Dear Newsroom Curmudgeon…
Time to take off your Curmudgeon hat
Steve Buttry is 57, and “I learned journalism in the old school, same as you,” he tells fellow “old-timers.”
I am steeped in the same values of accuracy, fairness, dogged reporting and good writing that you cherish. But I’m having as much fun as I’ve ever had in more than 40 years in journalism, I have as high regard for my colleagues’ work as ever and I’m as optimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of journalism and the news business.
If you would like work to be fun again, if you’d like to be optimistic again (or, if you never were, to finally be optimistic), I’m writing to tell you about the fun and optimism that I find in journalism.
Buttry addresses some possible reasons for why curmudgeons resist change — “You don’t like Twitter (or some other digital task)”; “too old”; and five others — in this very good essay. Your thoughts on it? (Scroll way down to read the comments.)
* Steve Buttry writes a letter to newsroom curmudgeons
Oh, go fuck yourself. (s) Curmudgeon
Reason #5 doesn’t quite deliver what Buttry promises.
“Maybe you’ve tried your hand at Twitter, blogging, video or some other tasks of digital journalism and you just don’t like them. Tough.”
Now, I happen to agree with Buttry. Every job has tasks we don’t relish. But how is it supposed to inspire optimism if a person simply has to endure more disagreeable tasks on top of the ones they already don’t like?
Enough with the lecture. How many people have you laid off or lured to a company like TBD where everyone was hung out to dry? While you hang on to your six figure salary and 401K. That’s so old media.
Too many of the brightest who still bother to major in journalism end up in other careers to pay off crushing loans.
Many veteran newsies have adapted and far better than you give them credit for, but they’re being forced out.
Regarding #5, Buttry also failed to provide any examples of how using these digital tools can help reporters and readers. Mindlessly doing stuff just because we’re supposed to conflicts with journalists’ DNA.
Sounds nice, but the reality (as we see in the Gannett buyouts) is that if you’re over 50, the suits simply want you gone. Doesn’t make much difference who good you are at the new stuff – you’re simply too expensive in pay and benefits compared to some idealistic kid willint to work for poverty wages.
*** how good you are *** willing ***
Geezer needs new glasses. Or at least a better monitor.
Sheesh. After reading the comments, we need a folo on Cranks.
In the comments on his post, Buttry is pretty dismissive of criticism of younger journalists and their writing, spelling and editing skills. Fair enough. But being dismissed as a newsroom curmudgeon is bitter when the asset-to-the-newsroom employee doing the dismissing routinely posts two-paragraph cop items without rereading the copy ONCE because “it can always be fixed later and I did spell-check it.” Yes, but you allowed the spell-checker to change the name of the road and you didn’t notice the first sentence had a word missing.
Buttry says he’s become a better self-editor. Many people in newsrooms of all ages do not do fact-checking and are not working to become better self editors. Google the name of the fire company to make sure it’s right? Why bother, just use what’s written on the police report (as though the police never make errors or take shortcuts when they type).
Curmudgeons also may be concerned about adopting new software in the cloud when they read in the terms and conditions that their work product will be owned or co-owned by some site. Sometimes even newsroom leaders get concerned — sure, Flickr is convenient, but does a newspaper want to share ownership of news photos? Does it want Google privy to its emails?
Finally, and this is not a snide question but a serious one, how is live-blogging an event different than the widely condemned notebook-dump reporting of meetings? Twittering or live blogging reports what happens as it happens and people can follow along, yes. The accounts can also serve as notes from the event, yes. The story can be compiled from said posts, yes. If the employer doesn’t allow time for additional research, interviewing, and writing to provide context, where is the added value a journalist brings to the process?
The Fair Labor Standards Act has some comments about creativity, the classification of employees, and journalism:
“Relying upon federal case law, the final regulations clarify that employees of newspapers, magazines, television and other media are not exempt creative professionals if they only collect, organize and record information that is routine or already public, or if they do not contribute a unique interpretation or analysis to a news product. For example, reporters who rewrite press releases or who write standard recounts of public information by gathering facts on routine community events are not exempt creative professionals. Reporters whose work products are subject to substantial control by their employer also do not qualify as exempt creative professionals.”
The law, of course, applies to employment classification. But some newspapers are turning creative professionals into Twittering notebook dumpers, so maybe those workers should be getting overtime now.
An increase in pressure to post can result in less and less creative and value-added reporting. If that makes me a curmudgeon, so be it.
