Jeff Jarvis responds to Fr�d�ric Filloux's criticism of his blogpost questioning the orthodoxy of the article
Fr�d�ric Filloux wilfully misrepresents me so that he may uphold the orthodoxy of the article. He will be disappointed to learn that we agree more than he wishes. Here is what I am really saying about the article.
First, far from denigrating the article, I want to elevate it. When I say the article is a luxury, I argue that using ever-more-precious resources to create an article should be taken seriously and before writing and editing a story we must assure that it will add value. Do most articles do that today? No. Go through your paper in the morning and tell me how much real value is added and how much ink is spilled to tell you what you already know (whether that is facts you learned through Twitter, the web, TV, radio, et al or background that is reheated more often than a stale slice in a bad New York pizzeria).
How many articles are rewritten from others' work just so a paper and a reporter can have a byline? How many predict the obvious (every story about an upcoming storm, holiday, press conference, or election)? How often do you see a local TV story with any real reporting and value instead of just someone standing where the news happened 12 hours ago telling you what you and he both read online already? Too many articles passing themselves off as professional journalism are crap and I say we can't afford to do that any more. I say we should treat articles with veneration as a luxury.
Second, I am also promoting rather than devaluing background when I say it is best linked to. The background paragraphs in an ongoing story generally do one of two things: they bore and waste the time of people who have followed the story or they underinform the people who have not been following the story. Background graphs were a necessity of print but online we can improve background immensely, investing the effort in truly valuable and long-lasting content assets that give richer and more helpful background on a story. I've worked with smart folks at news companies imagining how we could provide multiple paths through background: here's the path to take if you're coming to the story as a virgin; here's a track to take if you've missed a week; here's a track from one perspective; here's one from another. If someone else did a great job explaining the story or elements of it, we should link to them. Filoux calls that oursourcing. I call that linking. We do that nowadays. This is why I'm eagerly watching Jay Rosen's project in creating explainers, which is an even richer form of background.
Third, in this entire discussion of the article, I am valuing reporting higher than repetitive retyping. As our resources become ever-scarcer, I say that we must devote more of them to reporting than to articles that add little: asking the questions that haven't been asked and answered, finding people who can add information and perspective, fact-checking.
But I have angered the gods, first Mathew Ingram, now Filoux, who also misquotes me when he says I say that: "Tweeting and retweeting events as they unfold is a far more superior way of reporting than painstakingly gathering the facts and going through a tedious writing and editing process." I say no such thing and dare him to show me where he thinks I say that with a direct quote. That sentence could stand a little painstaking editing itself. I do say that while an event is underway, tweeting is an amazing new tool to hear directly from witnesses, to question them, to debunk rumors, to manage collaborative reporting (that's what Andy Carvin does in the Arab Spring). It is part of the reporting process. It contributes to articles later in the process (that's what Brian Stelter was asking his desk to do when he covered a tornado).
The point is that there are many new ways to accomplish journalistic goals to cover news and gather and share information: Twitter, blogs, data, visualization, multimedia?. Jonathan Glick wrote a much more constructive answer to the question I raised about articles, saying that now that they are freed from the drudgery of reporting infobits of news ? the things we have already been told sooner and by other means ? then the article can concentrate on adding true value: context, explanation, education, commentary, further reporting, fact-checking?.
That is the sense in which I say that the article is or often should be a byproduct of the news process. Once the public is informed of the facts through faster means, once we put digital first and print last (� John Paton), then we also no longer need to build the infrastructure and process of news around writing articles. We have to break out of that expensive, inefficient, archaic stricture. We can instead architect news around helping communities organize their information and themselves (that is my definition of journalism) and we have new ways to do that, including new ways to report news and write articles.
I dare to question the assumptions about the forms of news and journalism. That's my job. Some ? including apparently Filoux ? might argue that it is the job of a university to impart orthodoxy: This is the way we have always done it, thus that's the right way to do it, and that's the way you will do it, students. I abhor that view.
I believe it is my job, especially in a university, to challenge assumptions and to free students to invent new forms. That is one of my hidden agendas behind teaching entrepreneurial journalism: to encourage and support students (and the industry) to break assumptions and invent new forms, because they can, because we must.
I fear Filoux's still upset with me because I could not bear and dared criticise the discussion on a panel he ran at the e-G8 in Paris. It wasn't him I was criticising. It was hearing the same old stuff from the same old people. At a conference on the internet and the future, the past was rehashed once more. I can bear that no more than he apparently can bear my temerity to challenge the holy article.
But in the end, we almost agree. Filoux argues that newspapers should become, say, "biweeklies offering strong value-added reporting and perspectives, and using electronic media for the rest." Hmmm. He's saying, just as I am, that articles should be richer and more valuable and that reporting news bits can be accomplished by other means. So where do we disagree?
Reproduced with permission from Jeff Jarvis's blog BuzzMachine
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2011/jun/13/online-journalism-article-response
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY SCIENTIFIC GAMES SANDISK SALESFORCE COM SAIC
Google has decided to stop collecting Street View photos in Germany, where regulators have spent much of the past two years 
A man named Norman LeBoon is