Blog first: write for print second
By Andrew Grant-Adamson • Jul 21st, 2008 • Category: Blogging, Newspapers, OnlineThe intro on Jeff Jarvis’s Digital Media column in the Guardian today had a familiar ring. It was, given a bit of subbing to sharpen it up, the same as one on his blog on July 10.
Is this testing the argument or, in the web jargon, some form of “crowd-sourcing” or a kind of informal “wiki”? It certainly has the merit of not rushing into print with the first thought that comes into your head.
There were 77 responses on the original Buzzmachine post – Google as the new pressroom — although some were from Jarvis himself and at least one person left two as the debate progressed. It is fascinating debate and a very important one about whether online newspapers should give up trying to sell ads and managing the technology to concentrate on the journalism.
This sort of testing saves confusing Guardian’s readers through refinement of the argument and the clearing up of ambiguities. As Jarvis said of his original post: “I’m causing confusion aplenty.” I commented: “He sure is — thinking as the responses to his latest post come in. Not unusual for Jarvis.”
The tradition of journalism has been to think before you write. You know that any inaccuracies or weak arguments will be quickly exposed. The web now provides a means of testing before launching your thoughts on the larger audience.
This may be a good thing. Imagine Polly Toynbee at the Guardian itself, or Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail submitting their ideas to an informed blog audience before writing the final version.
Besides the obvious problem of delaying publication on topical issues, it is an idea. Whether it is a good one or not, I don’t know. One thing I am fairly sure of is that readers of the print edition and the online paper should be told if an article has been subjected to a public “peer comment” process. Perhaps the paper’s readers editor Siobhain Butterworth should look into this.
PS: If Google (or possibly another internet giant) is so good at hosting (eg Blogger) and ad sales that it should provide a platform for newspers, I wonder why Buzzmachine is a self-hosted Wordpress blog and, in addition to Google ads, uses (and actively sells) Blogads. Maybe the point about the supremacy of Google is made when I look at the Buzzmachine post adorned by a Blogads contribution selling pants (UK meaning not US).
Andrew Grant-Adamson is Andrew Grant-Adamson is a journalist who now teaches a new generation of writers, subs and editors at the University of Westminster.
Email this author | All posts by Andrew Grant-Adamson
[...] some genuine insight into the state of the profession and technological developments affecting it. [Andrew Grant-Adamson] Blog first: write for print second The intro on Jeff Jarvis’s Digital Media column in the Guardian today had a familiar ring. It [...]
THERE’S NOTHING TO FEAR FROM “CROWD SOURCING.” IN PRINT. OR ANYWHERE.
IT IS JUST THAT THE DIGITAL MEDIA OFFER A FASTER, CHEAPER AND MORE FLEXIBLE PLATFORM.
I love the hell out of the digital media, make money from it, have fun with it, argue with it, shop with it…
But when I started with serious journalism in the print media, we made newspapers by pouring molten lead into molds, casting half-cyclinders of lead plate and bolting to them to presses.
And yet, “crowd sourcing” was commonplace. One handy way to bring life into a story was to just send reporters onto the street for “man on the street” interviews. They were almost always fun and the readers loved them.
Newspaper self-help columns published 24-hour phone numbers where people could leave questions and comments on answering machines. They could give their names or remain anonymous.
I could list dozens of pre-digital techniques that amounted to “crowd sourcing.” Not all newspapers used them. The newspapers that did built better relationships with readers than those who didn’t.
No, there’s nothing to fear in “crowd sourcing” for newspapers. I agree that related blogs should be disclosed — WITH LINKS. That would increase web page views — at almost no cost to the newspaper.
There’s no ethical issue there. Just good business sense.
REG CROWDER
Freelance Financial and Investment Writer
http://www.utalkmarketing.com/Blogs/UserBlogs.aspx?UserID=6304
http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TgTQ/REG-CROWDER
Using the web as a pre research tool before you publish is gaining ground.In a good post over at Wordblog,Andrew Grant Adamsonwrites that The tradition of journalism has been to think before you write. You know that any inaccuracies or weak arguments will be quickly exposed. The web now provides a means of testing before launching your thoughts on the larger audience.
Andrew,
I’ve blogged this before: When the Guardian approached me to write the column, they said they wanted me to take ideas I was exploring in the blog and turn them into columns. I love the process; ideas get shaped with the help of readers. And I don’t always know what posts could become columns.
Yes, I think all journalists should avail themselves of their wise crowds. It’s a generous world and a smart one and putting those together will only benefit their work.
This is part & parcel of my argument that we need to look at journalism more as a process than a product. In that sense, the column is only a stop on the train. The discussion proceeds online before AND after publication, as it is here and now.
Why you think this is a matter of ombudsy disclosure, I’m not at all sure. what’s the issue? In any case, I said in that column that I had blogged about this and that some of the ideas, particularly Bob Wyman’s, came from the comments.
As to your PS: I have Google ads. I used to host on Blogger (and - full disclosure - I got my employer to invest in the company that created it) but I switched because at the time WordPress was better. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not suggesting that Google must be THE platform. It’s an illustration of the idea of outsourcing what we don’t do well so we can concentrate on what we do well. I’ve said that we should do what we do best and link to the rest. This holds for our businesses as well.
Jeff Jarvis is paid by The Guardian out of the profits earned by the high cost printed newspaper.
Despite the huge success of The Guardian on the web, it still does not generate anything like the money from the 80p of newspaper buyers and print ads.
Could you, Andrew, and Jeff suggest what to do about that?