Adam Turner
Saturday, 10 October 2009 10:10
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
9:47 pm
Jacob Chapel:
I think that another aspect of this we are overlooking is that a core group you decide upon, either from one server or many could be included to collaboratively write whatever was at hand. Although a wiki has a lot of the same functions, some more in fact, you cannot discredit the speed at which ideas and communication happens in Wave. With even a few active participants, you could easily share your ideas even faster than talking on the phone, or being in person. They all have a certain barrier to work, usually related to the time it takes to make each others ideas gel. With Wave you can all work at the same time, sharing ideas actively almost like rapid prototyping in the programming world.
10:29 pm
me:
It's also overlooking another key issue. Journalism is not just about reporting, it's about writing. Good writing is a craft that takes time and experience to learn. It's not just about the ability to string a few words together, or to be concise, it's about creating text that's interesting and that flows smoothly. You can write the most amazing story about the most interesting topic, but there's little point if everyone tunes out after the second paragraph and turns the page. This is even more important with a feature article that doesn't follow the standard inverted pyramid news formula; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid
Even with a standard news story, the hardest bit is often crafting a great intro that covers the most important issue/s and is interesting enough to keep people reading. This is even harder with a feature because there's no obvious intro, you have to think of an interesting angle to ease people into the story.
Case in point, I'm probably going to write a few features about "What is google wave" aimed at a consumer tech audience. I've already done a few radio interviews on the topic and written a few blog posts. Can you imagine what would happen if I sent a message out to everyone on Google Wave saying - "I'm writing a feature story on "what is Google Wave", help me". It would be a nightmare. What you'd end up with, assuming people actually cooperated, would be a Wikipedia entry. Factually accurate and informative, but boring and overly complicated.
The trick to writing about a complicated topic is to knowing how to explain complicated concepts in a way that non-technical people can grasp and find interesting. A big part of that is knowing what to leave out - which would seem counterproductive to many people. It's why academics and techies often don't make good writers, they get too bogged down in the detail and forget they're telling a story. Fine if you're writing an academic paper or a computer program, not good if you're writing a magazine feature.
Good writing is all about painting a picture with words. No amount of crowdsourcing is going to make that work. Imagine if van Gogh had 100,000 people telling him where to place each brush stroke - it just wouldn't work, like most things designed by a committee. I'd be happy to use a Wave to research, plan and fact check a feature article - but when it comes to the actual writing and polishing, that's where my craft comes in. Once it's done, I don't need experts in the field picking apart every sentence because they don't like the wording, or they feel small details have been left out. They can do that in the comments or annotation system, but my crafted words should stay intact.
Everything I've just written is straight from first year journalism, but I don't think most people appreciate it. The deceptive thing about well-crafted writing is that it looks easy. That's why journalists don't like the term Citizen Journalism - it implies there's no craft involved in what we do. Walk up to any trained professional, tell them you reckon any guy you plucked off the street could do their job (or a thousand monkeys), and see how they react.
11:05 pm
Jacob Chapel:
I think being able to see that anyone can potentially do your job is liberating, knowing that you aren't special in the grand scope of things. That doesn't mean what you create isn't special, or that you aren't good at what you do. What it helps you do is focus on continually making your craft better. The moment you feel special, or that you are the only one that can do something, is the moment you let your guard down figuratively and allow your skills to wane. It doesn't matter how many years, how many words you have written, it always comes down to always honing your craft because it will get dull and sometimes that blade will jump right back at you when you try to cut something.
I agree for the most part a group writing effort for most public facing journalistic pieces are better left to one person's focus and vision, that doesn't mean we couldn't shift to a new type of writing that is still meant for general public consumption but is more collaborative. A lot of online news sites have shifted from single writer pieces to multi-writer pieces. Now the specifics on who has done what really is in the wash, the fact is we are in a time where what we knew and what we will know are changing. We are in an unprecedented era, if you will, where the technology and innovation are far outpacing our ideas to encapsulate them and utilize them fully. I say instead of fighting it, embrace it for what it is, who knows what is right on our doorsteps.
11:17 pm
me:
Journalists can be too precious about their "craft", my previous rant is a good example of that. I'm more of a feature/colour/opinion writer than a hard news man. There are different skills involved, even though the share a subset of core journalistic skills. When it comes to "news" I think journalists have to face the fact that it's become a bit of a commodity. They also have to face the fact that they might not be the authoritative source on the subject and others might know better or at least be able to contribute in a meaningful way. I still think the process needs to reach the point where the text is locked from general editing and left in the hands of a journalist/writer (or a team) to craft something that reads well - otherwise you'll lose people after the second paragraph and it will have all been for nothing.
People talk about journalism being a conversation with readers and I don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with the idea of people changing the words that are coming out of my mouth.
11:22 pm
Jacob Chapel:
That is the beauty of choosy editing, or however you want to put it. When (I hope it isn't an if) Google implements the features for access control and moderation of your own individual blips and hopefully a whole wave, that will be the time where Wave really shines. You will feel more liberated as far as being willing to put your ideas out there knowing that you have more control over how they are changed, because we all don't want to have our words twisted into something we never intended. Though anything can be taken and used elsewhere with little protection in any medium, it is just a little too easy in Wave at the moment.
It will be interesting to see if journalism, at least technology based journalism, adapts to this new medium, and gives users a new way to communicate with the journalists and the community. On that note, anyone can tell a joke, but only a fool makes a joke of himself. (wow thats bad)
CONCLUDED Page 3
