For its relaunch, the Editors Weblog is running a series of exclusive interviews with some top editors at leading newspapers around the world about the future of journalism. We kick off the series with Ed Greenspon, Editor-in-Chief of the Globe & Mail in Canada.

The list of upcoming interviews will be updated as they are published (click here to view all interviews in this series). Among the other titles that have been asked to participate in these interviews are:

- The New York Times - Jonathan Landman (US)
- Financial Times (UK)
- Guardian (UK)
- Washington Post - Jim Brady (US)
- Globe & Mail - Ed Greenspon (Canada)
- The Times (UK)
- The Economist (UK)
- Gazeta Wyborcza - Jaroslaw Kurski (Poland)
- Le Monde (France)
- Die Welt (Germany)
- The Hindustan Times - Pankaj Paul (India)
- Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
- JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea)
- The Age / Fairfax - Mike van Niekerk (Australia)
- The Nation - Pana Janviroj (Thailand)
- Punch (Nigeria)
- El Tiempo (Colombia)
- Clarin (Argentina)
- Gulf News - Abdul Hamid Ahmad (UAE)


"News, journalism, newspapers: same past, different futures?"

How long do you think you will define your company as a newspaper company or a print company?

We no longer define our company as a newspaper or print company. We define ourselves as a news organization. I would say we began to do so about two years ago. In fact, I can almost pin it down to the day.

We had what in Canada was a major exclusive on a deal that would end the lockout of professional hockey. We were able to confirm the story at about 3:00 in the afternoon. We decided to put it up on the web rather than wait for the next day's paper, even though we would be tipping off our competitors.

While this wasn't the first time we had ever done this, it was a pretty major story and "giving it away" generated some internal debate. Two things happened:

    1. Over a hundred other media around the world cited globeandmail.com as the source of the story in their own reports.

    2. The scoop held in the Canadian newspapers. Even though we had posted it in the afternoon, nobody was able to match it. They also had to cite us in the next day's papers.

The moment presented a good opportunity to truly define what we knew we were becoming - a news organization with a strong base and history in print and a strong presence and future in digital.

At this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, a panel of futurists claimed that print newspapers wouldn't exist by 2014. To what extent do you agree with this?

Not a whole lot. Printed material has been around for centuries and newspapers have encountered many incursions. The web and mobile have impressive technological and story-telling strengths. They extend our creative and physical reach.

But the newspaper also boasts unique attributes.  It is a thing of beauty that you can touch and take with you.  It is filled with information you didn't know you wanted to know.  It is an entity with which a reader can enjoy an intimate, emotional relationship.   It is a daily one-stop validation of the world around you.

Some forms of newspapers may not continue to exist, but in one form or another, newspapers will survive the internet age as they have survived other ages.

In journalism's multi-centennial history, do you view the emergence of digital journalism as part of the continuity, or as a complete breakaway with previous forms of journalism?

I see it more as part of the continuity. I like to say that the platform isn't print or the web or mobile but that the platform is the journalism. That's the distinguishing factor and the competitive advantage of most news organizations.

The role of story telling goes back centuries and isn't going away. The craft of journalism, the skill of finding out and communicating important information and sorting the wheat from the chaff for your readers, will be in even higher demand as stories become more complex. Digital provides extra-ordinary new ways to tell stories in our world and for readers to take control of distribution and share with one another. So new opportunities abound.

It's only a break if we aren't clever enough to earn the money from the web necessary to finance our journalistic undertakings. I don't see that as an impossible challenge.

Do you believe in the increasingly active role of the user in the news process, and is it a threat or an opportunity for professional journalists?

First off, the closer a journalist can be to his or her audience the better. Users do not replace journalists, they supplement them. We have to stop being afraid to tap into the intelligence of our readers. We also have to understand that we play a unique role as full-time and fully-trained fact finders and story tellers. We now have a new tool at our disposal: the relationship we can build with readers.

Do you consider the Golden Age of investigative journalism is already past, or just beginning?

I think, for news organizations that are confident enough to invest in their journalistic resources, this should be a great age for investigative journalism. In the clutter and clatter of a 500-million channel universe, it is a great differentiator and in an age in which a non-deferential public demands greater public transparency, the place for investigative journalism should be secure.

The fact that it is not speaks to how fear and fragmentation overwhelm many in the industry. It is great that a non-profit, philanthropic entity in the United States is being established to pursue investigative journalism. But I believe there is also a commercial case to be made. The fact that so many news organizations are cutting resources actually creates even more room in the marketplace for those willing to pursue this kind of journalistic-intensive, public-interest approach.


Stay tuned for upcoming interviews about the future of journalism.

Source: Ed Greespon, editor Globe & Mail