Paciencia, hermanos, paciencia. Y un poco de inglés. La propuesta de Hirschorn sobre el NYT postimpreso es sólo la punta del iceberg. Ese debate -el fin de la prensa impresa- va muy en serio. Digo: aún no acertamos del todo en los términos pero nos acercamos, nos acercamos. Dejo aquí algunas pistas para centrarse, vitaminas contra la nostalgia papelera. A los cracks les parecerá ya antiguo, pero antiguo, hoy, aún no es lo contrario de interesante.
:: Jeff Jarvis sobre the post-paper y el interesante intercambio de comentarios a su post. Dice: The great thing about Michael Hirschorn’s piece [...] is that it sees beyond the period of mourning and imagines what a post-paper Times could and should be. That’s what journalists should be doing - imagining a different - and perhaps even better - future.
:: La sugerencia (¿loca?) de Print in the Communication Ecology: Printed Newspapers Are The Next Big Thing: [...] newspapers can outsource gathering the news to community blogs, to investigative non profits, to Congressional committees. Then they can concentrate on their real defensible advantage- printing and delivering stuff. At first it could be a way slimmed down version of the print. 3-3-10. Three pages of briefs with links to their site, 3 pages for a longer story in print, 10 pages of local advertising. Y sigue el debate aquí, con casos reales de lo que puede ser el futuro.
:: El análisis de tres grandes (Phil Bronstein, Len Downie y Jim Warren, ex barandas del SF Chronicle, The Washington Post y Chicago Tribune) en Reliable Sources, el programa de la CNN sobre los intestinos de la profesión que modera Howard Kurtz. Algunas perlas:
>KURTZ: In my first newspaper job in Hackensack, New Jersey, we banged out our stories on manual typewriters, and editors got the duplicates on something called carbon paper. We had no laptops, cell phones, BlackBerrys or blogs, but we did have readers, something the industry has been struggling to hold on to.
>BRONSTEIN: [...] there ought to be some newspapers that probably should shut down just because they're not doing it the right way. They're not paying attention, they're not as connected with readers. I mean, newspapers used to do the things that the Web want to do, which is aggregate content and create community, and I think there's been much less of that going on.
>WARREN: [...] one of the more interesting realities, guys, is the fact that if you take the whole universe of readership in some of these communities of a paper like The Washington Post, combining the print version with the online version, you probably have audiences which have never been bigger than they are today.[...] Now, the question is how do you make money, particularly off the Internet?
>DOWNIE: Now [...] the Obama administration will come in. [...] And are we going to be there to watch whether they're doing the right new things, whether the changes will benefit the country or not? I worry we're not going to have enough reporters in all those agencies.
>BRONSTEIN: What kind of relationship are professionals and citizens -- in other words, amateur journalists, if you want to call them that -- what kind of relationship are they going to have that's going to further engage those citizens, those residents, that audience?
La transcripción completa está aquí, hacia el final.
Y tres iniciativas que debemos seguir, promovidas por buenos periodistas que vienen del entorno papelero: Dispatches, ProPublica, The Arizona Guardian. Esta última es una iniciativa local. Tratan de trasladar el buen periodismo al mundo online y sostenerse. En la estela de politico.com. Hala, a trabajar para hacernos famosos, como diría La Gran C*. Suerte.