By Forrest Carr
Special to Poynter.org

Question: Must reporters of the future be equally skilled in print, TV, and online?

In my opinion the answer is "no." Putting the news on television in a daily deadline environment is a full-time job. Putting the news into a newspaper on a daily deadline environment is a full-time job. Putting the news onto a website in an environment where the deadline is always "now" is a full-time job.

No matter how you slice it, there must be full-time posteriors in chairs to make these jobs happen. Convergence efficiencies are not going to reduce the number of man-hours it takes for these processes. At least, that's not the way it's worked out at the News Center.

What has worked is that reporters who have the ability and interest to work with another platform now have the option to do so. For the foreseeable future, when the TV station hires a reporter we'll be most interested in that person's ability to succeed as a broadcaster. The prospective employee must, however, be willing to work in an environment where reporters cooperate across platforms.

In the future, journalists who have skills in TV, print, and online certainly will be more valuable to their employers, but it's my belief there will always be areas of specialization.

Question: Should journalism schools change to prepare students for the future?

It seems obvious to me that J-schools are going to have to change their thinking. In some state university systems, if you want to study print journalism, you go to one city, but if you want to study broadcasting, you have to go to a different campus in a different city. Students may still choose specialties but it no longer makes any sense to pretend print journalists and electronic journalists are in different professions.

Question: Can a print journalist be fired for refusing to go on TV?

To appear on another platform at the News Center, you must be both able and willing. Generally, there are no hard feelings toward anyone who can't or doesn't wish to appear on another platform. We do ask that employees be willing to cooperate with their colleagues on the other platforms. In most cases, this simply comes down to the sharing of tips and information.

Question: What's the value of convergence if the public doesn't see, accept, and embrace it?

Many seem to think that to make convergence worthwhile, the converged entities must gain credit by continually presenting themselves to the public as converged entities in their products and branding. I don't believe this is true.

In the News Center model, we have had some convergence success stories involving coverage that we co-published and co-branded, but at least half of the benefits of convergence are not necessarily directly visible to our consumers.

For instance, one of the greatest benefits of convergence, the daily sharing of tips and information, is not a process of which the audience is normally aware. This process alone has dramatically improved the newsgathering ability of each platform -- and has thereby improved our service to our consumers. The value is intrinsic and very real and does not depend upon public perception.

Question: Doesn't convergence diminish the number of voices in the community?

Convergence creates a new voice, a type of journalism not seen before. When one story is published at the same time on multiple platforms, the story has far more reach and impact than that of other stories.

Question: Isn't the main benefit of convergence the ability to cross-promote the various platforms?

It is true that each platform frequently publishes "refers" or pushes to its partners. The rule of thumb has been only to do this when one platform believes the other has a story giving added value in a way specific to that platform. We are learning that at least some of our readers, viewers, and users find this annoying, so we are revisiting how, when, and where we do this.

Question: Don't traditional competitive instincts get in the way of convergence?

They can. In order to make convergence work, employees on each platform must learn to put aside competitive instincts they've built over a lifetime. As Tribune executive editor Gil Thelen often reminds us, our stories belong not to any one platform, but to the community. When seen that way, our jobs take on new meaning.

Question: How can organizations with such different cultures and standards of journalism work together?

In the News Center, we have found much more common ground than we thought possible. Our journalism styles were not too far apart to begin with. The partnership would have been much more difficult, though still not impossible, if WFLA-TV's news style were tabloid and sensational in nature.

Question: Isn't this really just about cutting jobs?

Last year, the media recession did lead to a hiring freeze in Tampa and to some cutbacks, primarily by attrition. But no jobs have been lost due to convergence. In fact, we have two positions in the building specifically devoted to convergence.

Convergence does provide some cost-saving efficiencies, but it is not about trading two reporters for one who then has to put in twice as much time. It is about strengthening the journalism we do by using the resources already at hand to reach more people.

Question: Is cross-ownership necessary to make convergence work?

Successful convergence is hard. While cross-ownership is not utterly necessary, it removes a number of serious roadblocks. Cross-ownership makes it possible to drive convergence from the top down and to obtain the cooperation necessary to achieve convergence goals -- one of the most important of which is better serving the public through stronger journalism.

Having each platform owned by the same company also removes one of the biggest obstacles among potential convergence partners, the idea that each partner must always benefit equally from convergence. Holding on to that notion is one of the surest ways to derail convergence. It's the viewers, users, and readers who should benefit the most.