These journos might not have a job anymore, but they have sure got plenty of advice from everybody, some of whom may have even read a newspaper once. This advice ranges from the oddly offensive 'learn to code' to the more useful 'maybe we should do something about all the billionaires running these media outlets into the ground'.
But one of the worst pieces of advice seen in recent weeks - even if it was given with the best of intentions - was that maybe journos could all just work remotely now, cutting down on costs by cutting out the newsroom altogether, and just letting reporters roam free.
This might make a lot of sense on paper, but it's a terrible, terrible idea in real life. Even in this day of mass communication, a fully functioning and lively newsroom is essential for anybody trying to gather information in a timely and accurate fashion. Nothing beats it.
For starters, seconds can make a huge difference in getting up big breaking news, and it's just faster to all work out of the same office. Even with Skype and phones and Slack and emails and all that, there is still no piece of communication that is as fast as the human voice shouting across the newsroom, and nothing can convey the urgency quite like a 'Holy shit!' moment in the office.
Anybody working in breaking news knows this - digital editors are constantly eavesdropping on the chief reporter as they talk to their news staff, so they can be ready to roll when the time comes. If you're dedicated to getting information up and out into the world as quickly as possible, you have to be in the newsroom.
But it's not just the speed, it's the knowledge. Even with the active and ongoing loss of the most experienced journos, any mid-sized newsroom has decades of experience and advice, which younger journos need to see first hand, if they're going to get anywhere in this business.
And it's having another voice to listen to when you're stuck - it makes everything easier when you're surrounded by people who can actively help you out without even fucking up their own work flow. Even if it's just somebody who needs help nailing that perfect intro, and needs more general overall advice, it's good to have somebody there. And it's great to have somebody there who can catch your fuck-ups and ensure mistakes are fixed quickly, (hopefully before they go public).
To see one effect of being away from the heart of the newsroom, look at the increasing use of 'special correspondents'. The idea to let A-level journalistic talent stick around and avoid burn-out by keeping them in the company with the offer of more freedom to do the shit they really want to do.
But as noted in a recent column from Mark Jennings, while they do have more freedom to follow their noses, they are also out of the flow and out of the daily grind of daily reporting. They can miss developments or angles or whole new stories if they aren't part of the general staff, and don't always get all the nuances of long-running stories that are constantly discussed in the regular reporting and editing pool.
And finally, working in the newsroom can be really fucking enjoyable, because you're spending your day with smart, creative and funny people, which is just so much better than sitting at home, snarking away on Twitter.
Tech companies are pushing for everybody to work from home, but there is no tech that beats a group of people in the same proximity, all working to purpose. Working remotely can work for a lot of people - especially if they're choosing lifestyle over career, and are dead keen on building a life outside the main centres - but it's still a long way from beating the benefits of all being in the same room together.
- Katherine Grant
Posts
