From yesterday’s World Editors Forum first session:
When asked about the multimedia capabilities of their own newsrooms, 54% of survey respondents said that their newsroom is already integrated.
Well, cooperation is not integration, darling.
What we need is NOT more “convergenza parallela,” but full, real integration.
John Zogby, the author of this straw poll, said that “there is no standard definition of what an integrated newsroom actually is and that this is a discussion that must occur amongst media executives.”
Sorry, but he is wrong.
When you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answers.
And this is the case.
Editors don’t need to discuss any “standard definition of what an integrated newsroom actually is.”
What we need from pollsters is to their job.
Or we will win wars before the battles start.
And this is the case.
If this is not an issue, why is the 2008 World Editors Forum main topic “The integrated newsroom: why, how and when”?
You don’t go to a world forum to discuss something that is not an issue.
The reality is the forum is right, but the poll is wrong.
And the fully-integrated newsroom is the topic of the day.
For editors and for consultants.
As a matter of fact, 14 INNOVATION consultants involved in integration projects are meeting this weekend in Norfolk, Virginia (USA), to discuss our experience in this area since we coined the “information engine” concept more than 15 years ago.
Since then, we have seen fewer than ten real integrated newsrooms around the world.
So, the fist step to solving a problem is to accept that there is one.
As simple as that.
(Picture from the Greensboro Daily News, circa 1939, thanks to John Robinson)
By John robinson - Jun 3, 2008 | Leave a reply
I don’t know if we’re fully integrated or not — I hope we’re getting there, Juan Antonio — but I recognize that photo as inside the Greensboro Daily News, circa 1939!