With more newspaper and magazine titles utilising apps, whether on tablets or mobile phones, to enhance their brands, we must accept that apps are going to be around for a while. But while they’re at the cutting edge of technology now, allowing us to access multimedia content and interact with the reader community (as you can see below), there’s always going to be new technology that renders the previous fad old-fashioned. There was a time that we thought those giant Zack Morris cellular phones were the future- now we can access breaking news on a screen that fits neatly in your pocket. So, there are two big questions I have- what is coming next, and as journalists, will be even be prepared for it?
Currently, the journalism curriculum in colleges and universities trains students in writing, the legal practicalities of the industry, and production. Even this is drastically different from previous courses- journalists a few decades ago would never have dreamed of having to be able to put together the magazine they were writing for. But we are not being trained in computer science, or how to create apps, or in any of the burgeoning technologies shaping our industry. If we believe that journalists have to be proficient in all the technologies that they will be expected to utilise, then we are leaving university with a degree that has not fully prepared us for our career. Richard Keeble, in his 2006 book The Newspapers Handbook, discussed this concern, saying that “scepticism about the value of theoretical studies for aspiring reporters remain widespread”.
I got into journalism because I adore writing. It was the career that would allow me to be paid for doing what I loved. However, I’m just not technologically minded, and even struggle with Macs. Even though being a journalist is still my dream, I’m not sure that the industry I imagined myself in still exists. I believe I could be a successful magazine writer. But a journalist, which in today’s sense of the word means a writer, website designer, graphic designer, analyst, and all-round techie? I’m not so sure.
Robert Niles called the print journalism world the “fastest dying industry in America“, and if we consider how technology has spread throughout the newsroom, he has a valid point. Will the role of a journalist soon be replaced by a robot-like tech head- or indeed, an actual robot? Only time will tell. However, with the general consensus being that print is dying out (e.g. this article from Brian Solis puts forward this idea), the role of journalist will not be the role we were trained to undertake.
emmanicheallaigh 
So, do you think journalism students should consider taking on a computer science (or computing, etc) minor as well if technology-based education isn’t offered in their journalism major? I count myself lucky to be considered for the most part tech-savvy, but I can see how it would be a hindrance in the industry to not be. Would you consider taking part-time computer courses (or classes in something like InDesign, Illustrator, etc) if you thought you could get ahead?
Definitely, I think that to get a job in the magazine industry that at least a basic knowledge of In Design is needed. I would consider taking a class outside of university to teach me these skills, but I would feel sorry for those who have graduated in the past few years with only a few skills in Word and other basic programs. But if we believe that print will eventually die and all the jobs will be involved in the tech side, would we be better off taking courses that are purely technologically based?
I think if we start taking classes that are based solely in a technology field, we are no longer studying journalism – we are then studying computing. Surely even if print were to ‘die’, journalists would still be required to write (albeit online)?
I agree with your point; if the focus shifts to digital, writing would still be a necessary skill. I actually love online journalism and find that I use the same skills in writing for a website that I would for a magazine. However, if we take the example that we gave in our presentation- that the industry may go in the way of apps- writing wouldn’t be as important. If the role of the journalist fell to sourcing video and writing captions, I’m not sure our role would really be necessary.
This really opens up the debate about what constitutes a journalist today. It does scare me that if the industry carries on going in this direction, then our role could be in jeopardy. As you’ve both pointed out it would become a pre-requisite of anyone studying journalism to have a solid grounding in technology. Not only do we still have to contend with law exams, shorthand classes, and an excellent knowledge of all forms of writing, we are also having to grapple with gaining as much work experience as we have the time or energy to fit in. Employers are expecting more and more from budding journalists – anyone who has knowledge of online media, html coding or video, along with the previously mentioned would woop anyone else’s arse to a potential job position in an instant. These skills are all going to have to be strung to our metaphorical bow if we want to have a chance of competing. But will this mean we have to spread ourselves too thinly, we will become a jack of all trades, master of none? Is it too much pressure for those who had the seemingly impossible dream to just write for a living?
The issue you raised about spreading ourselves too thinly is one that really needs to be addressed. I spoke to a news and web editor at Kerrang magazine this week, who said that the group of three journalists who run the Kerrang website are on the magazine staff. I know from experience that editing even a small section of a website is time-consuming, and I can imagine that adding another editing role to my workload would have meant cutting corners on the site. In a multimedia environment, can a journalist really be expected to deliver a high standard in every area, when they’re expected to do so much?
I also find the point of being spread thinly interesting. I think that part of a journalist’s role is being out in society, observant, aware, experiencing things as they happen and playing an active part in reporting. I also think that being a good writer is not just about adequate spelling, grammar, and vocabulary – it is also about life experience, personal anecdotes, and varied sources of inspiration. If we barely have time to study, read, attend, edit, or produce that which is required of us, how can we have personal time to develop ourselves as well? As Emma mentioned, we are expected to deliver to high standards, but if we barely have time to sleep, it is frightening to think that we might not be able to produce to our personal capabilities.
It is this sort of issue that makes me think that working for a certain section- whether that be the print magazine or the website- would be beneficial to entire newsroom. While this is obviously a bit of a pipe dream, with staffs being decreased everywhere, would it not be better for one journalist to complete one task really well, rather than doing three or four tasks sloppily? If we want to uphold the standard of journalism, I think editors really need to look at how the workload is shared.
These are both interesting points. In my interview for a place on this course I was asked what makes a good journalist, and one of the first, and most important things I mentioned was being well read. I cannot believe that in the modern workplace journalists have the time or energy to read, let alone get out there and find stories. On a lot of my internships the editors of a magazine have explained that this is why interns are so valuable to them (although not so valuable they have to pay them most of the time!) Those carrying out work experience are usually young and in touch with things that are new or up-and-coming and this is why magazines and newspapers need us. WE are the ones that have the time to go out and visit places, meet people, and see what the NEW NEWS is.
I’m glad that editors are still in touch with what makes a traditional journalist- meeting people, gathering the news and writing up coherent copy. I just hope that that stays the norm when we are ten or twenty years into our careers! Another worry that the whole breaking news, technological culture brings is that news is being gathered from sources like Twitter, rather than living and breathing sources. Do you think that actual interviewing and going out to get the story will become the old way of doing things?
I don’t think that interviewing will ever become old hat – i think it is fundamental in order to corroborate stories, and to add depth and interest to a feature. However it is certainly the case that journalists don’t have the time to go out and get stories any more, this may be why the content for stories is often re-blogged or posted for other online sources. I would be interested to know how editors feel they are going to stay in touch with stories that are affecting real people, particularly those on local newspapers. I have been reading ‘Online News: Journalism and the Internet’ by Stuart Allan. In it, there is a passage which demonstrates the challenges editors face in trying to stay relevant to their audience. No one should know this better than Rupert Murdoch, who is referenced here.
“While the speed of technological change is a pressing concern, even more worrisome for Murdoch is ‘the ability to make the necessary cultural changes to meet the new demands’. To succeed in effecting a ‘complete transformation of the way we think about our product’ will entail recognising, in turn that ‘too many of us editors and reporters are out of touch with our readers’. Rather than asking ‘Do we have the story?’ the question should be ‘Does anyone want the story?'”
Allan, Stuart, Online News: Journalism and the Internet, 1 Edition, Open University Press, 2006
Personally I think that newspapers need to stick to the tradition of going out and getting stories – at the end of the day that is how you will get a real news story, that no one else will know about. Some dedication and digging will hopefully lead you to an exciting story, that is truly original and not something that’s been seen before. What do you think? Do you think editors are slacking with their news content?