Share your thoughts about how the newsroom of the future should be different .

[Chris O'Brien]

If you answered this question on your profile, please copy your answer here (or even expand on it).

[Michael J]

John,
I think you've hit on something very important when you say,"Many media sites don't have an engagement strategy, there is no follow up from the authors of the publication to the readers and people who comment."
I spend some of time trolling the web lurking at conversations. Every so often, not frequently, there is a conversation to which I think I might be able to add something. But . . there only a handful of places where you get a response. (this is one of them.)

But..to get a response from the author of a post? Hardly ever. (This site is a notable exception. Thank you Chris.)

Here's how I think it works. If there is no response from the poster it destroys trust. If there is a comments button, the implicit promise is that I the poster wants to hear comments. If they don't respond to someone, doesn't have to be everyone. It means the comments button is just a way to "get engagement." That's like personalized junk mail that says "Dear Michael."

If you don't have the time or will to respond, then eliminate the comments button. That's a fair deal. If you leave it on, you have to do what you say ( or imply or is being inferred by your viewer.)

[John Cass]

Very true Michael, it is all about engagement, you can set up the facility but if you don't interact with people who comment, you will lose a lot of opportunity.

[Michael Langley]

Journalists must learn and accept that the communities we serve are part of the process of journalism. No longer can we sit in sealed off newsrooms talking at people.
The ideal cycle, in my opinion, is now this: Report on a new story -> add my commentary -> ask for reader feedback -> generate new research/stories, or this, Advertise public event --> open pathway so community can pose questions ---> ask the community questions ourselves --> generate new story.

Whatever we do, we must work with our communty and allow them a return path to us.

Physically newsrooms should all be decentralized. Technology allows us to be always in the field, collecting information, making contacts and filing stories. There is no reason to remove ourselves from the neighorhoods we serve.

[John Cass]

Michael, What you state makes a lot of sense to me. It is the way the interactive web works.

Do you think it is a good idea for journalists to be supported with social media infrastructure to manage the communication process? Finding comments, letting the journalist answer, and tracking any response for the journalist?

[Michael Langley]

Absolutely. News organizations must commit to spreading the weight of so much social media around the entire building ... not just within the newsroom. I have found many people in my organization willing and eager to participate in the solicitation of ideas, promotion of stories, culling of information from forums and other social media tasks.
That said, I think it would be a mistake to take such things comepletely from journalists hands. I think many newsrooms and journalists suffer from "ivory tower" syndrome. They wall themselves off from the community that they deem "not informed enough" to contribute to the news cycle.
Getting engaged on this new news playing field and staying engaged is the only way to make the transistion work for newsroom and community alike.

[John Cass]

My suggestion is that journalists be supported. I think by providing resources to support the relationship journalists can focus on the relationship and writing, rather than monitoring.

[Michael J]

John, Interesting suggestion...

Suppose teams focusing on a beat, in addition to secure minimum income and health care, got comped by some measure of audience involvement. Some combination metric that is based on number of visits, length of visit, number of comments, number of returning visitors.

That would put the fixed overhead on a reasonable basis. But it gives the journo team a way to capture part of the value they create by engaging the audience. Note this is NOT comped based on how many dollars come into the company. Since they teams have no power to influence that, they should be judged by how well that goes.

Do the same thing for advertising teams. Minimum comp + good health care. Then a piece of the upside for what they sell.

Instead of making this mandatory, offer it as an alternative to people already in the company. I bet the buy in would be much greater than one might think.

[John Cass]

Michael, I think what you suggest makes a lot of sense, from what I've seen with social media you really have to compensate people, either in money or time.

See my long critiquing the cluetrain manifesto post about this issue.

http://pr.typepad.com/pr_communications/2008/03/critiquing-the.html

[Michael Langley]

I worry about journalists whose pay depends upon anything other than getting the story. Once you add anothher element, you open the possibility of "for-profit" journalism. It's been a very fine line companies have walked for a long time. If you link pay to social marketing (or any type of marketing) you will get journalists who will say and do things because they know it will hit hot buttons.
I admit some "journalists" don't need any extra motivation to try and hit hot buttons but a link directly to pay creates an untenable strain on objectivity and the public perception of our objectivity.

[Michael J]

@John, I agree that there has to be comp.
@Michael, What you raise is a concern, but...consider how many journalists "get the story. Iraq? Local economic development?

The issue is not "for profit" journalism. The issue is putting in a signal that journalists can see and feel to give them some kind of real feedback to keep on track to constantly improve "getting the story."

If there is no signal from the ground, backed up by an incentive structure that makes that signal important, then the signal comes from the bubble. Pulitzers? The approval of top management? A career path leading to being a "talking head." Awards from journalists? a job at a Journalism school?

If an entreprenurial, small business incentive structure were installed, the elements are in place for natural improvement of the journalism product - "getting the story." If the measure where the number of people who read an article as opposed who view the story I think that would be a pretty reasonable metric.

As for public perception, I think that opinion polls are pretty clear that in general, that is not something to be preserved but something that has to be rebuilt.

[Michael Langley]

I'll go from the bottom up: You raise a very fair point about rebuilding our image. I do maintain that objectivity must be at the base of the image.
I actually espouse an entreprenurial spirit we must adopt & agree with setting goals on readership. My only issue is the money. It's very easy (at least in every newsroom in which I have worked) to create a competetive atmosphere. Ego isn't that tough to find in a newsroom. Use that. Right now, social connections & reader numbers aren't even part of the conversation furing performance evlauations (at least at most TV stations). If managers/companies really want to change the culture, they have to change the goals. That's where I think we need to start. Treat every journalist like their own start-up, set goals accordingly and if they don't make the cut, make a change.Let's talk about an incentive structure when the culture has changed.

Let's face it, there is a lot more incentive to "game the system" when money is on the line. I know people (sadly) who would make the money a priority and not the community.

I like your thoguht about other incentives. Awards & peer approval have always been great motivators for journalists. I think you are right to suggest we should introduce elements of that to speed this transition.

[Michael J]

@ Michael L,

The problem with ego is that it just keeps you in the bubble. Same things with rewards. Judgments by other journalists is good. But the judgments of readers is better in the service of incremental improvement. Lots of locker room stuff is based on ego. I agree it's out there, but I think that's a bug not a feature. Journalism and most everything else would do a lot better with alot less ego feedback.

The thing is that money has gotten a bad rep. The purpose of money in the first place is to act as a signal of value. It was the clear standard of making money that allowed the middle class to escape from the rewards of nobility.

How would getting some money as a signal of success distort the journalism? The internet allows a new metric that was never possible before. How many people clicked on your story? How long did someone stay on your story? How many times did they click to the jumps in your story?

This is only a beginning to what might be measured, but I think the direction is clear.

Consider how many more journalists have lost their objectivity in the pursuit of access or in self censorship to not get into a conflict with a supervisor. The last 8 years of Washington "journalism" and the Judith Miller stuff are just two examples.

From where I sit, access to power and staying on the good side of management and peers is a much more pernicious corrupter of objectivity, than a standards based clear reward if people read your story.