Journalist’s Tradein any business relationship. Gettingthis firm to negotiate a contract, forexample, was a major undertaking. Sowas convincing a technocrat that aninvoice for more than $70,000 containingjust five words to describe the workbeing billed for that handsome sum fellshort of acceptable business practice.And then there is Cold Fusion. Ithought Cold Fusion was somethingfollowers of the Reverend Sun MyungMoon tried to sell to unwary travelersat airports in the 1980’s. Turns out it’sa name for software used to managebig, complex, database-driven Websites. It should have been easy to makeit become the engine that drives oursite. But it isn’t, and the techies don’tknow why.“We’re meeting with the vendor andwe’re sure we can work it out,” theysaid.That assurance was months ago.Must be a long meeting.Still, our Web site works or most ofit does most of the time. Our readersdon’t complain. Most love us for whatwe’re publishing. They don’t know theideas we have in our heads that wecan’t execute. They don’t know all thefeatures we had hoped to add andhaven’t been able to. It’s as though wehad designed a 747, but the plane wetake off in every day is more like a 707.It gets you where you want to go, butnot in quite the style or comfort weimagined our visitors would be travelingin or thought we paid for.The lesson I’ve drawn from all theagony of the last nine months? Journalismin cyberspace may have solved distributionproblems: The report arrivesevery day no matter the weather, andit’s never necessary to retrieve it fromthe bushes where the boy heaved it.But imposing standards is a full-timejob. Techies, like the Web itself, arevalue neutral. They promise more thanthey deliver and don’t always graspwhy some things we ask for are importantin upholding the tenets of goodjournalism. Everything costs more thanthey said it would.Nothing is as easy as you think itought to be.And without vigilance, the news standardson which all of this ought to bebuilt can start to slip away. ■Edward M. Fouhy is Executive Directorof the Pew Center on the Statesand Editor of stateline.org, the dailynews policy Web site published bythe Center. He held top executivepositions at CBS, ABC and NBC.Is ‘New Media’ Really New?For news agency reporters, technology changes but not how the job is done.By Kevin NobletI’m soaking in the tub at my home inSantiago, Chile, when my wife handsme the portable phone. It’s thebroadcast desk of the Associated Presscalling, wanting some Q-and-A for radio.I wonder if the echo from theyellow wall tiles and glass shower dooris noticeable and will spoil my report,but I decide to stay put. I need to cleanup and, just as much, I need the rest.“Testing. Testing. Does this soundOK?” I ask the producer. He’s sitting ina recording booth in Washington, D.C.I don’t tell him exactly where I am. Ijust try not to slosh around too much.“Just great.”“Really?”“Really. It’s great. Let’s start….”That was back in 1988, when I wasthe Associated Press’s Bureau Chief inChile, where the regime of Gen.Augusto Pinochet was surrendering[News agencies] still remain, in some senses,in the shadows, easy to overlook despite ourkey role in the traditional news industry—and our equally important role in the socalledNew Media.power to civilians in a riveting politicalprocess with lots of national angst anda fair amount of tear gas. My primaryduty was putting out AP’s written report,an around-the-clock affair sincethe agency provides stories not just tothousands of American newspapers butto thousands more papers, televisionand radio stations elsewhere aroundthe world. From Santiago we did this intwo languages, English and Spanish. Ialso oversaw our photographic service,directing our Chilean photographers,often writing their captions and transmittingtheir photos. Sometimes I’deven make prints for them and, on rareoccasions, take a photo myself. Andsince the AP also provided sound toradio stations, I helped out with that.Back then, nobody talked aboutmultimedia, or new media. Thoseterms, a hot currency now in the indus-<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999 59
