Funny how at this point in time when everything is so up-to-the-minute, we have little notion of what comes after that minute. Even among the speculation of talking heads, real future solutions to current problems rarely emerge through this constant babble of the here-and-now. Maybe such a lack of foresight is subconscious, maybe it's out of fear, or maybe it's simply because this case -- the case of the future of journalism -- has us stumped. The industry and its mimickers have been analyzed to death (the literal death of many print papers), with nothing to show for it.
Should we look to J-schools for the solution? After all, "children" are the future. Certainly teaching the next generation of journalists the right things will ensure that a more effective and better prepared work force will come out of every graduating class. But the definitions of what makes a good grad are ambiguous. One thing remains: Despite the notion that niche is more marketable, a good journalist can think critically about the connections between subjects. Every expert and his or her mother has a blog these days, so the need is for those who can offer an objective, analytical perspective and use the connectedness of the Internet to put it all together.
It seems like the relationship between workplace preparedness, the availability of jobs and job seekers, and journalism school training methods share a weird, inverse relationship. Often the most qualified professors got their qualifications in a very different media climate, which is not to say they're not keeping up with modern trends, but they are learning right alongside their students in the hustle of changing media. On a side-note, today's journalism students have developed an unhealthy dependence to Google, a counter-productive sin I myself am guilty of. In order to tailor training to fit the new way of doing things -- Google and every other new "tool" included -- with the expectation that the training is to prepare students for journalism jobs, there have to be journalism jobs out there to attract the graduates. This Advanced Editing class is a disturbing indication of what kind of talent the industry is losing to law school. In order for that to happen, the industry as a whole has to figure out the big question: How can journalists make money while information remains free?
There are micro-examples of success, strangely concentrated in the Seattle area, but unless outsourcing local news to hyper-local startups is the secret to national success, it's hard to see how that can be a sustainable model everywhere. Citizen journalists, who embody the conflict between information by the masses vs. information for the masses, work against any efforts to compensate trained professionals for work that most in the business would prefer to classify as more than a hobby or a post-retirement venture. While some outsiders see it as a way to get more information from niche areas, they, as does much of modern society, undervalue the work that goes in to creating an accurate piece of news. Traditional-leaning veteran journalists blow off citizen journalists as children playing dress-up.
This same group in question, the past-time press, is the sparkle in Charlie Beckett's eye. Father Beckett preaches the digital gospel with hope and optimism, which can often be considered naiveté and idealism. But he balances out what he calls the "fortresses" of old journalism, stuck in the ways of the past. Somewhere there in the middle lies the solution.
Or what if the solution is outside of journalism entirely? What if it's...government? Now, get that pesky "S" word out of your head. This is not a health care debate just yet. Government funding of the press has been proven successful, not only currently with the BBC, but in our own American history. A postal subsidy wouldn't quite do it these days, but something equally hands-off could keep that distance between the co-dependent entities and ensure the objectivity of the press and prevent a government grip on content.
Maybe the solution is outside of everything. It might even have to be a model that doesn't exist or that has never existed in history. If the technology that's causing this crisis in funding came from innovation and doing something that has never been done before, we're going to have to start thinking way out of the box (or the "fortress," if you will) that our ancestors spent the last 150 years constructing.
No comments:
Post a Comment