Hi - everyone on this list.
My name is Sam and I signed up to this list at the start - and until now
haven't felt engaged enough (or courageous enough) to take part. I'm a
journalist and a writer, and am currently involved in training projects
aimed at improving the skills of working journalists. That includes
introducing many of them to new technology.
So I'm particularly interested in the comments below. I think that
journalists are pretty much like the rest of the population (and that's, in
principle, a good thing) in having a sizeable minority of both technophobes
and early-adopters (or zealots) among them; but that the majority belong
with the herd - though the smart ones may run along on the outside for a
good view.
My own position is that (good?) journalists should be less interested in the
new processes and the new technologies per se, than in why they excite some
people so much, or terrify others. Yes - journalists are paid to be curious
- but on the whole they should be more curious about people rather than
about things and ideas and technologies. New technologies can help them meet
deadlines, but I'm also concerned that the breadth and depth of (sometime
unreliable) information available can also distract from their core business
of getting out and meeting people, and telling their stories.
Sam
>From: Ann Light <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [WDL] May Topic: Technophobia, writers and writing
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:49:40 +0100
>
>Hi Amy, I can certainly second that. I tried to lead my magazine
>publishing house into the digital age back in 1995 and couldn't believe
>how little interest there was in interacting with readers. I then wrote
>a PhD around the (often limited) attempts that media companies were
>beginning to make to exploit the potential of networked communication
>and the lack of vision that put many publishers several years' behind
>other website providers in terms of 'experience design'. There were the
>zealots (and I guess I was one) who left to go somewhere where it was
>actually happening, and then there was everyone else in the company,
>clinging to the old ways.
>
>Now, I see media workers behaving like cultural tourists in 'social
>software' land instead of getting on with using the new tools. They know
>there is something going on, but they are damned if they are engaging
>with it for longer than it takes to be able to mention the right terms
>at dinner parties... Which is why there is so much poor journalism
>written about blogging, etc; so much inappropriate appropriation of
>media forms without a regard for context; and so little understanding of
>the changes that are happening to 'readerships' and 'audiences' and just
>how these might be harnessed to create meaningful media of the future.
>
>In fact, some of the most obtuse conversations I've had about the
>potential of networks have been with friends who are journalists.
>
>Strange behaviour, as you say, for people whose livelihoods depend on
>it. Why?
>
>Ann
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>I never cease to be amazed at how technophobic most journalists are --
>especially when it comes to new and better ways to communicate,
>research, and collaborate online. This baffles me. These are people who
>have perhaps the strongest reason (story deadlines) to learn to use the
>net effectively and efficiently. Also, they are PAID to be curious!
>However, every time I try to explain topics like feeds, wikis,
>Technorati, etc. to journalists, it's like banging my head against the
>wall. They totally resist having to learn anything new related to
>technology. Drives me batty.
>
>- Amy Gahran
>
|