Mindfulness of the Complexities of the Journalist and the Reader

The central thesis in my research is to create a strategy for “branding” a journalist, using new media and business models.  My analysis will assess the changing landscape of communications, such as the Internet and social websites, and see how to bring clear, reliable voices to news consumers.

During my examination of the ever-shifting forms of communication, I noticed a common theme of “convergence.”   Convergence has become a buzzword representing the current push to provide information through several channels.  A working definition can be (1.) to come together or towards the same point and (2.) to approach from different directions.  To apply the term to the media suggests the classic inverted pyramid, a broad funnel of information on top with the point resting firmly on the consumer. Instead of solitary strands of information leading to an interested individual, converged news becomes a blend of formats co-existing to create a service, not a product.

My focus rests on the feeling that it would be incomplete to discuss the rise of new methods of expression without examining how professionals can develop skillsets that embrace these opportunities. 

Working within a converged media, it is important for the journalist devise a strategy to market their talent through more than one avenue.  The journalist cannot rest on just one foundation, such as print alone.  A fluency of online and broadcast methods can only improve a reporter’s viability.  In the desire to develop a brand, it is necessary to develop traits such as credibility in many platforms. It helps to understand how methods such as branding are essential for success in the ever-changing structure of today’s media. 

It is with this in mind we discuss the concept of convergence.

In the book “Convergence Culture,” Henry Jenkins discussed the pioneering theories of MIT political scientist Ithiel de Sola Pool: “‘Once upon a time,’ Pool explained, ‘companies that published newspapers, magazines, and books did very little else; their involvement with other media was slight.’ Each medium had its own distinctive functions and markets, and each was regulated under different regimes.”  A broad vision is needed in the new business of journalism.

Historically, it had always been the main task of business to market products (or services like news information) to an audience.  Success rested on the ability to gauge interest and predict trends—an elusive goal for many.  In addition, the media of the past itself had limitations.  Dominating the media were niches with limited crossover.  Any particular medium, even though having a loose relation to other forms of communication, for the most part did not infringe on the territory of the other.  Television was separate from radio, and both were distinct from print, which itself was split into magazines and newspapers.  There was little coherence across platforms.

The rise of the participatory culture of the Internet changed all that. Convergence puts providers of content, as well as consumers, in a turbulent climate of information.  The Internet succeeds in binding traditional forms of communications, becoming a sort of convergence glue. It is hard to imagine any form of news or entertainment that is not now embracing the Internet as a way to connect and expand its core audience.  

The Internet is only the most visible catalyst of convergence. Newspapers and television have become increasingly cooperative, where stations are “partnering” with papers to offer more in-depth product.  Of course, such consolidations also stem from a struggling economy, where cutbacks are commonplace.

The struggle to keep up with reader preferences reflects not only an age-old need for business to predict flowing trends, but also to keep up with a now-raging torrent of tastes, set about in a hyper-drive.  Blink and you will miss your next customer.

Convergence represents a movement of information through channels that are constantly broadening, as opposed to the centralized models of the past.  In our participatory culture, new technologies give consumers a great degree of freedom.  They have the power to change preferences, and do not hesitate to exercise that power.  Media organizations are competing for readers and viewers with a frenzy unlike any time in history.  

In addition, the ability for consumers to offer immediate feedback and insight makes them more a valuable resource.  We are able to instantaneously know what is important to the reader, and tailor services to fit their needs. 

However, reader feedback in journalism creates a fine line.  Instead of giving the audience what they only want to hear, offering a product narrowly constructed and manufactured, the new converged journalist must seize the opportunity to broaden the knowledge and education of the reader.  Knowledge of audience tastes poses a challenge: to give them what they want, while getting them to see something new.

Author Bill Tancer sees convergence culture as something more: “search and Internet behavioral data can go beyond simply providing the strength of a candidate or a computer’s brand; it can provide insight into the decision process itself, and unlike with traditional surveys, this observed behavior isn’t skewed by any participant bias.”

Competition for viewers is not a new challenge. It has always been the “hard sell.”  But today the forums have changed, now with a new twist. 

In researching business models, I have found several methods of marketing and consultation that offer strategies applicable to journalists.  As a business model, consulting offers several tips the writer can use to get his message to a wider audience.

The most important rule in consultancy is to understand the client—to see problems from the client’s standpoint.  This is equivalent to a writer knowing their audience.  This important lesson of consultancy is in the ability for the journalist to embrace fully the reader’s point of view, translating complex issues to a larger audience.  Being able to identify topics that affect people, understand universal themes, as well as clearly tell a story is the best opportunity to show readers you have what it takes to earn their trust.

This increased dialogue between journalist and reader is the mark of an age of transition, full of competing interests and unintended consequences.  Convergence of media only heightens the multifaceted nature of modern communication.   Mindfulness of these complexities will determine success in branding voices in journalism.

The New Media

We are in a time where the news comes to us from everywhere.  Wireless telephony, with hand-held devices such as cell phones, netbooks and iPads, is bringing the individual a never-ending stream of data. It is only up to us to whom we listen.

