This month’s Carnival was hosted by Steve Outing at Test Kitchen. He writes
For February, I have been humbled to be the host (a.k.a., ringmaster) of the Carnival of Journalism, a monthly all-invited blogfest of journalism thinkers. This virtual gathering convenes once a month, thanks to the continued commitment of Digidave (a.k.a., David Cohn) to keep it going. Hurray, David!
As temporary host, I asked anyone willing to answer:
What emerging technology or digital trend do you think will have a significant impact on journalism in the year or two ahead? And how do you see it playing out in terms of application by journalists, and impact?
The answers are in! … And, in the spirit of the question, I’m using Storify to present a curated presentation of the blog posts of those who answered the call. (Storify, after all, represents a couple key digital trends that show signs of continuing to accelerate: curation and crowd-sourcing.) … If I missed including yours, let me know and I’ll add it.
And to do the round up he used Storify!
January’s carnival of journalism comes to us from Michael Rosenblum.
In his post he asks: “Can a good journalist also be a good capitalist?” If so, how? Or why not?
The content of his full post is below. But the heart of the prompt is above.
Due Date: Friday January 27th at Noon PST.
You can publish anytime over the weekend and then we’ll do a classic Carnival Round-Up post.
How to Make Millions as a Journalist by Michael Rosenblum.
I am writing today’s blog in conjunction with the Carnival of Journalism , Dave Cohn’s ongoing journalism project.
If you feel like participating, please do.
The issue I wanted to write about for some time is Journalism and Capitalism – or “Why We Can’t Seem To Make a Living”.
The Carnival Of Journalism requires a question to which everyone responds, so my question is:
Can a good journalist also be a good capitalist?
Jeff Jarvis, much to his credit, recently launched the Center for Entreprenurial Journalism at CUNY. And bravo Jeff!
The world of journalism needs more thinking like this.
Alas, there is an instinctive aversion to the idea of making money amongst most journalists.
On the heels of attending one of Jarvis’ classes in Entrepreneurial Journalism, I was so impressed, I went to see Nick Lemann, the Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, my alma mater, and a place I had taught for 8 years as an adjunct.
Lemann was aghast at my suggestion and practically physically recoiled. This, alas, is all too typical for the ‘professional journalist’. We instinctively associate making money with ‘evil’. We like to investigate it. If someone is making a ton of money, then they must be doing something wrong.
“Follow the money” says Deep Throat to Woodward and Bernstein.
As a member of the generation that was inspired by Woodward and Bernstein, let me amend that. ”Follow the money, figure out what they are doing and how you can make even more”.
I like that one better.
Making money is no crime. In fact, it is the ulimate good. With money you can do stuff. Without it, you are the perpetual victim and the perpetual employee, which is what most journalists are. And that is crazy.
Listen, the Internet ‘happened’ to our industry first – the information industry. That’s what the web was all about – the gathering and the processing and the distribution of information. That was and is our business.
So we should have been out there first, cleaning up. We should own the web. But we don’t. We let it get away from us because we never saw ourselves as Capitalist. We let ourselves get pounded.
Craigslist, which pretty much eviscerated newspapers classifieds should have been developed and owned by us.
Google – all the news that fit to print – and a whole lot more – should have been developed and owned by us.
Youtube, Facebook, you name it. We should be exploiting this mother for all she is worth. But we don’t.
We are the perpetual groveling employees, beggaring for a few crumbs and generally seeing our jobs and incomes slashed as the web and new digital technologies roll over the old.
And why is that?
Why are we such schmucks?
It’s in our nature. It’s in the image that we have made for ourselves.
“My job is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afficted” says Peter Finley Dunne.
Crap!, I say. Crap.
Who came up with this idea?
What is the crime in making money? In making lots of it?
Anyone who became a journalist could just as easily have become a lawyer.
Lawyers work for the ‘good of mankind’, but they don’t seem to attach any stigma to making a lot of money.
And they’re equally happy to defend human rights and the Constitution and help the poor and a whole lot of other stuff without feeling like they have to live in perpetual poverty for the rest of their lives.
Look at how we present ourselves to the world. Look at the image of the typical ‘journalist’ in the movies.
Russel Crowe, journalist in “State of Play”.
Look at him.
Drunken stumble bum.
And he’s the hero!!!
What is the matter with us???
Is this a guy who is going to Goldman Sachs for an IPO?
Is any Venture Capital firm going to invest in him??
Not a chance.
Why do we do this to ourselves?
And how do we tolerate the crap way we are treated by our ‘employers’?
Bust your butt for The New York Times or NBC for 25 years and what do you get?
Bust your butt for a NY law firm for 25 years and what do you get?
Do you see any journalists being offered partnerships in The New York Times Company???
We are a mess.
But we are not beyond redemption.
We can change.
We have to get our act together.
We have to embrace making money – lots and lots of money – as a good. As a goal.
We should arrange ourselves the way lawyers do, as limited partnerships. Then some of the partners can carry on with their ‘investigative journalism’ while the others engage in more lucrative PR or Image Control and others launch web-related IPOs.
And instead of ‘working for’ the NY Times or NBC, we should simply license our work to them. For a fee.
I read a lot about the ‘dire situation’ that journalism is facing, but to me, the only ‘dire situation’ is the way that we have chosen to arrange ourselves.
Journalists of the world, arise. You have nothing to lose.
Nothing at all, apparently.