MISSING the BEAR

Bill Thompson on the BBC:




I had an interesting encounter with an editor from the environment division of a major newspaper at the Cleantech Summit last Monday. I'm taking advice on moving to Asia next year to freelance. But I'm having trouble with the visa bit-- most countries insist on a journalist must have a sponsor from a media organization. And so that's what I'm looking for: a freelance writer agency to sponsor me (by the way, if you know one, please drop me a line). The Editor didn't know one either but what he said next smacked of entrenched "old media."


He said something to the effect of, "Think about what you're asking. You're asking someone to sponsor you and you're going to turn around and freelance and write for other people at the same time. No one's going to sponsor you for that." In other words, in order to do what I want to do, I'll have to be hired as a reporter. Getting hired as a reporter now is impossible. From my understanding, very few newspapers and online-only media outlets are making money. And the ones that are, aren't hiring.

The quote above is from Bill Thompson, who wrote a recent post on BBC about the global internet commons, a public area in which he contends information should continue to be exchanged freely. This is a point the Editor seems to be missing. It's something I've seen work in practice: I'm covering Copenhagen for four online-only media outlets: solveclimate.com, beyondprofit.com, simpleearthmedia.com, with a piece or two for corporate-eye.com. I approached these .com's at the outset that I would be a shared resource. And guess what? Not a single one of them had a problem with it. All each asked was that I didn't re-sell the exact same story to another. In other words, they will all have exclusive rights to what I write, but not to me. Most news organizations today (the Guardian, HuffingtonPost, New York Times) are sourcing straight news from the AP and Reuters, seemingly the only two media organizations left with foreign bureaus.

I'm willing to bet that I'll be able to get to Asia, freelance, and get a sponsor who doesn't have a problem with it. And if I don't the reason will be something to do with insurance and liability and not reportage. The trick is finding a media outlet that doesn't think like this newspaper editor and understands the future of journalism is about cooperative, collaboration. That's what the internet has made.

Missed the bear Mr. Editor? I think so.

Today Twitter announced that it will be providing commercial accounts with, "access to analytical tools and ways to gain feedback from their followers."

Make me a better Tweeter? Really? I'm gonna pay for that? Really?

How many social media blogs offer free advice on how to tweet better can I access via Google?


As a struggling new media journalist semi-cum social media strategist I am familiar with the frustration and resulting overall sense of impending doom that comes with daily contemplation of the ever elusive pay model. Twitter is new media. Journalism is being transformed in a way such that it's inexorably linked with new media. New media is many things, including and perhaps most importantly free access to information. In that sense both the outcome of journalism's transformation and the way in which Twitter aids journalism-- access and transfer of information--must remain free.

Twitter has missed the bear, but only slightly, in its proposed pay model. Commercial accounts are a good idea but in a different sense of the word: those that could afford to pay for them, should. The BBC, for example, the Huffington Post, Wholefoods, restaurants, Starbucks--basically, anybody that's got anything to sell. When I read " commercial accounts" that's what I thought: commercial, not pay for a how to tweet service. I'm sick of picking up 5-10 real estate agent followers, for example, every time I tweet a keyword. Keeping up with my followers list takes time. If Internet marketers want to follow me to glean my buying habits, make them pay for it!

But how do we keep this fair for start-ups? Free limited time or private income disclosure or an honour system. Coffee shop honour systems work remarkably well. Most people in there with laptops are either freelancers or start-ups (or students) for whom money is scarce. I've worked enough "9-5"s in coffee shops to know the unwritten code: no stealing and watch some else's stuff when they get up to pee regardless of whether or not you're asked.

To recap: make people who can pay, do so and leave Twitter as a free information service for start-ups and citizens. Thus: Twitter employees make money, journalists can track breaking news and inform, and people who live under repressive regimes can still freely access information and transfer information. Everyone wins.

Missed the bear Tw' Oos? I think so.