Letters from the Editor in Chief

As a graduating journalism student, I have been lambasted for the past two years by established journos telling we, the next generation, what the future holds.

But the point is, you don't really know.

Like all things of progress, the electronic landscape is home territory to youth . . . new ideas, new means, new priorities.

Traditional bureaucratic media institutions with their legacy investments and reluctant, slow-footed approach to change are simply in no position to tell us what will happen in the new media.

Youth and innovation created the medium that confounds you and we will most certainly be the force behind defining its potential in the coming years.

Maybe it's time you stoppped telling people like me what the trends of OUR generation of journalism will be and started asking us what YOU have to learn.

These are very important and timely questions.

But here is the bottom line.

Bloomberg and Thomson and other organizations which transmit "information" are paid huge sums by people who want information (or at least the information they gather).

Information "gatherers" (which would include reporters and jounalists) can choose to seek out information that has value to others (and for which they will be paid) or doesn't have value (for which they will not be paid or paid much).

If the gatherers are motivated by increasing the "common knowledge" which is interesting but not needed by anyone in particular they will find themselves increasingly marginalized.

This is not a value judgment on their contribution (which may be enlightening) but on their economic contribution which may be negligible.

That sounds rather mercenary but that is reality.

The trend of declining viewership and readership stems from the lack of truth put forth by todays mainstream media. You will find that if it is truth that your are broadcasting or publishing you will retain and even increase your viewership or readership. We are all tired of the propaganda that you try to pass off as news. I do not need some talking head to tell me how to think. I need them to give me all the facts objectively so I can make up my own mind. That's why your industry is in decline. Tell the truth and your industry will survive and prosper--continue telling lies and propaganda and your industry will languish and perish. It's as simple as that.

The problem with journalism (I'll say it again) is that the profession has morphed into, in most instances, nothing more than stenography.

If you, as the chief guy, want to make CBC journalism more relevant to persons such as me then I'd suggest having your people do more, much more, than simply showing up and reporting what someone has said.

Some (for instance) examples:

1. Press conference demanding Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist. Reporter dutifully records what is said. Nowhere in the story is there anything about the difficulty of recognizing a country that has never clearly defined its borders.

2. Politician cruises war zone and mentions progress, etc. Reporter gets it in the story. No mention that the politician's take is, well, a complete fantasy compared to the actual reality.

3. The so-called "War On Terror." Now there's branding. And reporters always make sure to get the branding in. The journalist are, in many instances, like songwriters, looking for a popular hook for a lyric.

While journalism is, unfortunately, a business, the secret to journalistic success, as a business, whether online or in a more traditional format, is truth. It is truth over access. That work is hard. It is expensive. And (newsflash) it is a product worth paying for.

Francis Penny

Concerning point #5 I think it is the height of arrogance and self-deception for journalists to think they can, or even should be a leading part of the Answer Culture, "offering up solutions, crusades, certainty and the impression of putting all the blur of information in clear order for people."

Besides the obvious fact that very few journalists have even basic training in many of the fields about which they report so confidently, #5 smacks of totalitarianism where the "right" answer is decided for citizens and simply presented to them to regurgitate without independent thought. The CBC's coverage of the climate change issue is a perfect example - the network executives clearly decided to promote only the UN side of the story and, aside from minor exceptions, all reporters and hosts stick to the script, "scientists agree that catastrophic global climate change is being caused by our CO2 emissions" when they know very well (or at least they would know, if they are paying any attention to the science (not the politics)) that nothing could be further from reality.

No, journalists should FOLLOW society, reporting on its activities in as unbiased a fashion as possible, not trying to lead society in areas in which they have no competence. Providing "solutions" to problems is what one does for one's children and, no matter the inflated opinions the media frequently hold of themselves, no rational person looks to the mass media for leadership on the important issues of the day.

This is quite an insightful analysis. Especially with reference to social and participatory media. I don't hear this so much as decrying media's impending obsolescence but to pause and reflect about changing paradigms.

Old media has much to teach new and emergent media (particularly in relation to ethics and accountability - in contrast to corporate outlaw media, which are actually both the same).

McLuhan argued that all media are just extensions of our sensory apparatus. Look at the content we're producing. What we're saying isn't all that different than what we've said before. We're just faster at it.

I'd be WILLING to pay a subscriber fee to online news and entertainment services if I could trust its provider.

Unfortunately, as a late bloomer boomer, geezer and wheezer, I just can't figure out how to use my credit card to pay for it online. I just don't trust new technology to do that. Sad but true.

I say there are millions more like me out here.

When we die off and the new generation which is techno comfie takes over maybe then the new tech will rule but until then give me newspapers, magazines and the tely anytime.

