The discussion of what’s next was organized around two major themes: blogging and interactive multimedia packages. Despite all the buzz about these topics over the last few years, there is obviously still a lot of uncertainty and trepidation surrounding them. Why, when, and how to launch a blog or Flashy (like the software) graphic are not the only unresolved questions. The more fundamental puzzlement-are these products journalism?-still pops up surprisingly often, and many journalists seem to struggle with what should, by now, be a pretty simple answer: sometimes.
MSNBC.com’s Alan Boyle, who runs the blog Cosmic Log and has spent a significant amount of time developing impressive multimedia packages, tried his best to dispel some of the remaining fog about the increasing frequency of graphical elements used to buttress traditional reporting. He offered a nuts-and-bolts presentation of what is possible with varying degrees of interactivity, and the minimum newsroom resources and know-how (a three-person team with a point man, which he likened to Charlie’s Angels) to pitch and produce such a project.
Boyle’s matter-of-fact lecture contrasted with a talk the next day by Henry Jenkins, the co-director of MIT’s comparative media program, whose talk moved farther away from the realm of traditional journalism. Jenkins stressed the lessons for reporters in modern pop culture, highlighting video games like Spore, a Sim City-like product that allows users to create a life form and put it through the rigors of evolution. “This is usually something that’s covered on the entertainment page,” he told the crowd, “But shouldn’t science journalists be engaging with a game like Spore on the science page and explaining the underlying principles?” It was good point, but Jenkins doesn’t want reporters to merely cover these games, he wants them to emulate them in news packages. “Traditional journalism doesn’t ask [readers] to do anything,” he said, and creative new Web sites, “teach the public to think scientifically rather than just report science.” But many of Jenkins’ examples seemed to blur the line between genuine reportage and educational toys.
“I feel a bit queasy about the role of science journalism in this-it feels like too much PR,” said a reporter from the journal Science. “Is there a way to define journalism that is separate from all these other worlds?” asked another.
Mindy McAdams, who teaches journalism technology at the University of Florida, spoke after Jenkins and reinforced a few of his points while drawing the discussion back to the type of story-telling that most people in the room were familiar with. Like it or not, she said, “Journalists need different hooks to communicate with today’s YouTube and videogame generations.” McAdams, however, was very careful to point out that she was “not saying that you should stop writing long stories,” but rather was encouraging journalists to think about “layering” their stories in ways that were not possible before, and “letting the reader choose what he or she wants to do next.” The conference-goers seemed fairly impressed, or at least more comfortable, with McAdams’ suggestions and examples, although a few questioned whether research data supports the contention that fancy graphics actually boost readership of long stories and encourages people to spend more time on a publication’s Web site.
Nice write-up, Mr. Brainard. As one of the attendees -- the one who asked "Who will cook the pressed duck?" (see above) -- I was both intrigued and often alarmed by the emphasis on "new media" and its definition, seemingly, as something that did not involve reading very many words at one time. That was the meeting's declared focus, of course, and this was MIT, so I can hardly be surprised at this emphasis. But as my pressed duck worry attests, the look at new media seemed to have a little too much cheerleading and not enough skepticism, much like the early science reporting that Rensberger talked about.
Particularly bothersome to me was the assumption -- implicit in the language used, especially by Henry Jenkins in his otherwise fascinating talk -- that reading is not "participatory." Jenkins repeatedly talked about the need to offer the reader/consumer a "participatory" form of engagement. Perhaps what he really means is social -- something that involves more than just text (or text and image) and reader. But the repeated use of the word participatory for multimedia and "interactive" media forms clearly suggests -- seems to assume -- that reading is not participatory. I would argue otherwise, for reading is a deeply participatory process. That's why you have to pay attention when you read in ways that perhaps other media don't necessarily demand.
Posted by DaveD
on Wed 27 Feb 2008 at 01:53 PM