As journalists, we pride ourselves on asking the right questions.
Why, then, does the New York Times come excruciatingly close to nailing the key to journalism’s future, yet still ask the wrong question?
A recent Times Magazine article talked about how a Nick Bilton, former hacker-journalist at the Times, is teaching his students the importance of thinking like programmers.
“[R]eporters need to know how to manipulate computers in order to tell the stories that matter most to their audiences,” the article paraphrased Bilton.
The author of the article, Nicholas Carlson, goes on to talk about the cutting-edgeness ofColumbia University’s new programming and journalism master’s.
And then we have the question posed to us: “But what’s in it for the engineers, who might have more lucrative things to do than save journalism?”
Cue the ripping out of hair.
Programmer-journalists are not computer engineers.
Computer engineers are not the key to journalism’s survival.
Read that again. Ad nauseum, if necessary.
Sure, the l33t (hacker-speak for “elite”) ones may be. I know of a couple who started out as engineers and turned into journalists. But for the most part, it works the other way around. Most programmer-journalists are journalists who see the advantage in knowing how to bend a computer to their wills because they know they can get better stories or better audience connection that way. They’re already invested in saving journalism, because journalism is what they love.
That’s the difference between an engineer and a programmer-journalist. And its importance cannot be overrated.
And yes, the industry needs its hardcore hackers and its sysadmins to stay afloat. I’m not suggesting love for journalism is a must for all techie jobs in the journalism sphere. But it’s essential for anyone with programming skill who’s going to try to “save journalism.” (As an aside, I think it’s newspapers that need saving, not journalism. Journalism’s doing just fine, thank you very much.)
Need more proof? Read through this revealing and fascinating blog post written by Paul Biggar, one of Newstilt’s co-founders, about why he and his partner decided to shut down the startup. One theme you’ll find is that they weren’t all that excited about journalism in the first place:
“We weren’t intrinsically motivated by news and journalism… Our desire to keep pushing the “mission” was extremely low… We didn’t really care about journalism, and weren’t even avid news readers… This compounded when we didn’t really know anything about the industry, or what readers wanted.”
I’m not trying to knock the idea or Biggar. I think it was a great idea that flopped for a variety of reasons, and Biggar himself is taking a critical look at why. The first in a list of his personal lessons learned is, “Deeply care about what you’re working on.”
Sound like the future of news to you? Apparently it does to the New York Times. That frightens me a lot.