The Modern Journalist

It’s The Tools, Stupid

Image via Wikipedia

Everything I’ve ever learned about technology started with reading Steven Levy.

Sometimes, though, I wish I hadn’t learned so much because now I expect everyone to get technology the way he did — and does.

I’m oftentimes energized by reading smart people discussing the future of media even when I’m not in agreement with what I believe. The fun part about social media is you are forced — if you participate — to wholly defend your point.

There are days, though, when it seems like I’m standing in a field by myself. Today is one of those days. As I stumble across more media blogs, I’m taken aback by the fact that smart people discussing the future of newspapers cling to the notion that the written word — their written word — is the sacred cow that must be protected against the evil doers on the Web (blogs and such).

Their Major Premise is flawed although their logic is sound. The believe the path to economic viability is protecting their stories. The truth is newspapers and media outlets must embrace the opportunities that the Web and Internet have placed before them.

Namely, successful companies build tools.

What got me thinking about this was a post at Balkinization, which said in part that newspapers should consider charging a set licensing fee for feed access to their content.

They copy, quote from, discuss, and criticize stories reported in the press far more than engaging in original reporting or linking to other blogs. And just like peer-to-peer traders of music and movie files, online readers copy and distribute stories from newspaper Web sites to their friends via email and social network sites. Especially for the young, trading copies of newspaper stories often substitutes for visiting the paper’s Web site.

E gads.

The surest way to put yourself out of business is to believe that locking up the least important part of what you do is the best path to the future.

Now, I’m not sure that the author believes that. It’s likely an intellectual argument; however, even if it’s not, I would be reticent to attack someone simply based upon a blog post.

For my purposes, though, the argument makes a good case for what I think is wrong in the industry because instead of thinking about how to lock things down (and the history of technological innovation tells us that is a very bad way to build a business model), the industry needs to focus on what can be done in the new medium that has never been done before.

I’ve been discussing this in great detail in the Newspaper 2.0 section of the site, advocating for the creation of databases with mashable information delivered on interactive maps with community editors working with citizens to highlight areas of concern while engaging in the political process.

I’ve discussed how Citizen Logistic ARGs can be used to engage the community in a variety of ways and how publishing tools can help reporters tell better stories.

You don’t need to worry about protecting your content then because content isn’t the driving force behind your site. It’s involvement and interactivity.

The one sure way to do that is to provide tools to your audience, train them how to use them and engage with what they do. Tools to make tools, Steven Levy wrote in Hackers. That’s the business lesson from technology that should applied to today’s newspapers.

If you engage in whack-a-mole, your business becomes an eternal chase to stop people. If you engage in tool building, your business becomes an eternal chase to catch up with your readers.

Which sound more sustainable?