Journalism's future lies in reporters "who can produce text, audio, video for any media"

I have long advocated that journalism educators must recognize the need for budding reporters to produce content for multiple media. Journalists need to appreciate the obvious convergence of media and, hence, skills.

Now Frank Catalano writes,

[T]he journalistic future I think we’re about to embark upon: that of free-agent professionals who are medium agnostic and can produce text, audio and video for just about any kind of media outlet, including one they individually control. Think of it as blended reporting.

A baby step in that direction is independent certification of journalists as professionals (not government licensing, and not required — it’s all optional). As I noted in the lively comments to the TechFlash piece, certification would provide another tool to help news consumers comparison shop among unfamiliar news sources. And perhaps provide some guidance for the wannabe journalist (the ones without formal training or experience) that they’re on the right track.

It certainly won’t guarantee good reporting. If what someone produces is inaccurate or crap, the audience won’t come back. Certification is only a initial filter that certain standards and expected practices are likely to be adhered to.

Why hasn’t this been done before? I think the reason practicing journalists are queasy about certification is three-fold:

1) First Amendment fears. Some would see certification, even voluntary, as a first step toward government licensing (which I oppose). This is why, I think, RTNDA and SPJ/SDX — even with their standards and codes of ethics — have never taken the step beyond membership to certification, unlike associations in other many other professions.

2) Notoriously independent nature. Journalists are an ornery bunch (me included).

3) Assumed screening by the employing organization. Journalist wannabes didn’t used to have a news media voice or be able to reach an audience unless they were hired by a journalistic organization that effectively vouched for them.

More here.

Also see: Can selling news via the Web save newspapers?
And see: Some thoughts on citizen journalism and Mumbai
And: How to add value to amateur content

"A high Google page rank doesn’t mean it’s accurate, only popular"

Writes Frank Catalano,

“Citizen journalism” means citizens can be journalists and reach a potential audience without the intermediary of owning their own printing press or television tower.

But what’s missing is credibility and, in many cases, trust. The old infrastructure limitations to being a well-read or well-viewed journalist also had an implicit screening effect: If you were hired and worked your way up to a larger paper or TV station, you were effectively trained in (or at least had a fighting chance of) being good at journalism by bosses and colleagues who acted as mentors. Effectively, you were “certified” by the process.

Today, blogs and tweets aren’t consistently trustworthy. And there is no comparable screening process to fall back upon.

A high Google page rank doesn’t mean it’s accurate, only popular.

Also that

[P]erhaps it’s time for the Radio-Television News Directors Association, Society of Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi, and other professional journalism associations to suck it up and join together to agree on a core set of standards for a professional journalist certification, duration before re-certification, and grounds for revocation. All have their guidelines and codes of ethics. If they won’t work together, turn the project over to an international standards body to do the heavy lifting.

Understand the benefits won’t accrue to those lucky reporters still drawing a paycheck from an established news organization or those who are household names (though some, who mix facts and opinion without identifying which is which, surely could benefit).