Journalist’s Tradetry and in journalism schools, had yetto be coined, just as the World WideWeb had yet to spin itself over all of ourlives. But some of us, especially thoseof us in the AP and some other newsagencies, were already well acquaintedwith the challenges of juggling the demandsof several news media and withthe expectation of instant delivery ineach.A decade later, as the new mediabecome the big <strong>issue</strong> everywhere, fromWall Street trading floors to journalismschool lecture halls, some of us areasking ourselves—quietly, because weknow it could make us sound like oldcranks when we do it—what’s reallynew here?Certainly it is not the concept ofquick, almost constant updates. I’dbeen with the AP eight years, and overseasfor four, when I did that directfrom-the-bathbroadcast. AndI’d long been accustomedto thedifference betweenmy workand that of thenewspaper correspondents,whowould head offfor dinner or bed after filing their onestory of the day. I stayed at my desk ormy laptop until midnight doing updatesfor late editions of morning papers,and then filing a final “turn” ofthe story for early editions of afternoonpapers. Then, in the morning, I’d beback at it, “freshening” that story withthe day’s first events, and then again atnoon, and so on.This is standard procedure foragency reporters around the world and,of course, was long before even theadvent of CNN. In larger bureaus, suchas London, Moscow and Tokyo, a largestaff can divide the labor into shifts.They also can specialize to a degree, ineconomics reporting, say, or in sports.But in smaller bureaus, such as Hanoi,Abidjan, or Santiago, to name just afew, it’s up to one or two reporters tohandle it all of the time and to help outin all different kinds of media.Four years ago, the AP joined thenews video industry, adding yet anotherdimension to our jobs. Whileexperienced, professional televisioncamera operators and producers werehired and assigned around the world,the AP writers already in place had towork with them, sharing cars andplanes. AP correspondents had to start“thinking visually,” as well as in words,radio and still pictures. It was not unheardof for a writer to be asked, in areal pinch, to carry a high-8 camera andtake some video while on assignment,just as TV producers and still photographersare sometimes asked to providewritten stories when a writer isn’taround. (And they sometimes come upwith the day’s best stories.)At the AP, we’ve come to take thiscollaboration, and the “multitasking”it often requires of us, for granted. Iwas reminded that not everyone doesYet in the steady drone of panel discussions, opedcommentaries, journalism articles and soforth, it is remarkable how rarely any referenceto news agencies is made.when I read Kari Huus’s account, in theWinter 1998 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports, of herwork as MSNBC’s correspondent inJakarta, Indonesia. Huus wrote: “Had Ibeen with a newspaper or magazinereporter, I would have been takingnotes and planning to go back to thehotel to write only when my weeklyand daily print deadline was upon me.Had I been working in television orradio, I would have been shooting witha particular news slot in mind. Butwriting for the Internet, making theusual editorial calls—when and howmuch to file—is more complicated.The medium’s strong suits—speed andversatility—mean the scope of choicesis enormous.”Agency journalists rarely find themselveswith all of the demands thatHuus did, simultaneously carrying avideo camera, still camera, recorderand notebook. But in many respectsthe new media world Huus found her-self in is the same old world for agencyjournalists. One proof of that assertionis found in the technology she describesusing to deliver her words andimages—digital cameras and recorders,which were largely developed for,and first put to use by, the news agencies.For years now we’ve also beentoting satellite telephones and otherhigh-tech gear used to transmit newsfrom the world’s most remote locations.Of course the Internet has its ownspecial qualities, including, as Huusaptly points out, a direct connection tothe public. The feedback, intense andimmediate, that she describes gettingfrom viewers and readers is somethingI never received in my years reportingfrom abroad. There was always a longtime lag as letters moved through theinternational mails. She is right to wonderabout the implicationsof an instantpublicresponse and thewhole concept of“interactive” news.Agency journalistsget feedback, but itusually comes firstfrom the editorswho monitor our services at newspapersand TV and radio stations. They’venever been shy about calling right awayto point out what they perceive as aproblem in the coverage—an error, ahole, a contradiction between oneagency’s story and another’s. Cardsand letters from the public come moreslowly, and less frequently, becausewe’re one step removed from it. Wereach the public only when our storiesare carried by a newspaper, TV or radiostation, so consequently those newsoutlets are the ones that often get theattention.When The Dallas Morning Newspublishes an AP story, or ABC-TV carriesit, the public is inclined to see thatstory as a product of The Dallas MorningNews, or ABC-TV, even if it carriesthat (AP) logo or, in the case of TV, if itis attributed to us. The lack of a directconnection is now starting to change,with the advent a couple of years ago of60 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999