New York Times blogger - lessons to learn

I discovered this Mashable link on Twitter a couple of weeks ago and thought it was extremely relevant to this class and this blog. New York Times blogger Brian Stelter talked about social media and multi media in today's journalism.

Stelter talked about how in today's journalism, even though he would define the New York Times as the "embodiment of old media," you don't really find the "old print stodgy representative of the group" like you might have even three years ago. The aversion to technology is gone, and everyone has embraced the idea that digital media is indeed the future of news.

He did draw the conclusion, however, that after years of preaching about the importance of Twitter, he has realized that Twitter might not be for everyone. Some journalists' talents may be better served through Tubmlr, or Facebook, or simply through email, and there is not a "one size fits all" approach; rather, we as journalists have to figure out what we're best at and expand on it. He did say that everyone will need to be a video reporter, while not necessarily a television reporter.

He advises never hesitating to pitch a story or start a random project if you have a good feeling about it and a unique perspective to bring. He said a Tumbr project you start for a new topic sets you apart and creates a unique online identity for you. On that note, he said we should embrace sharing our personal lives with our readers, not just hard news, because we will be more likely to connect with readers by doing so.

The most important lesson Stelter had to share - and we can learn from - is the lesson that journalists benefit when they listen to their readers, and they benefit even more when they respond to their readers.

He said he wants to believe, although he's never seen it proven in a study, that when he replies to readers on Twitter, they will be a little more likely to subscribe to the New York Times and maintain a loyal readership. Not only does responding make your work better, it makes business better.

I think this is so interesting when thinking about what it means. While in the past, people may not have wanted to know journalists personally or hear about their personal lives for fear of losing a sense of objectivity, now they do, because it creates a feeling of transparency and connectivity. Perhaps this is bad because it heightens readers senses that they get to decide what news is important, but I think it is largely good, because journalists will be able to show them why news that seemingly doesn't affect them is actually relevant.