Convergence in media is a process that succeeds in creating the perception of choice.  Multiplying the strands of communication leads to a wealth of available information.    It is now, with the advent of convergence, where the capacity to access information and news is obtainable to a wide audience.  This leads to higher—perhaps unrealistic—expectations; journalists know readers possess tools to search the Internet for additional information.  The push for accuracy is like never before. To be viable in the increasingly competitive information marketplace, the journalist must stay abreast of the capacity of a changing audience.

However, is the direction of constant information one that will promote an insightful citizenry?

The ability to take data from several sources has always been the mark of discerning thinkers. News is a major factor in promoting an informed and educated society.  It is the reason our Bill of Rights affords us a freedom of the press separate from free speech and expression. As Epictetus wrote, “Only the educated are free.”

According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, news flows from several sources, allowing users to “pick and choose” simultaneously.

Asked specifically about their news habits on ‘a typical day,’ the results are striking: 99% of American adults say that on a typical day, they get news from at least one of these media platforms: a local or national print newspaper, a local or national television news broadcast,  radio, or the internet. (Edmonds, et al., 2010)

Today’s news is increasingly fragmented.  In addition to the traditional sources, cable and Internet news websites offer 24-hour news cycles that thrive in immediacy and change. With this appeal, news reflects patterns of thought that are byproducts of increasing Internet use. In a 2008 article in The Atlantic, changing models of thinking are affected by reliance on search engines such as Google.

“As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our ‘intellectual technologies’—the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies,” writes Nicholas Carr in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle. (Carr, 2008)

The more the Internet is involved in our lives, the more our brains become “wired” to reflect the tools we use.  Our minds develop to be increasingly “staccato,” sweeping along text as users evolve into consumers skimming over chunks of data, as opposed to balanced examination.

In a 2008 survey of virtual library usage conducted by the University College London, the “Google generation” is showing an alarming lack of depth.

The use of the Internet is “a form of skimming activity, where people view just one or two pages from an academic site and then ‘bounce’ out, perhaps never to return. The figures are instructive: around 60 per cent of e-journal users view no more than three pages and a majority (up to 65 per cent) never returns.”

“…deep log studies show that, from undergraduates to professors, people exhibit a strong tendency towards shallow, horizontal, ‘flicking’ behavior in digital libraries. Power browsing and viewing appear to be the norm for all. The popularity of abstracts among older researchers rather gives the game away.  Society is dumbing down.”

During a speech in 2000, science journalist Laurie Garrett talked of what is missing in the flood of information through the modern media. Writing about health issues, Garrett has won Peabody and Polk awards, as well as the 1996 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism.

“What suffers in this atmosphere of immediacy is analysis,” Garrett says.  “What suffers in this search for speed is depth. The wealthy world media is becoming increasingly simplistic, superficial and celebrity focused.”

It is certainly cause for concern over the degree of skimming while utilizing the Internet for academic research, although there may be a trend even more troubling for journalists.  

If news for the “Google generation” exists simply for superficial examination, it suggests a degree of homophily, where Internet “surfers” only view information that falls in line with their existing worldviews.  There are people who do not experience the Internet beyond a short list of “bookmarks.”  The vast choice of the online world leaves some to restrict information to only that which appeals to their comfort zone. 

Thus, online, people can hear others articulate sentiments similar to their own, and can gather arguments and evidence to reinforce their own positions. In their offline worlds, if they perceive themselves to have a different set of opinions on a political subject from those around them, they can go online and find support. They can find reassurance, for example, that they are not alone in their opinion. (Stromer-Galley, 2003)

           

            The spectrum of information that goes into a discerning citizenry could be limiting instead of broadening communication.  On news aggregate sites such as Fark.com, discussion boards offer a robust exchange of views over varied posted links.  What is telling about the depth of examination is the frequent use of the acronym “RTFA”—Read the Freaking Article (to be polite).  It is a common putdown to opinions posted without fully reading the topic of the discussion. It is also a signal to the superficiality of Internet discourse.

            
The amount of information online can also lead to a sense of distraction. Many workplaces are restricting access to various entertainment sites.  In a July 2, 2010 memo to Transportation Security Administration employees, websites with “controversial opinions” will be blocked on TSA computers. The TSA views the sites—such as “Gaming” and “Chat/Messaging”—as distracting and potential security risks.     

Wired magazine editor Brendan Koerner would disagree with “distracting.” In the March 2010 edition, Koerner suggests that the small breaks offered by sites such as Facebook and Twitter can actually help productivity.

“Humans weren’t designed to maintain a constant focus on assigned tasks,” Koerner says. “We need periodic breaks to relieve our conscious minds of the pressure to perform—pressure that can lock us into a single mode of thinking.  Musing about something else for a while can clear the way the mental detritus, letting us see an issue with fresh eyes, a process creativity researchers call incubation.”

In developing a voice for providing news for today’s audience, what is necessary is a mindfulness of the changing dynamic of the online audience.  Online writing, concise and presented in easily digested “chunks” to viewers constantly scanning a story for points of entry, is a form appealing to the fragmented thought patterns of the “Google generation.”