Rji-interview-steffens-ceppos
Brian Steffen's notes from the conversation with Jerry Ceppos:
- We're not convinced that journalism is "broken." It changes, morphs, adapts & always has. Cave drawings, tribal
storytellers, posters, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, cable, web, mobile. And written stories, photojournalism, info graphics, audio, video, slideshows, mashups, etc. It will continue to do so. The fundamentals remain: tackle stories/issues/concepts that matter to the community (geographic or subject), investigate/collect/report diligently, source and verify to the best of our abilities, make sense of chaos or multiple inputs, assemble/disassemble/edit and present in ways the information can b easily absorbed, and make it relevant to the audience.
- We can certainly, always, strive to improve what we do and how we do it. But there are thousands of people and institutions out there already that are sincerely focused on fixing or improving journalism.
- What we believe to be broken, in need of fixing, is the business model(s) or sustainability of the journalism.
Where are the think tanks, innovation centers, symposiums and industry-wide FOCUS on identifying business and marketing opportunities, the experiments to test those opportunities? The experiments have tended to focus on various iterations of non-profit enterprise. Noble, yes, some cobble together enough grants and donations to keep the lights on. But when the big lawsuit lands on their desk, where are the deep pockets or in-house talent to fight the good fight and continue to keep the doors open? Small is beautiful, but it's not often a match for big business and big government.
- This from two guys who grew up in newsrooms & who cringed just a little when we first saw the book title: "When
MBAs Rule the Newsroom" (1995). Re-read our first paragraph & things change, adapt, morph, and so do we :-)
Future of less advertising and more subscriptions?
- Media and news economics is the challenge we all face, one we need to face together. Is the future a mix of less
advertising and more subscription revenue? Or is it more like real life ^T it's not just left or right, liberal or conservative -- the stakeholders are many and diverse. There will likely be many more slices to the revenue pie, not two or three. How do we capture them, integrate them, sell them? How do we market what we do? We do a great job of telling other people's stories, not so well at telling our story (at making the news media relevant).
- We're great at digging up problems. We love to tell -- and dissect in minute detail -- what's wrong (with
government, business, health, medicine, the planning board, the "system," you name it. And in the name of objectivity, we shy away from researching and illuminating the solutions. That would be taking sides, or endorsing something, participating in the news, we say as we stand back and watch the fray. Heaven forbid, that might resurrect the curse of the '90s: civic journalism!!!
- As with stakeholders and sources, there are usually more than two or three potential solutions. Do we spend
enough time finding, identifying, explaining how the potential solutions will affect the various constituencies in our communities? The polls say very few Americans understand the health care mandate. Is that just the administration's fault? Did the news media bring those high concepts down to the level of the individual in our cities and towns? We've let the two political parties craft scare talking points for their PAC funded TV ads. Is that the best we can do? Does that really provide citizens the information they need to govern themselves?
- It's been said that if you want to lead, find a parade and get out in front of it. What's the parade in your
city or town? Are you out in front of it, or chasing after it, or do you even know about it? In what area or sphere of your community do you lead? If you don't lead, do you have an expectation that readers or advertisers/businesses will follow you?
