Why It’s a Good Time to Go Into Journalism

In 2007, Serra Media CEO Mark Briggs published Journalism 2.0, a popular “digital literacy guide” for journalists (made available as a free downloadable e-book with funding from the Knight foundation). In a just-published updated version of the book, “Journalism Next: A Practical Guide to Digital Reporting and Publishing,” Briggs expands his audience beyond professional journalist to those getting started in journalism or digital publishing: “If you’re a student or just starting out, realize that it’s your turn. Your opportunity may come from a traditional news company, start-up news blog or a new enterprise you launch yourself.” In contrast to some bloggers and social media experts who boldly predict the death of journalism, Briggs argues that now is “a good time to go into journalism.”

In the excerpt below, Briggs lays out his case:

1. Journalism has a bright future

Experimental news operations are popping up all over the Web as this decade draws to a close. Some have become sustainable businesses in a very short time. Others are still searching for viability while finding new ways to cover issues and communities.

In short, the demand for journalism from its audience hasn’t diminished. But the models are starting to look very different.A more narrow focus is required. Think of it as “bottom-up” journalism instead of “top-down.” Technology, political and hyperlocal news sites have been the first to find success by starting small and concentrating on a very specific topic. This, of course, goes against the more general audience publications that ruled the day when printing and distribution monopolies ruled the day.

Unleashed from corporate-run organizations sweating out the quarterly profit margin, the journalists powering these new sites have infused them with a level of energy, commitment and passion that can only be found in a startup company. It’s easy to see how these sites will pave the way for the true digital transformation of mainstream news companies, by finding successful new methods to inform and connect a community online.

Or, in some cases, they will replace them.

2. That future is in your hands

Journalism needs you. It needs someone who can bring a fresh approach without the baggage that burdened earlier generations.

As the institutions that perform journalism struggled economically through the past decade, it became increasingly apparent that the people in charge did not have what it takes to oversee a digital transformation that would secure a viable future. Harsh words, I know. But their inability to put the readers first and use new technology to do better journalism – instead of copying the existing model and pasting it online – created a world where every newspaper Web site is immediately identifiable. Most are disjointed repositories of what a news organization has always produced, with some new twists thrown in for good measure, instead of rich, vibrant information sources their communities want and need.

That’s where you come in. Whether you end up working for a newspaper, magazine, TV station or Internet start-up, you will have the opportunity – make that responsibility – to do things differently. My first job in journalism (part-time sports clerk) was mostly answering phones and doing grunt work where no one asked me about my ideas. Your first job is likely to be much different.

In fact, I’d venture a guess that you won’t get a first job without your ideas, in addition to your skills and experience.

3. Journalism will be better than it was before

Transformation and evolution are messy, emotional processes. When they produce advancement for society and business, they are seen as healthy and worthwhile, but not necessarily to those on the front lines.

After all, change is inevitable, but progress is optional.

The transformation to digital started 15 years ago for news companies and the Web. If you’re just getting started in journalism, you benefit by having missed the early mess.

The game isn’t over. It’s just getting started and, since tomorrow’s journalists inherently “get” the Internet because you grew up with it, you have the opportunity to shape the future of journalism online like no generation before.

(If you didn’t grow up with the Internet, don’t despair. I didn’t either. My first newspaper reporting job had me sending stories back to the office on a Radio Shack computer device dubbed the “Trash-80” using cups over the receiver at a pay phone. It only worked about half the time so there was a lot of dictation. Now, digital information and communication is like the air I breathe: I don’t even notice it’s there.)

Interactive, transparent, collaborative journalism works. Digital technologies, some that have yet to be invented, will aid you, but they can’t replace a thoughtful, skilled professional with an entrepreneurial spirit. You will be ready to try, and fail, and try again.

Summary

While journalism isn’t the only industry caught in the middle of a massive upheaval, I would argue it’s an industry that stands a great chance of making it to the other side and dramatically improving along the way.

So here’s the new deal: you probably won’t get to travel a well-marked, established career path like your parents did. But you will have a say in how the fourth estate evolves and how citizens are informed and engaged in the decades to come. And the chance to be part of something bigger and better than it’s ever been before.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. So let’s get started.

Excerpt reprinted with permission.

A Chicago native and graduate of the Missouri School of Journalism, Amy Rainey is a digital journalist and MCDM student. She works for Serra Media as a community manager. For more on Amy’s work, visit www.amyrainey.com.

Read More on Flip the Media:

Share this post:

(4 votes, average: 3.50 out of 5)

Loading ...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm.
Categories: Content Creation, Journalism.

Posted by AmyRainey.

