Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage

1.	It's "Tweet Week" on Romenesko 8:03 PM Nov. 22, 2009
2.	Poynter announces publication of a new collection of newspaper pages 5:37 PM Nov. 21, 2009
3.	Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy 10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.	Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom 7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.	Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage 6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Poynter Forums

Convergence Case Studies

The news director at Tampa's WFLA, among the nation's most converged operations, says he's learned three things after a year: (1) convergence holds great potential for competition and excellent journalism; (2) the Operator's Manual for convergence is still being written; and (3) many fears about convergence are "just flat wrong."

Your take on convergence?

Page 1 of 1

Convergence: the next CueCat

5/7/2002 1:24:12 PM
Posted By: Gerald M. Carbone

Convergence is the corporate dream to circumvent anti-trust laws governing cross-media ownership in a single community, or "market." It is, and should be,
illegal to own the video, audio, and print media in a single city. Let TV do the TV, radio be radio, and leave print reporters to write the news.
I can understand the profiteer's desire to own all three, but you can't; I'llcertainly never abet the desire by equipping myself with a camera,
recorder, lap top, and cell phone on an assignment. It's an insult to broadcasters to believe that their jobs are so easy that they can add
a good, thoughtful written report to their duties; it's an unsult to the print reporter to believe that he or she can report and write well while
trying to perform as a one-man band. You couldn't pay me enough to perform three jobs for the price of one. Convergence reminds me of the
late CueCat, a marketer's dream foisted upon a public that neither wants nor expects it. If corporations don't drop the idea on their own,
then anti-trust lawyers ought to drive the nail in it, as it is unhealthy and unwise for a single source to provide all of the information.

Why Converge

5/5/2002 11:34:48 AM
Posted By: Dan Bradley

As the VP/News Director at WFLA from 1993-2000, I played a key role in laying the foundation of the News Center in Tampa. I worked very closely with my Publishing counterparts, Gil Thelen, Donna Reid and the Sr. Editors and Team Leaders in the Tampa Tribune's Newsroom. We worked hard to recognize and understand the value that our On-Line Partner, TBO.com brought to our Journalism through the hard work and dedication of Kirk Reed, Jim Riley and Peter Howard to name just a few of the folks on that team.
Every single one of us had to face the frightful challenge "Convergence" created for us. However, it was clear from the very beginning, this challenged presented all of us with the best possible approach to a very uncertain future for traditional journalism platforms.
The greatest challenge we had to overcome, and continue to confront to this day are the cultural divisions that have developed between the various platforms of journalism. Additionally, the idea that change is something an individual journalist has to actually deal with is a foreign concept to most of them. Change is some thing they cover and report on, not something they have to actually deal with on a personal basis.
The professional journalists in Tampa at all levels of the operation, have, by and large, worked very hard to come to grips with these challenges. The end result is clearly a higher level of quality being delivered to the readers, users and viewers in Tampa Bay as evidenced by the high number of awards all three platforms have pulled in over the last 3 years, many of them for "converged" stories.
One of the first things to occur in Tampa was a slow, but steady acceptance of the different cultures. While journalists from the various platforms may say things differently, and think differently when approaching a story, it became clear very early that we shared common values and beliefs. We all want to seek and publish the truth, in a fair and balanced manner. We want to be respected and trusted by our communities. We want to break the big stories that have an impact on our readers, viewers and users. We want to hold the powerful accountable for what they do. It was through this process that we discovered Convergence helped us focus much more on our customers. Newsrooms generally are very inwardly focused. Seldom are there open discussions about what our customers care about or are concerned about. It is not unusual for journalists to hold their customers in rather low disregard. Perhaps that is why so many newspapers and television newscasts have become so un-important and irrelevant in the minds of the people it needs the most, the people willing take the time and read or watch what we publish. In Tampa, and in the other 5 markets where Media General is developing similar cross-owned relationships, convergence is leading our newsrooms back to our readers, viewers and users. I believe one of the main reasons for this is Convergence is not an easy thing to do. It forces journalists to sit down and take stock in what they do and why they do it. It forces them to look outward, instead of inward. It forces them to accept a basic premise of life, CHANGE HAPPENS, embrace it and grow, resist it and perish.
I think is very important to remember why most of us chose this profession. We wanted to tell stories, and we wanted those stories to be touched by as many people as possible. We all may have chosen different tools to tell our stories, some a pen, some a camera lens and still others a microphone, but we are all driven, at least to some degree by a common factor, we want people to see our stories. In the debate on Convergence an important fact is often overlooked, or perhaps it's more of an assumption or a given. There seems to be this belief that in the future, we will be distributing our journalism to the masses in the same way we have been doing it all along, delivering a paper every morning before 6:00 AM; putting a newscast on the air at specific times throughout the day, and posting what was previously published or broadcast a little later on our websites. But that is just not going to happen. There is very little evidence consumers will continue to support these dated models of distribution, in fact the vast majority of evidence says just the opposite. While there will always be a morning paper and regularly scheduled newscasts, I don't believe those will be the dominant forms of mass distribution of journalism based products in foreseeable future. While I cannot say what the means of distribution will be, I do believe the strongest brands of local journalism will survive, and I think converged, local operations have the best chance of surviving in a very uncertain future.

