How is inertia preventing your operation from changing

So it’s a new year and you have a boatload of fresh faces in the student newsroom. It’s time for some innovation, some transformation, dare I say some “Change.”

What’s going to happen? David Cohn posted a great article about the inertia that prevents newspapers from innovating, and it’s something that college newspapers should watch out for as well. Here’s an extended quote:

There is a lot of talk about taking action, but we never discuss what obstacles are in the way for newspapers to actually make said change. This cry for change is no longer about being cute or techie and seeing who can find the next Twitter for bragging rights. Evangelizing changes to our industry is about making the logical choice for survival. So why isn’t every day a revolution?Probably because it takes newspapers six months to try anything new!

Often people ask me why editors are so stupid or who they should blame for the fate of newspapers and my response is… They aren’t stupid and nobody in particular is to blame.

The fate of newspapers isn’t the fault of any individual editor, reporter, publisher, etc. They are all acting within the confines of institutions. Newspapers are industrial age institutions with inertia that could pummel an elephant. To use an analogy: They operate like the military. It might not be so strict that reporters have to salute their superiors – but there is a chain of command, an expected means of behavior and decisions must go through the proper channels. As a result – newspapers turn like battleships and even implementing one line of code can take upwards of six months.

I have a personal story about this, and I think Dave has hit on something that is crucial to the survival of newspapers in the near future.

Way back in the days before the Internet caused the destruction of the news industry (that’s “snark” btw), I ran a small-town newspaper called The Hometown Press in Winnie, Texas. I was the editor, we had a publisher, an ad manager, and a circulation manager. But any type of content decisions were mine to make. When we had a reporter (not always the case, because we didn’t have a lot of money to pay someone), I always loved it when they came up with their own ideas.

I miss that little paper, because I can imagine how forward-thinking we could be today. We had a circulation of 2,000, but I can guarantee we’d be pushing the envelope just as surely as the Houston Chronicle is. And I had the ability to make decisions quickly. There weren’t layers of editors between myself and the publisher.

We didn’t have a lot of history. I became the editor only a year after the newspaper was started. Nobody else had any journalism experience. We were inventing our history as we practiced journalism. That’s so different from where most newspapers are. You walk into a college newsroom (or the newsroom of the New York Times, for that matter) and you’re walking into a museum of “That’s the way we’ve always done it.”

Now, transfer yourself forward about 15 years and picture me advising the student newspaper about using Google Docs for story submissions (instead of the antiquated “e-mail your Word .doc file to the copy editor” system we currently use). After presenting the idea to the student editors, they sound gung-ho, but it never goes anywhere. Why? Because there are too many bodies involved. Too many people who just don’t understand or don’t want to be bothered with trying something different.

Which is one of the things I’ve always loved about the CICM. There are three of us – myself, Ralph Braseth and Chris Carroll – who call the shots. This week, I came up with the idea for a CICM intern. Within 24 hours I was able to implement the idea and get it spread throughout the blogosphere.

Would I have had the same opportunity within a traditional newsroom? No. It would have taken days (at least) of approval from various people wearing ties and business suits.

But those types of ideas (the quick ideas, the ones that hit you in the middle of the night) are the ones that we need more of in journalism. We need more ideas like the Unicorn Chaser sidebar – things that might not – in and of themselves – save journalism, but will at least help push us forward.

I’m going to suggest that there are some people on your campus right now who have some crazy ideas to help develop your online presence. Those ideas may sound radical, or just plain weird coming from a print background.

Hear me now: LISTEN to those people. Don’t ignore them, and don’t put them off until next semester. Grab them and ask the relevant question: “How can we get this started?”

Microsoft used to have a great tagline for their marketing efforts: “Where do you want to go today?” For innovation in the news industry, the emphasis in that question should be the last word: “Today.” Too often, our inertia leaves us fixated on the rest of the question, perhaps on the “want to” part.

I have always admired Rob Curley’s attitude about innovation: Try it quick, give it 18 months and if it doesn’t work, get rid of it. But that’s not the dominant ethos in journalism. We need more of that ethos. And college journalists, you are the people who should be leading that charge. I really like Dave’s question: “Why isn’t every day a revolution?”

Well?

I’m looking forward to a great year for innovation in college media. Are you?

Print Friendly