hackbash

The quip in Simon’s recent post* that journalists on proper magazines enjoy perks like, um, a readership has been playing on my mind. One of our most promising projects is very much, let’s say, under-read at the moment, despite some rather splendid content.

I guess the concept of building a readership comes more easily to a publisher than a journalist. For the particular site I have in mind, part of our job is to foster any attention the site does attract, to respond individually to those precious few comments that have thus far come our way. I confess I’ve been a little reluctant to do this. Why? Perhaps because it seems a bit cosy.

Conventionally, there has often been a strongly-defended separation between a writer and the readership. Some of that would be to do with the editorial chain of command, personal security and all that gubbins. But for lazy or misanthropic writers, it’s probably been rather convenient too.

Well - hold the front page - the internet is a bit cosy. Hacks, lazy or otherwise, are going to have to get used to it. The idea of contributing to an ongoing conversation sparked by something you’ve written may seem burdensome, but what’s the alternative? The conversation will either wither (sad), continue without you (bad) or engage with other journalists (awful).

Arguably, the best journalists have always been committed to the ongoing conversation, even before email made it cheaper to respond. It seems that social media might, rather than destroy good journalism, change expectations of what good journalism should be - perhaps even (whisper it) raise the bar for us all.

In which case the most pressing question is: how will journalists be appropriately rewarded for their changing roles? Job descriptions will have to be updated. Perhaps instead of a 500-word piece a day, editors will expect 300 words plus three pithy updates and a well-placed ping.

*Si, I refuse to say ‘Handolio’, which is in fact a back-street service in Naples

Tags: day job, journalism, readers