The Three C's of Convergence

That is a truly pathetic starting salary, but I guess CNN will have to learn the hard way that you get what you pay for.

Fortunately, though, as Dave Helling mentioned, high-end technology is getting so much cheaper and more accessible that CNN is quickly becoming a dispensable middle man. That day hasn't fully come yet, but perhaps Blogs--as independent news services--can play a role in providing better job opportunities for qualified journalists. Again, though, it comes down to whether the Blogosphere can prove itself a worthy commercial entity for generating revenue. Personally, I hope that comes through subscription services rather than advertisement, since the latter will only lead us back to the same CNN model. I know I'd be willing to pay a little extra (the same I used to pay for a newspaper subscription) to get solid, independent news--and I certainly don't see CNN as independent anymore .

It makes you wonder how long it will be before we start to see a lot of freelance video journalists fighting to be the first to shoot, write, produce and edit any story they can...kinda like the paparazzi. Perhaps this is what CNN is looking for in the position.

>>>That is a truly pathetic starting salary, but I guess CNN will have to learn the hard way that you get what you pay for.<<<

Well, sadly, CNN's history of starting salaries is about like that.

>>>As I have said all along, what kind of journalism do we the viewers deserve from an individual wanting to work for this kind of money?<<<

I can't say I have any problem with anybody who wants to grab a camera and go produce some kind of news or documentary. It's all a matter of quality. The problem for the old-line video media -- if they want to hang onto their pricier personnel and equipment -- is to produce material that transcends what the "citizen journalists" turn out. You've gotta lick 'em if you don't want 'em to join you.

It's not just TV stations, and it's not always just a matter of getting by on the cheap. The issue can be getting a richer, more wide-ranging view of what's going on in the community. Check the following from Jeff Jarvis (who's his usual self in decrying criticism of citizen journalists as not performing real journalism).

"But it’s not journalism," is the contention of Kelly McBride at the Poynter Institute, because CJs don't follow the conventions of journalistic organizations. Jarvis blazes away at that:

That’s patently absurd. What does an organization have to do with it? Journalism is an act that can occur anywhere, anytime, by anyone.

Here's the rest of Drowning in a journalism think tank

This relates pretty closely to an earlier thread about the proliferation of cameras, and the emotional damage journalistically untrained video-gatherers might do to crime or disaster victims. But the topic is relevant here, too.

Who can say s/he is or isn't a "journalist"?

Jarvis, to my thinking, is just about as automatic in his ire with the position of trad journalists on this issue, as are trad journalists in saying only they can be considered worthy of committing acts of true journalism. If the truth lies somewhere in between, it lies in between the ears of the reading and watching audience -- and I can't say for sure how discriminating that audience'll be as new media continue to become more partisan and fragmented. But one thing is clear to me: A big chunk of the audience is no longer convinced that trad journalism is necessarily the most useful and trustworthy one-stop source for information, and no amount of huffing and puffing about the illegitimacy of citizen journalism will change that. At least not now.