12 Comments, Comment or Ping

Andrea Sherrodd

Being a journalism school graduate myself, and as a current student in the MCDM program, I really want to believe you. I would love to know that journalism is back (or that it never left), and that it was viable. However, I don’t think that’s possible until we, as a society, can figure out how to get some money out of online journalism. As it stands now, many people refuse to pay for online content, and therefore most sites are forced to function on an ad-based model, which simply isn’t enough to support all the costs of most online businesses.

While there is more opportunity than ever to get your writing online and seen, most of us can’t afford to do that as a full-time hobby. If we can’t monetize online journalism, we can’t pay the writers, and therefore I don’t really see how we can consider the field of journalism as “growing.” We’re able to get more players on the field, but we’re asking a lot of them to work for free or for pennies.

You said “Unleashed from corporate-run organizations sweating out the quarterly profit margin, the journalists powering these new sites have infused them with a level of energy, commitment and passion that can only be found in a startup company.”

This is true, but even start-ups are sweating out the quarterly profit margin. All businesses, no matter their size, corporate status, or morals, are all concerned with money. It doesn’t matter how awesome your ideas are, if your business can’t turn a profit, your business won’t succeed, and your great ideas will probably not be heard.

Nov 27th, 2009
Amy Rolph

Briggs writes that journalism will be better now than it was before, and briefly mentions how an entrepreneurial spirit has become a necessary characteristic in a successful journalist. But he also talks a lot about how far technology and social media has come, and how that means we’re poised to enter a “better” phase in journalism. In my opinion, he got it right when he said: “Change is inevitable, but progress is optional.” The fact that a newspaper uses Google Wave during a breaking news event doesn’t necessarily mean it’s practicing better journalism than it was ten years ago. It’s up to us to take the tools we have and find ways to use them to carve out a better — and more responsible — future for news.

Dec 1st, 2009
yuhsuanchen

I agree with part of Mark Briggs’s opinions about the future of journalism. The journalism has been under reconstruction since the emergence of the Internet. New technologies continuously impact upon this tottering industry and the control power of the traditional media also fade as more and more new media come up to compete with. Yes, it is really a good time and full of opportunities for interesting and enterprising journalists to get rid of the shackle from conventional big media companies and to initiate their own great ideas. Various experiments are conducted with the intention to rebuild a promising future for the journalism. However, this cannot lead to the conclusion that Journalism will be better than it was before. The gold time of journalism is just gone and the economical scale of journalism will never return to its prosperity ever. You can create your business model and run it well but the opportunities to make amazing profit is fewer than ever, because technologies continuously lowers consumers’ willing to pay as much as before and the barriers for intentional and potential competitors. There are lots of issues needs to be addressed before the coming of next journalism, such as the journalism quality, justice and how to access it. Reporting a vaulable news is important, but a platform which can collect, filter, and show to interested customers is also vtial.
Like the filpmedia, it is a good news platform for me, since lots of people collect and filter news for me and feedbacks also show me more angles to review the news.

Dec 3rd, 2009
Gerrit

Mark Brigg’s comments seem to focus a lot on how great journalism will be for those who take advantage of and embrace the internet and new digital technologies but says little about who will pay for all of this. Sure, its a great time to be a journalist and get your work seen but he doesn’t say anything about where the jobs are or whose going to pay you. He says that “rich, vibrant information sources” are what online communities need – not the old model of journalism pasted online. How can you create a rich, vibrant community if no one is making any money?

That all said – I do think people will pay for the creation of new types of journalism and media enterprises – I just think it will have to be paid for in ways that other institutions of value to our society (ie. museums, public radio, etc.) pay for themselves – through grants, donations and goverment support, not the private sector.

This is a great time to jump in to journalism – if you want to work for non-profit wages for a career you believe is important.

Dec 3rd, 2009
Rose Egge

Did anyone else just breath a sigh of relief?
I found this article so refreshing, and, even better, spot on.
Brigg’s point that the demand for journalism has not diminished is so essential. It is why I continue in my profession rather than throwing in the towel, moving to Woodinville and pouring wine for a living. It is human nature to crave knowledge, and that’s not going to change. It is the means by which people want to receive information that develops. Just because the public is reading less does not mean they don’t want to hear stories.
What’s even more important? His notion that journalism is moving towards “bottom up” models. This is where those of us trained in traditional journalism have to learn. It was nice when I was working for a newspaper where everything I wrote was edited by multiple eyes before publication. There was a safety net in that. But there was also something lost in that control. Speed for sure. Plus input, the consumer experience and transparency.
Now, with this idea of bottom up we’re showing more interest in what the consumer wants. It’s more conversational so the user can develop a deeper experience. I really believe that this is going to lead us to richer, more valuable journalism.
I am lucky to work in some of the subject-specific sites he recommends, the hyper-local. So I understand that this is truly a time for experimenting and I feel energized by Brigg’s suggestion that we are just what journalism needs. Because we are new, open to change and above all innovative. I consider this new frontier a challenge, one I am happy to take on. Briggs is right. We should be excited.
But out of all this, I think his most important statement lies here: “Change is inevitable, but progress is optional.”

