Thoughts on journalism's many crises

As the death toll rose for victims of Haiti's earthquake, America's sympathy grew, too. More people began watching the nightly news, while others even resorted to purchasing the daily paper. It didn't matter which part of the United States you lived in-- all the papers had the same front page: "Help needed." While I was busy responding to freelance stories at my college paper, all pertaining to campus responses to the earthquake, my roommate was studying for her MCAT. When I asked her for her thoughts on Haiti, she asked me to tell her what happened. The girl never has her phone out of sight, she has Internet access several times a day and she has a car with a radio, yet she was oblivious to this horrific event. How can somebody have such tunnel vision that he or she can only see things like test scores and GPAs. It baffles me. Our world is so connected to everything, and yet people like her exist. It's no wonder journalism is in a crisis.

My roommate doesn't pretend to read the paper. She says she has no interest in politics or current events. And she definitely visits Facebook more than any online newspaper. She's actually one of the few college students I know who is perfectly fine with being out of touch with the world they live in. After reading blogs about "decline in circulation," "decrease in advertising," and a"distrust of the media" I've come to a conclusion: Newspapers never reached the type of person my roommate is, and they never will find a way how to in the future. People who don't care about the world around them still won't care in 50 years. It is a journalist's job to reach the people who do care, and to reach those who used to care.

For my generation, learning how to interact online is a skill to be mastered. Checking my e-mail a few times a day is not sufficient. I must check it at least every hour (unless I get a smart phone that alerts me instantly whenever I receive a new e-mail). I also must tweet, Facebook, blog daily to keep up with my peers. The Internet is a tool for me, and I think it should be a tool for journalism, as well. I don't think it is the Internet that is killing journalism. Yes, print newspapers can be accessed for free online. Yes, bloggers write political commentary that rivals Op/Ed pieces in print. Yes, Craigslist is the new classifieds section.

So what. People who do care about the news need a place they can go and trust for their news. Wikipedia isn't good enough. I think future reporters all be working for something like the Associated Press. Reporters will be racing to update a story to the wire, and editors will be trying to keep up. The fundamentals for reporting will still be the same: accuracy, brevity, clarity. No one may be working from the same newsroom; in fact, a newsroom might not even exist in the future. It's neat to imagine reporters keeping in touch through text messages and tweets and uploading their stories to a Google doc, and then to the wire. If a fact error makes it onto the wire, an editor's note should say so ASAP. The same may happen with photojournalists. Upload the photo first, find out the details for a caption later. People can sense when something is big. It's part of our human connection.

My uncertainty remains in the time it takes for this change to happen. I graduate next year, and I haven't had a newspaper internship outside of my college's paper. Our editor in chief had a potential employer tell her that when she got actual newsroom experience, she should return with clips. If the editor in chief of a good college paper can't get "enough experience" for her resume, who can? It's like the vicious cycle of getting a serving job: Restaurants won't hire you until you have some serving experience. You can't get experience unless someone hires you.
It's ridiculous.