Image via Obsessable

I’ve been at the new job since November 8 and while I’m absolutely thrilled to have found an editorial gig in this environment, something is already gnawing at the edges. The problem isn’t really a problem per se. It’s just that I’m on the digital side of a print publication and for the first time in my nascent career, I slightly mind not writing for print.

I’ve seen my byline in print before so I know what it feels like. I’ve also greatly enjoyed writing for an online audience. But as a friend who works for a digital-only publication said, a Google Alert isn’t quite as thrilling as a print byline. I ruefully agreed.

As I type these words, I can hardly believe I feel this way. If you know me even a little bit, you know that I’m a huge proponent of digital. I think about print vs. digital media constantly. I can’t even begin to link to all the things I’ve written about this here. Go to the little search box all the way down on the page and search for keywords like “online” “news” “digital” “print” and “media.” You’ll find a lot there. 

And yet… print still feels weightier, more substantial, more meaningful. I don’t want it to feel that way, but it stubbornly does.

I could see another friend nodding along to my complaints when we chatted about this online. She too works on the digital side of a print publication and she is also responsible for their social media efforts. “Sometimes I feel left out of what’s going on,” she said. “And I feel overwhelmed.” Sure, these are the feelings of one person, but I think it means something that it’s precisely how I feel. It’s not approximately how I feel. It’s 100% exact.

Why is this so?

A full year ago, I was already starting to sense this problem and some of the reasons. Print makes more money than the online product and that’s literally and figuratively the bottom line. As long as this continues to be true, print will feel more important and be treated as such within an organization and outside of it. But print revenues are dropping, even for the New York Times. And an exaltation of digital still seems to come at the expense of print, even for the New York Times. I know that there are people looking to the future and working to change the way things are done, but it still seems agonizingly slow. As David Carr recently wrote:

The reason that newspapers put all the white paper out on the street is that we get a lot of green paper back in return.

Don’t misunderstand me by the way. I’m extremely happy at my job. I have autonomy, the full support of my superiors and great co-workers. There are many challenges and I am eager to meet them. There is room for tremendous growth and I look forward to being an integral part of it. This feeling, this slight discomfort is technically no one’s fault. It’s Just The Way Things Are.

Still, I’m trying hard to understand why I have these feelings. Part of it has to do with this. The digital realm is indeed a great equalizer. No one cares if you’re a full-time, paid employee or a lone blogger. What matters is the content. I used to revel in this when I was a blogger and beholden to no one. Now that I’m the former (a full-time staffer), the view is a bit different. I still love that the Internet is very anarchic and wary of authority by its very nature. But I’m suddenly very aware that in that environment it’s a bit more fun (though not as lucrative) to be on the outside. It’s easier to push for change outside of the system than within it. That, I believe, is an iron-clad rule that is true in politics, media and many other areas of human endeavor. 

I’ll tell you what would be really nice. It would be nice if publications were digital-first, whether or not they issued a print product. Right now, we still seem to be farther from that than we should be and I’m far from the only one who’s deeply frustrated. To the detriment of both print and online, the two are still seen as separate products. Organizations seem to lack the workflows and even the vocabulary to make the change to digital-first.

If I’m wrong and someone is doing this really well, please clue me in. The only thing that ever comes to mind for me is The Atlantic. I’m a print subscriber so I see both the print and digital product and I have to say that both are wonderful. One doesn’t infringe on the other and the quality of the work is excellent in both mediums. Still, I don’t necessarily see a linkage between the two. If I saw the website only, would I know that it’s also a print magazine? If I saw only the print edition, would I know they have a website as well? I can tell you that for at least a full year, the answer to the first question for me was no. I had been enjoying the website for quite a while without knowing that this was actually a print magazine. 

Perhaps it’s not surprising that many journalists and writers of the techie persuasion are going to work for, well, tech start-ups or starting their own media companies or news websites. As Dave Winer (one of my favorite people writing online) noted: 

If you’ve created too complex a world, the next generation will just create a new one that’s simpler. One that they understand and you don’t.

The “complex world” is the current media landscape and the new one that’s being created is all too often not inside established news organizations.

Image via GeekWithLaptop.com

I’m speaking to a UIC (my alma mater :-)) journalism/media writing class on November 30. I of course majored in political science and only took up media two years ago. In any event… I’ve got some ideas for what to tell them, but I’d like to collect yours as well. 

If it matters, this is an undergrad class.

What should they know about the media industry as it looks today, job prospects, how to market oneself, etc? Please leave ideas in the comments, share your own stories of professional successes or failures, etc. Thanks everyone!

More than in any other area of journalism (possibly with the exception of the financial press), political reporters should have a clear allegiance at all times to the citizenry. What does this mean?

This means that the ideal political reporter should have no thought in their minds other than things like this:

• How can I give my readers the best information on their elected leaders and institutions?
• How can I best explain what that information means?
• How can I enhance my readers’ desire for civic participation?
• How can I best advance the issues my readers care about? 
• How can I help my readers make sense of what’s happening in their political system?

In other words, political reporters’ primary concerns should not be things like:

• How can I best enhance my reputation as a political reporter?
• How can I best enhance the reputation of my newspaper/TV station/etc?
• How can I best communicate the message of the politicians I cover?
• How can I best show how savvy and “on the inside” I am in the political arena?

What happens when this all goes awry? I live in the Chicago area so let me give you a local example of what I’m talking about.

The current mayor of Chicago has reigned for over 20 years. He is finally abdicating his throne and, as you can imagine, there are many contenders. One of them is former U.S. Senator from Illinois, Carol Mosely Braun. Recently, she has been telling anyone who would listen that the race’s arguable front-runner, Rahm Emanuel, was directly responsible for the Democrats’ recent mid-term losses and that he abandoned President Obama in his hour of need.

First she told the Sun-Times. 

Then the local NBC affiliate. 

I’m sure there were many others which I don’t have the time to round up right now.

Now, if you are a Chicago voter, what have you learned after reading the Sun-Times story and subsequent reports of Ms. Mosley-Braun’s pronouncements? Have you been given any information that will make you a more informed voter? Have you learned anything substantive about either Emanuel or Mosely-Braun? Have you deduced their stance on the issues that matter in this election?

In other words, all this report has done is served as a bright, shining example of horse-race journalism. The voters are not being informed of anything and are therefore further disengaged from the political process. After all, one does not interfere in a horse race or a boxing match or any other contest of that sort. The only people allowed in the ring are professionals (politicians, lobbyist and strategists, political journalists and commentators, etc).

It’s difficult to say how much his type of coverage of politics has damaged the electorate’s desire to participate or to even believe that they can make some sort of difference. So please, let’s all commit to stopping it now.

If you are a reporter, communicate this to your editors.

If you are an editor, communicate this ethos to your reporters.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, if you are a news consumer who feels disappointed by this type of coverage: demand better of your media.