Dec 5th, 2009
Priti

“Technology, political and hyperlocal news sites have been the first to find success by starting small and concentrating on a very specific topic.” This quote really caught my attention and got me wondering about the perception of trade/B2B publications in the world of journalism. Would a position at very narrowly focused trade journal provide a viable alternative for journalists who envisioned a career at a major metropolitan newspaper or other mass media outlet? I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the journalists in our program.

Dec 5th, 2009
shane

I think I would change the title – It’s a good time to be an entrepreneurial journalist. With more tools, more competition and fewer barriers to entry, the sad and hard thing to take is that the best writers and journalists will not necessarily win. It’s those who can find their niche and market themselves better.

With the previous model, those who showed promise could be nurtured in a large organization. With those large organizations failing, and the price of failure dropping to almost zero, those who can sell themselves and their services will be successful.

The one thing I completely agree with is that the market for journalism, good writing and good content is growing at a fantastic rate. But, as much as we all love the idea of altruistic groups working together for social capital like in Wikipedia – bills still need to be paid and good journalism takes time to complete.

I think the best reason to be optimistic is that everyone in the journalism game now, if they can survive this disruption, will be able to have a say in what journalism is in the future. Those with the talent and perseverance will be able to mold the future of journalism and reporting, and that is something to be excited about.

Dec 6th, 2009
Katherine Turner

Journalism is not dead, but it has been transformed. In Briggs opinion, this should inspire hope.

Digital technologies are not only enabling millions of writers across the globe to publish their work online at little to no cost, but are also making it easier than ever for the companies who would typically pay for professional content to gain access to this work for free.

How can professional journalists compete against free? Journalism isn’t the only profession struggling in a new digital landscape, the same is true for photographers. Before the rise of the Internet part of the reason professional photographers were able to charge a livable wage for their photographs was scarcity. Access to high quality photographs was limited. Websites such as Flickr have changed that.

The question that remains from this article does not pertain solely to journalism. No matter how “bright” the future may be, how are all professional content creators supposed to make a living competing in a marketplace where free is the going rate?

Dec 6th, 2009
Stephen Brashear

It’s a great time to go into journalism if you are independently wealthy, have a lot of free time on your hands or your creditors accept bylines and/or photo credits as payment. Journalism, which by-and-large, never paid well, is paying even less when it pays at all.

I agree, in the long run, the upheaval in the journalism industry is no doubt forcing changes, which should have been made long ago. However, the business model if far from complete or even sustainable. There are still far more J-School graduates than there are jobs for them, which favors employers. Is Hyperlocal a viable business model? Right now it seems to be viable, but how viable will it be when as more and more Hyperlocal and psuedo-Hyperlocal competitors pop up and compete for advertising on Hyperlocal sites that once had very little competition? How long before volunteer newsgathering declines in popularity? Will volunteer journalists disappear in the same way that contributors to Wikipedia have disappeared? I realize that there could be other reasons for the decline in Wikipedia contributors. I think we will strike a balance with new that is produced by professional journalists and that produced by volunteer journalists. Right now, the pendulum has swung toward the Hyperlocal/volunteer model. When the pendulum swings back, it could be that volunteers free up the professional journalists from the daily grind to pursue more in-depth journalism, that many news organizations abandoned while desperately trying maintain profit margins by cutting staff.

The low cost of entry made possible by the Internet has no doubt led to the current state of journalism (and other industries as well). There is a glut of volunteer and citizen-journalists producing content for news organizations. Put aside the ethical issues of having a volunteer report on news in which they were involved or in which they might have a stake, some of the content good and some of it is bad. I would imagine that it mirrors YouTube in that ninety-nine percent of the content uploaded to YouTube is garbage. With a few exceptions, the most-viewed content is produced by professionals. Furthermore, YouTube pays for some professionally produced content, next to which advertisement can be placed.

