MediaShift

I worked at a media company that was great at talking the talk of new media, but terrible at walking the walk. This was clear if you looked at how resources were allocated, and when you looked at who had the power to make real decisions about content and priorities. People were hired b/c they had "new media" expertise, but then they weren't empowered to put that expertise to work..."old media" people knew they needed to have us around, but they didn't really want to change anything about how they did business.

I've seen a marked shift in attitude by some within the newspaper industry. In 1997, the Washington Post newspaper published a profile article about a colleague doing academic enrichment with youth after school in the District of Columbia. As a longtime volunteer at my colleague's nonprofit, I was a source for the article.

When the reporter called me on the phone to gather facts, I suggested gently that the reporter find a way to include my colleague's email address in the article. The reporter flat-out refused: "We don't do that," she said curtly.

"Wouldn't this be a good time to start?" I asked very reasonably. Stone cold silence in response.

Fast forward 3 years to 2000. A young reporter from New York City, Emily Wax, does a feature Metro section article in the Washington Post about my taking donated computers to the homes of children who didn't have computers. I didn't ask for my email address to be included in the article, but after the public response was very strong, this reporter persuaded the Washington Post editors to re-run an abbreviated version of the article, with my email address included, a month later.

The action by this young reporter was without knowledge of my prior interaction with the newspaper.

I was a first-hand witness to a sea-change in attitude. In many ways the Washington Post remains mired in 20th century (and some 19th century) practices. But I know the name of one reporter who gets it -- and who helped the newspaper move forward an inch.

Interestingly, the same older reporter (mentioned at the top of my comment above) asked me what I do for a living. When I explained that I work as a technology access activist, a branch of civil rights activism, she told me she wouldn't be able to write that in her article.

When I asked politely, "Why not?" she explained, "My editor won't let me write that."

I paused for a moment and then asked, "Do you let your editor tell you what else is true and not true in this world?"

As I hung up the phone, I thought to myself, "That reporter just told me I chose an invalid career for myself."

I get the feeling that my newspaper would change if it weren't such an inconvience to the people who have been doing the same thing for 30 or more years. Disrupting their daily work habits seems to be one of the big barriers. On the economic side, it's "we still make money this way" so change comes very, very slow.