Media Giraffe Summit: Relevant journalism
On bloggers:
Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers: “Anyone with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist.” The esteemed White House correspondent went on to say that the “stock and trade” of journalists is their credibility, credibility that has been damaged in the past few years by story fabrication, payola, self censorship, etc. But credibility is not necessarily a trait of bloggers and thus we need the mainstream press.
Jeff Jarvis, Buzzmachine (among other things): – “Let’s not make this another bloggers vs. journalist conference, not about competition, us vs. them… That debate is over... We should be talking about opportunities, success stories, invention creativity... Journalism needs reinvention.”
On the Internet:
Teresa Hanafin, editor, Boston.com: When asked how the Internet had changed her vision of journalism, the former print journalist said she had a much more interactive view of journalism; “My first instinct is to take the story and say, ‘How can I involve users.’” She also explained why newspaper organizations should refer to the online audience as users, not readers, because they “use” the information. The audience is no longer passive.
Larry McDermott, publisher, The Republican: McDermott praised the Internet as making the possibilities for journalism “almost unlimited.” The paper’s portal, masslive.com, is a connector for communities and individuals, it acts as a means of “reconnecting them to democracy.”
Jay Rosen, New York University/PressThink: “What’s exciting about the current moment is that we get to build journalism again. We can change journalism for the better.” He continued saying that professional journalists need to realize that their profession has changed in fundamental ways or else the future of journalism will not be secured.
On opinion:
McDermott: “A newspaper should take an editorial stance.” But at the same time, McDermott said that there is opportunity to present readers with both sides of the story so that they can make up their own mind.
Hanafin: Commenting on personalized news, or how people are shifting towards reading only what is aligned with their own opinion, Hanafin described her portal's efforts to open up readers’ eyes to what people in other lands felt about the United States. “The Web makes it easier to get an opposing view to what your opinion is.”
Although she has recently started writing opinion columns, Thomas rallied for objective journalism: “(My opinion) isn’t worth two cents next to the straight story where everyone can make up their own minds.”
On the local presence of newspapers:
Peter Bhatia, Portland Oregonian: “Quality journalism (in the United States) is quite good. Bhatia said that paper by paper, community by community, journalists are having a huge influence on making their worlds a better place. Especially small papers are changing their communities for the better.
Hanafin: Boston.com has been successful at connecting with its community by having reporters and journalists. By doing this and letting their reporters blog on subjects other than what they are working on for the paper, they have made journalism more transparent. “It helps put a more human face on the print product.”
On journalism students:
Ellen Hume, University of Massachusetts, Boston: According to Hume, students today aren’t actually sure what news is. She said that some students look at media as being music and fun and that “news” serves for people so that they understand the jokes on the satirical news program The Daily Show.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Media Giraffe Summit: Relevant journalism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4222

As long as there are a preponderance of folks that think anyone with a laptop is a journalist, and that citizens should be putting their efforts under the auspices of newspapers (rather than keeping their own sites) there won't be much change in the world of journalism. There are big problems in corporate owned big media that aren't going to change by getting chummy with the citizenry. Letting journalists blog (thus becoming transparent) and allowing them to interact via comments may help--but are only small steps when ownership issues and content elitsm are truly considered by the reigning status quo.
Actually I was joking when I said the future of jouranlism is as a website to decode the news on the Daily Show. What I was trying to say on the panel at the conference was that the CONTENT is what we need to focus on--independent, honest, transparent content that contains verified facts and honest opinions, rather than carrying some agenda paid for by some unidentified, propraganda-motivated backer. If you get the content right, and are transparent about your mission, then the issues of what pipe and what formats you use are amusing and important from an economic point of view, but irrelevant to the definition of "journalist."