Ultimately, the fate of professional journalism will rest in the ability to find a business model that monetizes content or subsidizes it. While news organizations will not be able to charge for all content, it needs to figure out for which content people will eventually pay. I think paying for proprietary content will be a learned behavior. It’s something that news organizations should have started long ago, but they were content and shortsighted as the clung to their almost advertising-only revenue model. Quality content will not remain free (really isn’t free now). It may be right now, but it won’t always to be. Hulu has already said. YouTube has yet to make any money for Google and Twitter continue to get money with no clear model on how it will monetize the application.

There is a place and there is money for professional journalists. Perhaps, there won’t be as many professional journalists before. But fewer journalists have more powerful tools. And for now they have an army of volunteer and citizen-journalists, which could be a great resource. Now is a great time to go into journalism if you want to be at the forefront of a massive paradigm shift, but you should also be prepared to be poor, unless you idea is so good that you can get someone to invest in it.

Dec 7th, 2009
Mary Perkins

I agree with most of the commenters here, in that the one thing missing from the equation is a viable business plan. Competing with all of the free resources on the web just isn’t sustainable. That’s why I believe the future of news lies (as those above have said) in the non-profit realm. A great example of how business partnerships can work with non-profits is in public television. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS just had a major overhaul of its brand and site. They’ve beefed up their online presence and integrated it into their newsroom. They are still a non-profit (with federal assistance), and rely on business partnerships for the majority of their funding. They are able to do this because of the integrity of the brand, something that I think hyper-local blogs and smaller news orgs. might have a harder time doing. On the other hand, part of the NewsHour’s new strategy involves partnerships with these smaller, localized news orgs. Maybe the future of journalism can work around this model, with larger non-profits receiving the majority of the major grants, and smaller orgs. partnering with them for more in-depth localized coverage.

Here’s a link to a preview of the new NewsHour rollout:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec09/pbsnewshour_12-04.html

Dec 8th, 2009
James Taylor

The fact that the NewsHour has built a credible news “brand” and therefore a large audience is something that allows them to eschew the traditional means of revenue generation, but, is there going to be a dearth of journalistic talent following these years of diminishing news revenue? It seems there are many journalists in a graduate program like MCDM because they have lost their news jobs. They are in the program to learn how they can be a part of the new monetization of news, but what about the incoming undergrad students? I believe it is imperative now for undergrad programs to focus not only on how and what to report, but how to get paid for that reporting. It is no longer going to be good enough to effectively create and tell stories that need to be told. I hope our traditional ways of teaching undergrads at university journalism will start to incorporate the evolving monetization. If not, I fear in the short term, college students will decide that journalism is a dead enterprise, and therefore should not be studied. This would be the ultimate problem with our current situation.

Dec 8th, 2009
Jessica Roberts

The one thing that hasn’t been discussed is that perhaps traditional journalism is dying because it is completely and totally boring. Few other communication methods have remained static as say, TV news. A comparison between Walter Cronkite and Katie Couric will show more similarities in structure than differences. Talk, talk, serious, serious: clip from correspondent. Repeat. The formula taught to every journalism student makes for an easy, quick “package” but fails to inspire or really even inform. The processed stories served as rich and insightful commentary are insulting; the audiences know the difference between K-rations and a creative, gourmet steak dinner.

The mythic “creative class” so exalted in the early 00s doesn’t want to watch or read the same, boring junk. They expect their media counterparts to be as inventive, creative and passionate as they must be in their own professions. The fact that comedian John Stewart is considered “the most trusted newsman” should be a neon sign reading: “Keep it Interesting, Stupid.”

I can’t begin to agree more with the sentiment: “Journalism needs you. It needs someone who can bring a fresh approach without the baggage that burdened earlier generations.” Having sat through two years of Journalism school listening to my ‘elders’ lament the death of journalism, my tolerance for moaning is extremely low . The “inability to put the readers first” has killed newspapers. If readers don’t see themselves in the paper, they won’t connect and move to other news sources. A sea change is required because incremental updates were systematically denied.

It’s refreshing to hear others tout the tremendous opportunity afforded a new generation of journalists. We can become modern counterparts to the brave editors who created newspapers one hundred years ago. America loves stories of re-building from the ashes. The innovations of a new generation, armed with new story telling techniques, will create new readers, new confidence in advertising, and a new structure for keeping content relevant and necessary. Perhaps this downfall will keep us closer to the true reason for news: the audience. I’m an optimist. There is more content being created now than ever in the history of the world and higher literacy rates than humanity has ever known. You can’t tell me that there isn’t a way to make a profit.

As Briggs says: “Whether you end up working for a newspaper, magazine, TV station or Internet start-up, you will have the opportunity – make that responsibility – to do things differently.”

Dec 8th, 2009