Lisa Williams prompted one of the wildest e-mail threads I’ve part of in a while last month when she asked the simple question of what criteria the Online Journalism Awards (issued at the annual conference of the Online News Association) should be focusing on. The exchange lead to the question for this month’s Carnival of Journalism:
Right now, nominations are open for the Online Journalism Awards. What qualities should awards like this endorse in an era of such tremendous change in the news industry?
It’s a great question. During the e-mail thread, I responded to Lisa’s question with:
What has really struck me about ONA in recent years, at the conference panels anyway, is the over-focus on technology over journalism. While I love panels on the next new whiz-bang-golly-gee-feature as much as the next person, what we do is journalism. I’ve always viewed ONA as the intersection of technology and journalism and believe that focusing on that intersection is key. How are journalists/editors innovating not only in the production of journalism but also in the actual collection/reporting going on? A perfect case in point is the innovation we’ve seen on the part of Andy Carvin and Nick Kristoff (not to influence the judges but these two should get some sort of award for their coverage of the Arab Spring.) What we’ve seen from both is a change in real-time reporting — through the use of existing social media tools. Using tools to innovate while doing journalism should be rewarded.
My comment did not sit well with Geoffrey Samek, who responded with: “Over focus on technology? It is an award focusing exclusively on ‘online’ and a big part of that is technology and how tech changes journalism. ONLINE! Collection and innovative processes that take place in the real world are by definition offline.”
It’s an interesting comment because it points to a separation — a division between what is online and what isn’t — that many of us who have been occupying the digital news space for the past 15 years have been seeking to shed. Granted, ONA was founded in 1999 with the idea that professional journalists that were making their way in the online sector of their news operations would have a place to gather, share ideas and award the work of their peers. But the “online” designation seems almost moot today. Online work is everywhere, being produced by merged newsrooms and honored by all — even the revered Pulitzer committee. So, of course ONA honors work online — that’s where journalism is being done — and important journalism should be acknowledged.
For those who founded ONA — and those of us who have been a part of it for a while — there was always this need for legitimacy. The Web side of news operations forming the core of ONA in the early years was (and in some cases still is) the crazy old ranting uncle part of the family. By creating a huge awards night, ONA and its members declared that the digital crazies with their CMS, servers and crazy code languages were here to stay. The Awards Night has grown (and changed) over time and for many remains the highlight of ONA weekend.
But, ironically, this stepchild attitude remains and has created ONA’s need to focus on the newest shiny object. Awards Night is actually the one point in the weekend where the focus is journalism. In many ways, ONA weekend has developed a schizophrenic feel to it. This split focus is an issue that ONA has been wrestling with for years now and I’m not sure what the solution is. ONA has many audiences — technologists, editors, reporters, educators, students, entrepreneurs, business folks — so where to focus?
While ONA has a nice mission statement, it’s beginning to feel like an organization that has lost its way. Don’t get me wrong, the annual conference is always a good time — membership numbers are strong, the conference always sells out and large tech groups are lining up to buy sponsorships. During a time where journalism trade organizations are struggling and bickering, ONA stands alone as a success.
But in recent years the conference has taken on the feel of South By Southwest — attendees come for the party. And, ONA puts on a great party — it’s the one time of the year that I get to hang out with some of my favorite people in the world. But I’ve felt for a while now that ONA is missing out on some opportunities to have some serious discussions about the state and direction of journalism — not “online” journalism — but the complete whole enchilada.
Some say that news organizations have the online journalism part of the equation solved. I’m not sure that’s the case. What about the growing number of plagiarism cases confronting news organizations? Ethical issues abound in the arena of social media, comments boards, news gathering — yet rarely do we have these discussions at the annual conference. What role do journalism schools play in the future of the industry? We’ve had these historical moments in journalism with the Arab Spring — are we going to talk about it in September? (UPDATE: The answer would appear to be a resounding Yes!)
To answer Lisa’s original question, the awards do seem to focus on the meshing of technical innovation and journalism — my only real issue is with the three-hour long awards ceremony. It makes the Oscars seem like a fast show
Some of the organizations awarded last year point to a real understanding by the judges of the changing nature of the business and that’s a positive development. Still, I hope the judges find a way this year to acknowledge the groundbreaking efforts of Carvin and Kristoff.
….I thought long and hard about writing this blog post.
I have many friends, colleagues and former colleagues who have helped form this organization into the force it is today. My words are not meant to critique the efforts of anyone — this is a volunteer organization that thrives on the goodwill of many. And we’ve all been a part of trying to bring change to major organizations and understand the frustrations that can occur in trying to make things happen. After several years of persistent suggestions, ONA finally agreed to setting up student clubs at universities around the country several years ago. That’s a positive development.
I guess my hope is that ONA’s Board of Directors recognize that change is good and will help return ONA to its revolutionary roots and understand the larger impact this organization can have. I would love to see ONA’s Board of Directors beginning to take stances on major issues outside of the conference — ONA is a force in the field but there are many issues where ONA has remained silent. Should it begin funding partnerships between journalism schools and news organizations? Should it become a lobbying force for journalism? Should it start weighing in regularly on discussions and scandals within the industry? I think so.
I remember my first ONA conference in Chicago in 2003 and the rollicking nature of the organization back then. (I asked my old washingtonpost.com boss Doug Feaver, one of ONA’s founders, if I could attend in 2002 but he didn’t think the group would be around long enough to warrant the company funding my attendance
The General Excellence award winners in 2003 were an eclectic group: ESPN.com, BeliefNet, CQ.com and the Gotham Gazette. I remember sitting in on one panel where Jeff Jarvis spoke about the glories of blogging and how he posted one blog entry to his blog after editors at a magazine attempted to edit it. Gasps filled the room as Jarvis said he posted his blog entry without the edits of editors.
I remember sitting in on another panel about coverage of the Iraq War and listening to a PR representative from the Army critiquing self-censorship of images by those within major U.S. media organizations. He told the group of us that we were failing to tell the whole story if we weren’t showing the graphic images illustrating the cost of war.
Both discussions had a major impact on me as a journalist and educator. They were discussions of substance. I want more of them.
I want more.