ONA: ‘Broadcast Strategies for the Web’
Steve Safran October 19th, 2007
I didn’t care for the title of the panel on which I sat, but don’t bite the hand that feeds you, eh? (Sorry - Canada.) As it was, ONA’s “Broadcast Strategies for the Web” provided ideas for all sites, whether they are “broadcast,” “print” or “other.” Emily Hanlon has a fine writeup on the ONA’s site. I will say that I thought the audience beat up too much on CNN.com’s Manuel Perez, who presented CNN’s I-Reporter concept. I thought we had gone through the “how do you know they’re real videos?”/”Is that really journalism?” argument four years ago. I suppose if you want to go to the trouble of staging your own bridge collapse on the day a bridge collapses, you may sneak something through. But why is it that journalists so often go to the worst case scenario when faced with a new breakthrough?
7 Comments Add your own
1. John Proffitt | October 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Journalists automatically jump to the worst-case scenario as a way of preventing change. I just ran into that in my own shop this week as everyone things posting news articles on the web takes time away from “real news reporting.” Well, so does editing your own audio (in the radio biz), but you’ve been doing that for 10 years now.
The world changes. People don’t like it. They want it to stop.
Additionally, this is the second blog posting I’ve seen about the ONA conference asking the qeustion “didn’t we solve problem X four years ago?” or something to that effect. Here’s what’s happening (I’ll bet): Four (or more) years ago the people attending “new media” conferences were the converted. You (they, we) grappled with complex issues back then and feel we’ve found a solid footing for going ahead. But that was a select crew back then — it wasn’t the mainstream media folks.
Today, no one can escape new media models and mainstream workers are starting to attend these conferences in large numbers. They’re the kids that were asleep in class, then wake up and ask a question that was asked 10 minutes ago.
They may also think they can hold off the pop quiz if they keep the professor talking long enough.
2. Dan | October 19th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“But why is it that journalists so often go to the worst case scenario when faced with a new breakthrough?”
This reaction is far from limited to journalists and newsrooms. Believe me.
dr
3. Mel Taylor | October 20th, 2007 at 4:42 am
funny. i consult broadcast & print with their web strategy. for the past few years, i couldn’t get arrested.
now, everybody seems to be waking up. they are scrambling to “get a web business going”
of course, they are very dismayed when i tell ‘em they need more than shovel-ware, a webmaster, and a banner sales person.
and no matter how much ‘buy-in’ you get from the top, you are bound to find someone in the ranks that will fight you tooth and nail about fundamental changes in the business.
nice to be finally busy tho.
4. Rosenblum | October 20th, 2007 at 5:55 am
It always strikes me as amusing that the greatest defenders of a ‘free press’ get so strung out when faced, for the first time in their lives, with the prospect of a really free press.
Disaster!
It’s like when the Soviet Union contemplated a free market. “But without People’s Cement Factory Number 2, how will the people get cement?”
5. D. Ogilvy | October 20th, 2007 at 6:45 am
The paradox of information is discovery.
Trying to identify the ideal path of distribution is fruitless when all is known.
Relevance is the the answer. So simple and yet so true.
6. Laura | October 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I just want to make a correction. Iit was CNN.com’s Manuel Perez that was a panelist. Mitch Gelman did not attend the conference.
7. Anonymous | October 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 am
I heard that some ONA conference participants immediately flew to Atlanta to confront Gelman at his home once they realized he wasn’t at the conference.
The crowd was angry that day my friends.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed