Reinventing the Newsroom

What Do We Call This New News Thing?

Posted in Branding, Digital Experiments, The And World by reinventingthenewsroom on April 17, 2009

I’ve been writing Reinventing the Newsroom for about six weeks now, and I keep running into a vocabulary problem: What should I call an organization that reports on news, creates stories and puts those stories out via a variety of media channels?

Newspaper? The obvious answer, and there’s a long tradition of print terms being reused for the Web — for example, I came up as a rim editor and became a slot editor even though we never sat in such a configuration or passed physical copy back and forth. But I’m not happy with that answer — reflexive thinking about the “paper” part is a big reason so many of these organizations are scrambling to catch up with the digital world.

Web newspaper? Seems like it ignores the paper part, which is kicking the pendulum too far the other way.

Web-first newspaper? Too insidery, and a bear to type.

E-paper? Means something else. Horrid term anyway.

News organization? Bloodless and drab. Sounds like a wire service, or a TV station with pretensions.

Newsroom? Refers to the actual shop where the work gets done, not to the product put into the hands and ears and in front of the eyeballs of readers.

Suggestions cheerfully accepted (and much appreciated) via comments, email, Twitter, Facebook message or any other way you like.

A Friday Read: I think Joe Posnanski is the best sportswriter in the business, and he deserves that praise for both his newspaper work and his blogging efforts. He’s got a new thing going — The Future of Newspapers, in which he’s a ringmaster for thoughts on a subject obviously dear to my heart.

Last week Joe put the spotlight on Dave Krieger, another fine sportswriter who moved to the Denver Post after the demise of the Rocky Mountain News. Krieger reviews the Rocky’s last days before moving on to the Sturm and Drang about Google and the Associated Press. About which he has a question:

Why should any newspaper in the internet age be a member of an organization that takes that paper’s original material, rewrites it and distributes it around the world without attribution or compensation? In fact, an organization that charges the newspaper for the privilege? Inasmuch as the AP is a creation of the newspaper industry, is it not accurate to say we are complicit in the theft of our own material? Aren’t newspapers the agents of their own destruction every day?

Good question. The arm of the AP that produces original content is one thing, but what’s the use of the aggregator arm in this day and age? Papers — ugh, there’s that vocabulary problem again — are slowly but surely coming to the realization that they can and should link to other papers and sites for news that isn’t part of their core mission. Why do they need a middleman to do that for them, let alone an expensive one?

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. donfry said, on April 17, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    I have three suggestions for the product:
    1. Newnews. This term would indicate that we’re continuing our old practice of gathering what’s new for our audiences, but we’re doing it in a new form. Sort of on the model of the term “New Criticism.”
    2. Readernews. This term continues our old practice, but captures the idea that readers participate in it.
    3. Postnews. This term also continues our tradition, but it indicates we’re going to do it in ways that supersede the old models, with the pun on “posting.”

    • Megan said, on April 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm

      What about “news”? 🙂

  2. Dan Eyre said, on June 2, 2009 at 12:51 am

    A Newsnet? 😀

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: