begging you: PLEASE! DO SOMETHING. Those of us not necessarily in the position to dramatically change things really need you to spearhead this. We are begging you. I know you are confused, I know you may have no idea where to start. But we need to move this thing from discourse to action, or else the concept of journalism as a legitimate profession, in all its amorphous, evolutionary glory, will simply cease to exist. And I, along with the rest of the Local staff, have become too entrenched in media geekdom to ever let that happen.
8 Comments
Mike Vilensky
I totally agree! I do! Which is why I keep going to panels, and blogging about this stuff, and taking classes about it, and voraciously consuming any and all media news. But these are the people who have the clout to change something NOW. You think the media elite cares what I have to say, a 21 year old nobody at NYU? And on these panels they just sit around crying. There are people who are doing things: Jay Rosen, for example. Nieman Lab. I’m just so sick of going to these panels and feeling helpless.
Hi Jessica, wish you’d come up and said hello afterward! But after reading this dispatch I’m not entirely sure you were at the panel in the first place. I completely don’t recognize the panel you describe (save for the indubitably crush-worthy Rachel Sterne). I found the panel to be surprisingly optimistic about the future of the industry, from the possibilities of citizen journalism and the retention of standards to the potential of local coverage to the fact that AOL, of all things, was the future! (And see here for that: http://bit.ly/17p7vo, as well as here: http://twitter.com/nichcarlson/status/1649318536). Not only that but all the panelists stuck around after the panel to chat with audience members (4 out of 5 of us basically closed down the room).
As for self-congratulation, I didn’t see a whole lot of that on the panel, either – just frank analysis of what worked and what didn’t, sharing of examples and anecdotes (I thought Marc Egan’s description of how he gets his news was totally illuminating, as well as his smart citing of Barista.net as an example of a smart self-starter). I didn’t hear much whining, either. Mostly what I recall were some smart people with relevant experiences coming together to share them, and maybe provide a bit of hope that things will not only get better, but also pretty darn interesting.
As someone who has uncomfortably recent memories of scrambling for change in the bottom of purses (see here: http://twitter.com/rachelsklar/status/1622333916, and let’s just say that wasn’t the last time) I can relate very well to you “twisting around uncomfortably in my chair, consumed with doubt about my future as a journalist.” But I can note that you make a lot of assertions in this piece without providing a single quote to back any of them up. One of the big takeaways for me was the message of transparency and trust – report your story with verifiable (and verified!) facts, and build credibility that way. Had you reported on this panel with quotes to back up your assertions I would not be scratching my head in confusion while reading this – I’d be thinking about how to hire you.
To your point about your peers in the elevator – these panels aren’t meant to “solve” – anyone who thinks that an hour and a half in a stuffy room is all it takes is dreaming, and also passive. These panels are meant to discuss, analyze, share information and maybe, just maybe, inspire. The good news is that you went home and produced something from what you saw. That’s a good start. The bad news is, the only solution you proposed was to demand a solution from others.
On a personal note, as someone who cold-emailed you and recruited you to HuffPo, I find it a little surprising to be amongst a group you accuse of doing nothing to help you! I suggested you write that Paris Diary because I saw an opportunity, and to your credit you took it and ran with it. That, in a nutshell, is the future of media or really any industry. Keep your eyes open, learn to spot opportunity, and then sit down and do something about it. You are on your way. And now you’ve learned that there’s more to writing a rant than just ranting – you have to back it up. We may have been the gloomiest panel ever empaneled, but without quotes and context, all we have is your word. And that’s not good enough! Trust, but verify – that came up at last night’s panel, too.
Best,
Rachel
Rachel,
My frustrations do not stem from this panel specifically. I found this one to be more interesting than most of the other ones I’ve attended, and not just due to the collective NYULocal crush on Rachel Sterne. But I have attended and written about a ton of these things in the past–mostly through NYU–and I always end up leaving feeling so helpless! No one knows what to do! I don’t know what to do! It’s terrifying.
This article was not meant to be a review of this panel specifically; had I wanted to do that I would have included all of the notes and quotes (6 single spaced type-written pages!) that I took last night. In fact, the only place I mention this panel specifically is at the top. Perhaps I should have clarified that; this panel served more as a breaking point. It was the final straw in a series of events I’ve attended that leave me feeling cold. I have so much faith in new media and journalism. I’m just so frustrated with the lack of answers. Everybody is. And that is what I was trying to express here.