I’m interested in new technology, but I want the time to reread my posts before I post, I don’t want to get caught up in trying to deal with a crashing notebook computer set to Twitter when I’m trying to hear what the mayor said, I don’t want to use my personal Facebook page where I communicate with my family to promote my employer, I don’t want to use my personal camera or phone or notebook computer to do my job when there’s no insurance or compensation for the expenses I take on to provide that equipment, I do want to learn new technology, I don’t want to learn it by having someone sit at the computer and show me what they do and assume I’ve been “trained,” and I do want to work a four- or five-day week, not a seven-day week (let someone else vet those comments some of the time).
I don’t defend the “curmudgeons” who supposedly hold the news industry back. But I do have a problem with a claim that Andy Carvin’s prolific use of Twitter to cover stories across the globe makes him the “best foreign correspondent working today.”
Clearly, this isn’t on the basis of attributes that we traditionally associate with foreign correspondents (going undercover, putting one’s own life at risk, being able to dig up new stories/insights while navigating non-English cultures and customs, etc etc). Fair enough, but then we should include all the editors of foreign bureaus and desks who “curate” their staff reports to produce sections/packages of impact. Did Carvin have more impact than the editors at NYT/CNN/BBC/NPR/Al-Jazeera etc? His work is innovative, but I don’t understand how it merits being the “best” in the field of foreign reporting…as we know it, anyway.
While curmudgeons may be a roadblock in the news industry’s ability to transition digitally, the problem lies more with top-down policies and initiatives that don’t have solid enough criteria or evidence to justify.
http://blogs.sj-r.com/alo/index.php/2009/07/01/when-your-mother-tells-you-she-loves-you/
Thanks for the link, Jim. I also appreciate the comments, even the critical ones. I am boarding a plane shortly and don’t have time to address all the comments (still have to get to more comments on my blog). But I will answer one question. I fired (I don’t lose the “laid-off” euphemism) 14 journalists when I was editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette. It was the worst day of my career, worse than the day I was fired. I fought like hell to avoid the layoffs, but the company decided to cut staff and I take responsibility for the cuts. I also left on my own a year later. I didn’t lure anyone to TBD. They started applying before we posted jobs. When the company cut staff, I was not consulted or involved. I helped my colleagues find new jobs and left swiftly myself.
Sorry, Steve, but you are fundamentally ignorant of so many things here. Yes, it is a problem that new journalists lack skills. If you don’t realize that, then you have issues. Get a newspaper from 20 years ago and compare it to one from today. Other than some reproduction and minor visual issues, the edition from 20 years ago will be superior.
Just calling anyone who disagrees a “curmudegon” is weak. You really have very few good points here. If you are going to rely on blanket insults as a defense, you need to get way better insults.
In the end, as I say to some people, you are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem — a big part of it.
“An increase in pressure to post can result in less and less creative and value-added reporting. If that makes me a curmudgeon, so be it.”
Co-sign.
Steve, I just wanted to add one arbitrary example to knock down the centerpiece of your weak argument, which seems to be that it doesn’t matter if younger reporters don’t know how to, you know, report.
I’ll use one of the area papers that has gone significantly downhill. Both the city “reporter” and the education “reporter” are younger, send LOTS of tweets about trivial things, and are pretty vocal about how they are “improving” their paper.
The city reporter referred last winter to a business that failed to shovel the walk outside its door. The implication, apparently provided by a city official, was that the business owner must have just been gone for the day and would be back on Monday to take care of it. One problem: The business had been closed for more than two years. This is basic reporting that was botched.
The education reporter writes in great detail about things like painting doors or whether to throw out broken kitchen appliances. Meanwhile, the recent education stories do little more than skim the surface. It’s a city with a lot of schools, so education is kind of a big deal. Recently a correction was posted for the spelling of an official’s name. He might have appeared in the paper a few thousand times before that article, yet somehow his name was misspelled. Again, basic reporting.
I’m sure you and your minions will then say these are isolated examples (they’re not), or that everyone makes mistakes, or something else that’s pointless. But these things hurt credibility. To constantly spout off about improving the paper and then to do these things is contradictory, at best.
Not saying that younger people shouldn’t be given chances, but based on recent trends, I have to assume that (1) They aren’t being educated well at the numerous underperforming journalism schools; (2) They aren’t being trained at their places of work; (3) They aren’t being edited well; (4) They aren’t being guided onto a better path after their errors are on display. Hate to break this, Steve, but in journalism, those mistakes ARE on display.
Again, Steve, just to reiterate — you are fundamentally ignorant about almost every issue here. Just calling people “curmudgeons” does not change that.
