Ask the Reporters, Please!

For Article: Gannett "Information Centers" -- Good for Daily Journalism?
Posted by Jane Abao 11/6/2006 7:39:45 AM

I don’t work for Gannett. I am a professional journalist, and a communications specialist by education. I have some doubts about this Gannett approach. From newspaper to information center, that’s their business. But looking at it from the perspective of legitimate communication practice leaves some doubt.

News is news whether we want it or not. Information is information whether we like it or not. The Memo says, “News and information will be delivered to the right media. Our customers will decide which they prefer.” This maybe doable and still expedient business-wise, but at best, these are all mere desiderata. The variety of media per se is not the problem, however, but the nature of some of these media is. When in print or online, the contents are there for reader inspection and evaluation. But when it comes to video and mobile, the reader has very little chance at evaluating objectively the presentation of news. News in these media will have become more as editorials rather than the more objective news. I would congratulate Gannett if it were able to control and preserve the news elements when they get transformed from newspaper approach to video and mobile.

The big question is: how much representation did reporters have in the decision-making of this plan? They are stakeholders who are the very workhorses who make possible the existence of news agencies. In critical plans like this, they need to be represented because they have to be asked their commitment, how much they are willing to risk and give up and bend over and accept. For this approach, let’s face it: advertisers will hog the operations and the way news will be treated. This is the very reason reporters have to be asked their say. Their write-ups will constantly have to be chopped up, re-directed, changed, or embargoed altogether and they can only take so much.