The BBC is carrying what amounts to a "no shit, sherlock" story: Web is in its infancy, say Berners-Lee. And I suspect that the creator of the web is busy wondering why anyone thinks that this is news. (Update: It appears that quite a lot of people are thinking the same thing)After all, the web is a scant decade and a half old, yet most of the innovations that people are using daily, from streaming flash-based video, to social networking, have only come to prominence in the last half-decade. And, as Alan makes clear, that's just a blink of the eye in terms of most technological adoption.
We're only just beginning to understand what the implications are of moving from a static web to the live web (as Doc Searls has so delightfully termed it). His presentation at Le Web 3 '07 has stuck in my head for the last few months, and has finally bubbled its way into something meaningful in my conciousness. And here it is: .
The next mindshift change journalists need to go through is that they
no longer have a finished product. The issue is never complete. The
feature is never done. The news is always evolving. And this is hard for us old-school hacks.
If you were to ask a group of people what words they associate with
journalism, I'd lay odds that "deadline" would be in there somewhere.
But we're moving into a post-deadline age, when the publishing time is
now, and then as soon as you have new information. Or a new
conversation. Or a new contribution.
The web is providing us with the tools to move away from static "finished" story pages to ones that evolve and change with the news. And we need to work out how to adapt our journalistic processes with it. This has all sorts of implications. How do we set targets when stories are never done? How do we structure our sites? Do site structures even matter as links, widgets and embedded content break down magazine-like containers? What's the role of a news editor in an age when they no longer have the power to pick the top story?
Ironically, this "live story" idea is something that the best journalists have always done well - followed up on stories, and follow them as they grow - and the poorer ones have always struggled with. But now it's different. It's going to happen more transparently, and in public. The journalist may lead (or aggregate) the research and discussion, but others will contribute, too.
And there's no choice but to get a grip on it now, because if you can't keep the discussion around key issues live. then your traffic, and your livelihood will head elsewhere.
The web is providing us with the tools to move away from static "finished" story pages to ones that evolve and change with the news. And we need to work out how to adapt our journalistic processes with it. This has all sorts of implications. How do we set targets when stories are never done? How do we structure our sites? Do site structures even matter as links, widgets and embedded content break down magazine-like containers? What's the role of a news editor in an age when they no longer have the power to pick the top story?
Ironically, this "live story" idea is something that the best journalists have always done well - followed up on stories, and follow them as they grow - and the poorer ones have always struggled with. But now it's different. It's going to happen more transparently, and in public. The journalist may lead (or aggregate) the research and discussion, but others will contribute, too.
And there's no choice but to get a grip on it now, because if you can't keep the discussion around key issues live. then your traffic, and your livelihood will head elsewhere.
on May 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Good points. As you say, better journalists have always kept stories 'live'. Maybe the way the media is changing will lead to one almighty shake-out of those that understand how to use technology and those that don't (or don't want to).
I haven't done this but i wouldn't mind betting most current job ads for journos (especailly in B2B - if that is still a relevant name for it) do not ask for the skills/understanding of technology touched upon in your post.