Dan Bradley

VP/News
Media General Broadcast Group

Mix Some Facts with your Fears

5/2/2002 5:20:21 PM
Posted By: Forrest Carr

With all due respect to Mr. Haiman, the statement that "Convergence is the enemy of quality journalism" is utter garbage. Not having seen the full speech, I don't know what led to him to that conclusion. I can tell you that my impression is that most of the statements claiming that convergence kills quality have been from people who seem offended at the notion of print journalists being forced to slum with us low-life broadcasting types. It's an argument based on emotion, prejudice and fear, not fact.

Here are some facts about quality to inform your fears. WFLA-TV won four first-place awards in this years' Florida Associated Press broadcasters' competition. One was for best overall TV news operation in the state, an award we also won LAST year. Another was for our examination of corrosion on the Sunshine Skyway Bridge -- which was, by the way, a convergence project, as referenced in my article. Mark Douglas' print version of that very same story is a finalist in the mid-Florida SPJ print journalism contest. This year WFLA-TV won more Edward R. Murrow awards than any other station in our region -- including recognition for "Best Newscast." Most of the newscast we submitted for that award was devoted to the shooting of a Tampa Police officer. Last week TBO.com won a national SPJ award for its coverage of that same incident. The Tampa Tribune's coverage from that same day is a finalist for two awards in the upcoming Mid-Florida SPJ contest. Last year TBO.com won a national Edward R. Murrow award recognizing it as the nation's best online news service -- it was, in fact, the inaugural award in that category. One of our other TV reporters also is a finalist in this year's mid-Florida SPJ print awards. In the most recent Project for Excellence study, WFLA-TV had the highest scores for journalism quality in the market and the 4th highest in the study. Convergence harms quality? I think not. Given that convergence is a factor in everything we do at the News Center, I think this shows the opposite is true.

In his comments, Mr. Anderson states, "From where I stand, as a newspaper reporter, convergence is nothing more than another effort to squeeze as much from a reporter while doling out as little in compensation and/or credit as possible." Mr. Anderson, let me ask you this: why did you get into journalism? Did you join this profession because you saw it as a gold mine? Were you motivated by the desire to "get credit," to have your name in the spotlight? I don't believe that. None of the good journalists I know got into the business for those reasons. They're in it because they have a passion for making a difference. Now, what if I were to tell you that I have a job for you where, if you you care to do so, within the scope of your regular work day you have the opportunity to place your journalism in front of three or four times as many people? That you'd have the chance to affect three to four times as many lives? That you'd get a shot at motivating three to four times as many people to get involved in the process of setting public policy and holding the powerful accountable? Are you saying that does NOT appeal to you? I find that hard to believe. But if it's true that convergence offends you because you feel it won't give you the opportunity to ring your cash register more or to see your name in more lights, then you're absolutely right, it's not for you. Convergence is for journalists who are interested in strengthening their journalism and public service by providing the news where and how citizens want it.

And finally, to Mr. O'Connor, I have heard hundreds of times the basic allegations you present that "For many news outlets, convergence seems like just a way to cut costs and personnel, reduce the number of editorial voices in a community and convert the 'news product' into an elaborately branded marketing effort." I haven't seen any facts from you or others to support those claims. Where are these news outlets to which you refer? Perhaps you have facts about other convergence operations of which I'm not aware. Your accusation does not apply to the Tampa model. Convergence here has not cut costs. Convergence here has not cut personnel. The ONLY vehicle by which we regularly present ourselves as a converged entity is our Citizens' Voice project, by which we invite our public to hold us accountable. Our partnership has retained all three of the independent voices that went into it AND, as stated in my article, it's added a new fourth voice. When one enterprise story can command public attention through simultaneous presention on multiple media, I believe that's a new and stronger form of journalism not seen before, a form of journalism that enhances our ability to carry out our constitutional role as a watchdog for the public. In my opinion, convergence is good for journalists, good for journalism, and it's good public policy.

Convergence: "The Enemy"

5/2/2002 2:23:33 PM
Posted By: Brian Anderson

While the notion of all reporters � television or otherwise � contributing to the newsgathering and dissemination process together is appealing to bean counters and broadcasters, there seems to be a dearth in the number of newspaper folks standing behind convergence. News directors, it appears, view the process as nothing more than team projects that result in higher quality journalism � something television news desperately needs. But from where I stand, as a newspaper reporter, convergence is nothing more than another effort to squeeze as much from a reporter while doling out as little in compensation and/or credit as possible.

"If you want to improve the quality of journalism, you should run as fast as you can from convergence," Robert J. Haiman, former president of the Poynter Institute, told the University of British Columbia�s journalism review for a December 2001 story. "Convergence is the enemy of quality journalism."

Television news managers already steal liberally from newspapers. I guess they finally found a word for it other than plagiarism.

Gimme a break

5/2/2002 11:09:20 AM
Posted By: Brian OConnor

As interesting as the concept of "convergence" may be in the abstract, I would prefer to see fewer self-congratulatory stories such as this one and more real critical assesment from the point of view of the readers, users and street-level reporters and editors. I'm sure the folks who run the Tampa operation are impressed with themselves and their organization, perhaps rightly so, but let's take a look at what's accomplished journaistically. For many news outlets, convergence seems like just a way to cut costs and personnel, reduce the number of editorial voices in a community and convert the "news product" into an elaborately branded marketing effort. I'd enjoy seeing an unbiased review of how the community benefits, not just the parent news corporation.

Page 1 of 1

Return to Previous Page

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Poynter Forums

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)