In responding to change, and the more general task of parsing complexity, the ignorance of youth (viz. Scott Valentine) is met with the hubris and conservatism of "wisdom" (cf. Tom Harris). Neither, alone, is productive.

Unfortunately, in addressing the problems faced by the News Business, there is also the naivete of enthusiastic consumers (viz. Roadrunnercabby). Yet, history has shown that straight subscriber fees aren't a sustainable solution (e.g., NY Times' aborted switch from full-free service to full-subscriptions online).

So what is the solution? It's actually fairly simple: For senior members of the establishment to consider new ideas (perhaps offered by young up-and-comers), but assessed in light of what has been learned from history. The main caveat, in achieving this, is to understand where past lessons no longer apply and from where to profitably draw new parallels.

On this, for example, management ought to take note that CBC.ca's latest podcast -- from "The Hour" -- is now #2 nationally. This is not just in news, but among all podcasts. How long did that take? Was there adequate internal support?

In looking to this new study as a catalyst, I hope CBC Management realizes that many of its answers are (or once were) to be found within the walls of its many offices. Hopefully, these can be identified and capitalized before being poached by the private sector (e.g., Alliance Atlantis).

Richard said " Unfortunately, in addressing the problems faced by the News Business, there is also the naivete of enthusiastic consumers (viz. Roadrunnercabby)."

Roadrunnercabby says: Huh! Richard should not confuse what the consumer wants and its willingness to reject unusable (confusing) new technology with naivete.

It's like this. I'm in my fifties and I surf the net when I have some time to kill. Most of my friends do likewise.

I read the newspaper and watch cbc tely and listen to radio one daily when I want the the news or what is happening in current events. Podcasts are cute but not practical for me.

That's my preference and suggest to you the preference of many tens of millions more consumers who will be around for many more decades.

If the media ignores that reality it does so at its own financial or readership or viewer peril. I control the on/off button Bud. Know what I mean.

By all means, address the needs of my children
(at least those up to their twenties) or my "tween" grandchildren for future investment. At this time they are interested in new tech tune downloads and ringtone downloads and video games mostly. Some use it for school projects. Some buy the occasional sweatshirt.

Just don't think I am ready to go there! At least not in the foreseeable future.

With respect to the CBC, I think it important to distinguish between journalism as a profit centre for a media tycoon, Lord Black comes to mind, and journalism as a public service. As a profit centre, who cares what they do, and I dare say the sillier it gets the more money they will make. I don't really care. You can't believe I would pay either attention to or real money for e.g. the Vancouver Sun - not even a page 3!

I *do* care about the CBC. Not particularly this news site, still less the National, but rather one must also include radio and, from time to time, Newsworld and it's SRC counterpart RDI (?) Having lived in the UK for some time I put this ensemble, believe it or not, and in general terms, rather above the BBC.

From your own days in Ethiopia you know what real information can accomplish. Did the CBC do that for profit? To gain market share? To reach out to total idiots who care for nothing but celebrities? Probably not, eh? Good on you!

Thus I dismiss points 1 - 4 as purely commercial with no relevance to the CBC, point 5 is a matter of style, and I greatly
appreciate Don Newman's gentle yet penetrating style, yet each to his own on this, and as for 6 and 7, you are more or less holding your own in my opinion.

A bit of a golden age, in fact. While I know you would never do such a vile thing, I dread the day when other credible media - you don't think I'll actually pay the National Post to finance Barbara's birthdays, they don't count - vanish behind subscription.

So, three cheers and a tiger for the CBC/SRC

Cheers,
dba

Well, this study points to the challenges of private media, but for the public media (CBC for example) I think the issues related to the quality of journalism are much more relevant. The reporters for the private media can say their reliance on pseudo-journalism is an unfortunate side-effect of being in a system where the profit of the corporation is the motive. (I can hardly watch Global without being sickened by how much of their news isn't real news, but rather spin-doctored misinformation and product-promotion efforts in disguise.) The "media ownership" issues are certainly different in Canada where it's the lack of varied ownership that's cheating us of diverse and meaningful news. From what I've seen, you CBC folks have a lot more freedom to be journalists and not just parrots or salemen. Last point: when I see the phrase "Argument Culture vs. Answer Culture" it just seems to mask the "investigative vs. advocacy journalism" issue (with the 'net dragging things more towards the latter).

I would also be willing to pay a subscriber fee but I want that fee to cover more than just one online newspaper because I read so many. If groups of papers got together and charged one fee for access to many online newspapers...I would pay.

A motivation you may have neglected for private ownership of media outlets: political influence. There is a reason for the epigram "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel".

Question re the Scott Valentine post:

So, Scott, what's the future of news?