Not buying it [with all respect, puts money back in pocket].

Technical skills not learned in service OF something else (in this example journalism) will only end up in service TO something else (in this example, a foot-dragging community of practice).

Why should Mr/Ms. Uberskillz ‘share’ what makes them valuable with foot-draggers? I see the benefit to the foot-draggers, but what’s the benefit Ms. Uberskillz? It would be much better to give the technically skilled folks a better conceptual grounding, which technical training apparently doesn’t. This puts them in the marketplace, which does much more to ‘bring people along’ than any soapboxing or conceptual bridging ever could.

What do I mean?

Example: graphic design in the 1980s. There was a time when many highly succesful and well-respected design studios looked on the computer with disdain. “Not a serious tool for design” they said. They pointed to desktop publishing as an example of the mediocrity and lack of professionalism the PC seemed to spawn at that time. But as soon as a community of practitioners who were both technically skilled *and* conceptually grounded appeared in the late 80s/early 90s, the new landscape could no longer be derided.

I see the pattern repeated here (and in many other fields).

The newsroom will have general assignment reporters, where general assignment means being on the scene with digitial photos, video or web skills. And there will be a projects desk, where someone with a great visual sense will work with a writer and a database expert to produce long-form journalism. And there will be a technicians desk, where Friday night sports video is filed and edited, but I hope there is still room for the spontaneity of an individual journalist who sees something and can report on it in the best medium available without waiting for the next video editing clerk to get free.

Agreed.

“Now is not the time for further handwringing; it’s the time to accept a few facts and get back to the business of informing the public…”

Agreed.

All I’m suggesting is that since there is, in fact, a major disruption associated with the acquisition of new skills and some very different ways of thinking, it will be helpful to find ways to identify and emphasize continuity where we can.

Here’s my response to everyone who has asked “But who’s listening”: I work at newspaper. I have friends who work at newspapers. We get it. We’re working on it.

Not everyone in the business gets it. Not everyone in the business is working on it.

Plenty of people are getting hit over the head with layoffs these days, but complaining about it doesn’t change facts. The layoffs are going to continue. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

But if you look at the work I point to in the 10th point on my list, you’ll see that the training and the change and the adoption of new technologies is underway. There’s good work out there, and there’s good work to be done. Now is not the time for further handwringing; it’s the time to accept a few facts and get back to the business of informing the public and changing the world.

http://storiesforchange.net/story/path_to_technology

See Lance Mannion’s cogent analysis on how the business is changing,
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2007/06/one_and_a_half_.html

We need journalists’ skills more than ever before. From the BLS description:
“News analysts, reporters, and correspondents gather information, prepare stories, and make broadcasts that inform us about local, State, national, and international events; present points of view on current issues; and report on the actions of public officials, corporate executives, interest groups, and others who exercise power.”
The watchdogs of power have been co-opted into the power structures in Washington, with a few honorable exceptions. What’s needed is to extricate them and let them do their jobs: whether in print, video, or online doesn’t really matter as much as addressing the fundamental corruption.