I do think, ultimately, it’s up to the new generation to help move journalism forward. I just wish those with clout–and I do not mean any of the panelists specifically, mind you, as I know you have done things for me personally that have helped me–would figure something out. It’s no one’s fault. We’re all confused. I’m just very tired of feeling helpless, and I wish those with the power to do something would start addressing that.
Furthermore, I will add quotes to this piece for credibility, even though the article was really supposed to be a rant about the helpless state of journalism and not a review of the panel.
UPDATE: We reverted to the original piece to preserve journalistic integrity! No quotes. Will have to save them for another piece.
Thank you for the kind words. And if you are frustrated–you should channel that by building your own innovative solution to the media crisis. You have a huge advantage through your access to thousands of NYU students, and not being saddled with preconceived notions about journalism. Zuckerberg founded Facebook at 20 while in college.
And if you’re looking for somewhere to start, GroundReport’s looking for interns and editors!
Josh Becker
Okay hello everyone. I didn’t go to this panel with Jess, but I’ve been to quite a few of them myself, and I am just as frustrated as she is.
Rachel, you said: “But I can note that you make a lot of assertions in this piece without providing a single quote to back any of them up.” Unfortunately, I can say that a lot of the panelists I’ve seen also make many assertions without backing them up! Assertions like (to name a couple off the top of my head): the death of print media will mean the death of investigative reporting; micropayments are a surefire solution to garnering revenue for media outlets; that it’s “troubling” that more people turn to the Internet when seeking breaking information, and that it’s also troubling tha tmany of these online sources are nonprofit; etc. These are all things I’ve heard in the past.
Because here’s the thing: I do expect to hear some possible solutions when I attend a panel like “How to Save Investigative Journalism.” I want to hear some plans of action! I do not need older people to tell me that the mediascape is changing and that this change is creating problems in the journalism world. But the fact remains that I have never heard even the INKLING of a proposed idea as to how to navigatethe transition from traditional print sources to new media publications. I understand that a 90-minute panel discussion is not going to solve the “media crisis,” but I’m sick of just hearing “analysis” and “discussion.” I have read analyses, I have discussed. And these conversations are important, yes, but in order for us to begin to figure out what exactly we’re going to do, we have to start throwing out ideas. (No, “micropayments” is not a comprehensive solution, Guy From PBS. Read up on the subject to see why a lot of people have a problem with it.) And many of those initial ideas are going to be wrong or silly or whatever, but at least they’ll be on the table, and no good brainstorming session ever ends quickly. Rome 2.0 can’t be built in a day, but analysis will only take us so far.
Hi, back again. Since I was not at the “Future of Investgative Journalism” panel referenced, I can’t comment, but I will gently point out that they were two different panels. I didn’t hear anyone on our panel make the kind of categorical statements Josh mentions – I think Rachel was a great example not only of someone who created a great new model, but also someone with a platform for anyone in that audience to take advantage of. It’s never been easier to create content; it’s up to the individual to make that content good, and consistently so. I can’t make any promises about jobs – for j-school students or vets being downsized – how could I? What I can do is say, ok, here’s where there could be some potential, and here’s why.
I’m sorry that these panels, taken collectively, have left you feeling cold. (Does the word “Welschmertz” fit here? Did I spell it right? Is it even a word?) I don’t know what to say other than figure out what you WISH we’d said, what we left out, and go from there.You won’t agree with every panelist, but hopefully you’ll learn from a couple – or at least make a good contact.
Anyhow, I find this comment thread encouraging. Engagement on the merits (and the facts!) is a great first step toward making things happen.
get a grip folks. old media doesnt have a clue and has experience. new media doesnt have a clue and has no experience.
therefore no one has a clue.
what does that mean?
there will be a gap between the death of the old (it aint morphing, its going to die) and the birth of the new.
EVERY overleveraged giant WILL die. everyone else will go on a diet. it will be a new landscape with little food($$). that landscape will be very austere. and success (survival) during this period will not necessarily translate into success when the new ways take hold.
what does this all mean?
dont expect to make $$ for 2-5 years. build a brand of quality and trust. that is dont be like the old guard.
and hoard your reserves to better grow after the long, dark night.
or, stay in school for a phd.
one thing to remember… you may get anecdotal help from the old guard, but they will almost certainly not drive the new order.
also, its not just you here in ny. having attended the barcamp of news/innovation last weekend in philly (bcniphilly.com) two things are clear. everyone there was searching for answers. no one had a clue either.
Leave a Reply
The future of media is up to you, babes. The rest of them will die or retire soon anyway. Mitch Stephens gives an inspiring lecture to his Foundations classes on this topic. You should talk to him.