I haven’t really felt inspired to write a lot on any single recent journalism topic or development, but throw a few of them together, and I’ve got enough for a post.

Clay Shirky

Hey, I bet you haven’t read enough pontification about Clay Shirky’s pontification about the revolution that journalism is going through. So here are my thoughts:

• Interesting in parts, particularly the historical perspective of the printing press, but …
• The revelation that journalism is undergoing a revolution is, well, hardly a revelation.
• Especially liked this sentence: Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points. So true, which is why the more experimentation we have, the better.
• The article says that anyone asking the “how to replace newspapers” question is demanding to be told the lie that old systems won’t break before new ones are in place. That seems a rather simplistic view of the discussion, and one that I disagree with. One can fully accept the possibility that old institutions can die off without new ones ready to step into the void and still legitimately ask what new models will most likely rise to the top. In fact, is that question not the goal of all this experimentation — to find something to replace the journalism that print media has been doing? It’s true that we won’t know what model or models will emerge triumphant in the end until the end has passed, but that is no reason to stop asking ourselves and each other what we think will accomplish that task.

The whole thing is kind of just semantics anyway. I mean, who the heck tries a model that they don’t think at least has a chance of working? So in essence, before we launch every experiment, we have already asked, “Does this have at least a chance to help fill the void?” and have answered affirmatively. So I, for one, will keep asking, “How do we replace the journalism that newspapers have been doing?”

• Oh, and I wish Shirky would either fill out his “About” page or remove it. Kind of looks bad to have the “this is a sample page” filler text in there.

Jay Rosen-Dave Winer Podcast

I’ve listened to two of these things, and they are great, even if I only agree with Rosen and Winer about half the time. Some thoughts about the most recent one:

• The early segment of the show was kind of amusing, if for no reason other than listening to Winer trying to convince Rosen to be as worked up as he is about Twitter’s Suggested Users list, and Rosen persistently refusing to go along with it.

Personally, I don’t see what the big fuss is. Yes, I understand the point Winer is arguing, but for what percentage of Twitter users does that really matter? And as for the potential conflicts of interest for journalists, I see it as no more, and in fact, less of a conflict than having a journalism venture supported by advertisers. If being on a Twitter suggested users list is a huge problem, then it’s time for us to re-examine the whole notion of ad-supported journalism, or any kind of journalism that involves an outside party giving you money to support your work.

Besides, the key word in “Suggested Users List” is “suggested”, as in Twitter shows me some people, and I make the decision of whether or not to follow them (heck, I’ve never even paid much attention to that list until Winer brought it up). The ultimate power still rests with the user. And just as I’m sure that I won’t want to follow everyone on that list, I’m also certain that there are great, insightful voices in some corner of the Twittersphere that aren’t on the list, which means I will continue to seek those out on my own, list or no list.

• I was also amused by Winer’s “I want to publish through the New York Times but they won’t let me” complaint later in the show. I thought Rosen’s response was pretty good. He points out that for major media players like NYT to become more open to taking outside content, there needs to be a set of standards that are understood and followed by the outside contributors, like in the tech industry.

Rosen also points out that journalists are constantly bombarded with people who are trying to get the press to disseminate their messages, so they have developed the view that everyone is trying to sell them their own spin and have developed an instant aversion to any instance where someone wants to publish content through their platform. As a former journalist, I can’t say I disagree with that. Of course, I’m also now on the other side of that equation, working in PR, and from that perspective, I also cannot disagree with the part about constantly bombarding reporters with spin either. We don’t have an adversarial relationship with the media, and we don’t really “spin” our stuff much, but we do have messages that we want to get out through the press, and those messages are to OUR benefit above all else.

More Layoffs at N&O, McClatchy

The News & Observer is cutting another 11 percent of its newsroom as part of chain-wide layoffs at McClatchy. Whenever another one of these lovely news tidbits comes along, it really makes all the pontificating about journalism’s future seem insignificant to me when I read that X number of people have just lost their livelihood. Maybe that’s why the “save journalism, not its institutions” thing doesn’t sit well with me in some respect. It’s a fine idea for a discussion over the broad general direction of journalism (and a direction I agree with, just to be clear), but at the same time, it is kind of saying, “It doesn’t matter if these big news orgs that employ so many go under and their employees end up on the streets.” It’s easy to say you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, unless you are the eggs.

Yes, innovation and revolution are messy processes, and not all players will survive. But if given a choice between ensuring society gets better journalism or ensuring people stay employed so they can support their families, I think I would pick the latter every time. Call me shortsighted, curmudgeonly, or whatever you please, but that’s my human nature. In a “grand scheme of things” way, I can talk about how it doesn’t matter if existing companies go under, as long as the journalism void gets filled, but I find it impossible, not to mention distasteful and undesirable, to remain so detached when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of considering the consequences and impact on employees’ lives that inevitably accompany an institution’s demise. In that regard, the fates of existing companies do matter. Maybe that’s why I wrote the How to (Voluntarily) Become an Ex-Journalist series. Even when a company or an individual loses in this revolution, I feel like they deserve a bit more than just a shrug and the obligatory “oh that’s terrible” before they are swept into the gutter and out of sight to clear the way for progress.

Just my view, for what it’s worth.