A Newspaper Association of America lançou há dias um blog intitulado ‘Imagining the Future of Newspapers‘.
Foi proposto a 22 convidados – alguns jornalistas no activo mas também analistas, académicos, leitores – que escrevam sobre o nosso presente como se do passado se tratasse.
Há, nalguns dos posts que tive oportunidade de ler, a indicação de ‘soluções’ já conhecidas – a personalização dos sites, a abertura a conteúdos produzidos pelas audiências, a reorganização das redacções – mas há também textos mais abrangentes, como o de Howard Finberg, responsável pela área de aprendizagem interactiva no Poynter Institute.
Looking back from the calmer perspective of 2018, it is hard to remember the turmoil that gripped the newspaper and broadcast industries between 2000 and 2012. Turmoil? Sometimes it felt like panic.
Listening to the new media pioneers reminisce, most of whom are retired from active pontification, today’s media worker might assume that there would be no survivors emerging from that mayhem.
As you know, that didn’t happen. There are lots of survivors. But there were also many casualties, including several big-city newspapers.
Even professional journalism survives, although it’s still complicated to explain who is a journalist and who isn’t. That’s one of the most interesting side effects of the shakeout among legacy [okay, call them old] media companies: the flourishing of reporting and the sharing of information across communities.
What didn’t flourish were the companies that kept looking at their assets and saying things like, “We have a competitive advantage because we have…” You can fill in the blank. We did have some advantages, but not in the way we thought back in 2008.