Either you need to get a lot more of a clue, or you need to get better insults. For someone who says he’s 57 and has so much experience, you seem to have missed a lot of things. Maybe you’re one of those people who has one year of experience 35 times, rather than 35 years of experience.
Robert, you should work on your accuracy skills. I have never, ever suggested in this piece or anywhere that it doesn’t matter whether younger reporters know how to report. I have spent decades teaching reporters of all ages how to report, using old tools and techniques as well as new. I welcome criticism of what I actually wrote. But your rant has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Steve, your memory of your own writing is as faulty as your knowledge of your topic. Just on a quick pass, I see:
* “You may be resisting digital journalism because you think journalism was so great back in the day and today’s journalism just doesn’t measure up.” It doesn’t. Like I said, look at papers 20 years ago, then look at today’s. Try to have your eyes and mind open as you do this.
* “Liveblogging during an event you are covering doesn’t take more time than taking notes during the same event.” Really, Steve? The liveblogging I see consists of little more than “I’m at the city council meeting tonight!” I guarantee a note about the meeting or a written question to ask after the meeting would take just as much time and be far more relevant. Strike two for you!
* “We stress getting the facts right (and correcting them quickly when we’re wrong). We stress fairness. We won’t tolerate plagiarism or fabrication.” All incorrect. Remember how many aggregators were screaming about this blog owner’s transgression? Some of them were appropriating the work of others without crediting it. Mark Gisleson comes to mind immediately. He had any number of uncredited editorial cartoons at his site, and I doubt they were his work. You don’t stress getting the facts, either. See the previous examples I cited.
* “I believe we are actually elevating the ethics of journalism. I believe our pursuit of transparency and our commitment to attribution and linking will actually upgrade the ethics of our profession.” Your beliefs are wrong. See the previous examples.
In summary, you should become less ignorant. If you are just going to rely on calling people “curmudgeons,” then you need better insults. As I said before, you might think you are part of the solution. But you are a huge part of the problem.
Where can I buy one of those baseball caps?
I really don’t think newspapers from 20 years ago were superior to those of today. And yes, that’s saying that after *extensive* archive diving in my local paper for news of that time period.
Tons of AP content, very little local anything, massive, massive pictures and layouts that were incredibly hideous? Meh. Today I can get my nonlocal news online, so I don’t really want that from my local paper. I want local news.
The needs have changed. Saying that “different” is “inferior” is very off-base.
K., there was tons of AP content because the newshole was so much larger. But I am not sure that is much of a criticism.
I would be surprised if there is more local content now. You might say there is more per page, but that’s because today’s editions are smaller. I can almost guarantee, though, that coverage of local governments was better to far better 20 years ago.
Blasting on layout is almost a non-sequitur. How many papers had digital photography and computerized layout 20 years ago? How would that number compare to now? Plus, I already mentioned visual issues. Photos are still too large today. The concept that every page MUST have a dominant photo means many photos get more play than they deserve.
The end of your point sort of works against you. How are today’s papers better if they don’t give you what you want?
Also, I don’t know which newspaper you are talking about. But I can guarantee that the large and medium-sized newspapers in my area were far better 20 years ago than they are now. I could provide a good deal of proof, given time to do so.
Nope. In the 1980s in the paper that I worked for (a medium-sized daily in the Midwest), there were sometimes *zero* local stories on any given day. Often, as a matter of fact, there was only one. When I worked for that paper in 2010ish, there were at least three local stories each day, minimum, with less than half the staff.
Coverage of local governments was about the same, and in some cases, far better in 2010 than in the 1980s. The 1980s newsroom had a much larger staff–of course, the challenges of doing layout and photography were both far, far more intense at that time and took a great deal more people.
Today’s papers do give me what I want. That’s exactly my point.
My needs now are for local news. 20 years ago, had I been a newspaper reader at that time, they probably would have been for nonlocal news.
People’s needs have changed since the 1980s, and what they want has changed. Keeping the paper the same would have been… well, odd, if you prefer that over “stupid.”
I don’t see a change in quality for the worse; I do see a change in content for the different–and as a response to the changing needs of the target audience.
I like the increased emphasis on local, as that’s the content that I, personally, am interested in, and cannot get anywhere else.
Different doesn’t necessarily mean worse. Sometimes it just means different.
My example does serve as a counterexample to the “everything is worse now” claims. Not everything is.
There’s at least one paper that is, at worst, just different, and it certainly could be claimed to be better.
As I haven’t counted the local stories for any other paper, I don’t know if it’s better across the board, but I can say definitively that it is not worse across the board.
You need to know each school’s URL? I usually just Google them…