Now that we’re a good five days into 2010 and you’ve already broken your own New Year’s resolutions, we at CJR would like to give you an opportunity to make resolutions for other people—specifically, for journalists.
With the aughts in the rear-view mirror, where should journalism be heading? What, to you, is the journalistic equivalent of joining the gym and quitting smoking? Should everyone stop blaming the poor Internet for newspapers’ tough times? What stories don’t get enough attention in the national discourse, and what can stand to get cut from the newshole? And what about the word “newshole?” There’s got to be some better term…
From journalism in general to specific journalists and news organizations, no target is too big or small. Everyone has some room for improvement. Resolve away on their behalf!
This is a petty,cosmetic thing but I'm tired of the super-glossy, glaringly bright, monitor-studded, megawatt studios on television news. From ESPN to CNN to network news, the in-your-face, lit-up-like-a-Christmas-tree look is everywhere. Are they all designed by the same TV newsroom interior decorator or something? How else did the glowing anchor's desk become such a staple? Wherever it came from, it's overload. Not to mention distracting. And it hurts my eyes.
I like the minimalist Walter Cronkite-style newsroom. A plain wooden desk and maybe a globe and a couple clocks on the wall to show the time in New York, London, downtown Kabul and wherever else important things are happening. Skip the holograms and the Magic Wall, while you're at it, too. Less is more.
But enough about my personal preferences, cutting the lights would spare more than my eyes in this recession-strapped, climate-changing era. It could save energy and some money on the electric bill, too. Not to mention spare networks the embarrassment pulling lame stunts like NBC's 2007 "green" initiative to broadcast Sunday night football in the dark.
#1 Posted by Ali Fenwick, CJR on Tue 5 Jan 2010 at 02:01 PM
I would dearly love to see an end to the practice of reporting on "the controversy" which lends credence to outrageous claims and distortions.
#2 Posted by Don, CJR on Wed 6 Jan 2010 at 12:05 PM
That collaboration between and among news outlets--old and new, foreign and domestic--expand and evolve. It is one of the best ways to ensure that old-media standards of reporting and verification take root in new media, and that new-media common sense and pluralism begin to replace some of the more autocratic and ineffectual tenets of old media. It is also the only way to comprehensively cover the world.
#3 Posted by Brent Cunningham, CJR on Wed 6 Jan 2010 at 01:18 PM
Please stop pretending that you can give away something online for free and charge people $2.00 for a stale, day-old paper copy of the same thing.
#4 Posted by Cezary, CJR on Wed 6 Jan 2010 at 02:41 PM
Please use proper citations which provide enough bibliographic information about he source cited that it would be possible to confidently identify it if it were in your hand. (No more references to an "a widely circulated industry report"). And while you are at it how about a link?
When citing the results of scientific research, there are almost always two sources : a press release from the research institution and a published scientific paper. Please READ BOTH and cite them both (with links).
There are very very few occasions for which anonymous sources are appropriate. Do not use them.
When writing an article that is a summary of a press release, link to the press release.
Please stop pretending that "traditional journalism" had ethical standards that new media lacks. The reason some new media companies make money and some of our traditional sources do not is not so much a business model problem as a content problem. Our failures in the last decade drove our customers away. (both advertisers and readers.
When building paywalls, be sure that every article has a citable landing page that can be accessed for free contains key bibliographic information to make a definitive identification of the content and informs readers about how to pay for it. And We should cite each other and use links to these landing pages.
#5 Posted by TimothyWMurray, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 09:52 AM
That journalism won't miss the boat on the next technological innovation. As widespread public internet access enters its teen years, technology continues to advance. One example is the wide array of "tablet" multimedia devices unveiled at last week's CES. While it's exceedingly difficult to change course once a precedent has been set (such as giving content away for free online), this could be a second chance for journalism since new technologies are unencumbered by these presuppositions.
#6 Posted by Will, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 02:21 PM
Ali--the electric bill at NBC? Are you kidding? The lighting for a news cast is very bright, but it's not on for hours and hours.
Cronkeit's minimal set was designed by an actual art director, not by Walt.
#7 Posted by Belinda Gomez, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 07:33 PM
That newspapers will give greater thought to putting more stories in context. It's one thing to read about, say, the latest clash between Jews and Palistinians. But for many readers, they still ask, "Why? Why is this happening in the first place?" It would be helpful if a side-bar could run with such "spot news coverage" -- perhaps in a box, perhaps labeled BACKSTORY, or something like that. It would help readers understand not only what has happened now, but -- briefly -- how things got this way. Might be a tall order, and eat up a lot of space, but it sure would help readers better understand complex issues.
#8 Posted by Paul Chimera, CJR on Fri 15 Jan 2010 at 03:04 PM