Weather-casters of Future?

Editors keep stories short because young people want it so.

News have become more people based, more action based, more event centered, faster. And it is technology, innovation what makes news that way 

New long journalism project:

We try to adapt between audience and producers. 

Common sense: there is  acceleration (everything is faster) broadcasting, technologies, commercials

practioners: news has gotten shorter – technology made it

critics & observers: speed imperative

some of them  have reduced the text that much tat it has become little more than capture

(the format of newspapers is changing, shrinking)

newspaper: stories got longer

TV news:  longer talk: they have time pressure. Journalists speak more than x2 from the beginning and end of the century.  Journalist shifted away from giving information moved to giving ideas, opinions ( shared two videos to support )  More face time: correspondence appear x4 time more often

Extended NPR Reports (national public radio)

Political stories longer, longer NPR speech, speech time shifted but journalist speech remained the same. They talk to each other more

 - Deep background (of information you need from news) declined for more than half.

Internet news: Neutral technology, constant competition, journalists view

 There have been complex changes:  by 2005 news has gotten shorter. Stories on accidents are shorter but those on politics on NYT are longer.

Yadda news

Traditional news outlets – bla

People news – Who : Fewer actors in stories, NPR use more experts.  

 Talk on new technology is hiding the real reason for the shift

Stories get shorter but journalists do the opposite.  Who owns power, how it operates, needs critical scholarship.

Attention is shifted away from politicians toward journalists.  News is about journalists, this is the power journalists have: they have become a central voice in political life in US.

Core definition of news has changed in US: They don’t tell what happens they say what it means – related to politics but not politics.

Nordic model seem to be friendlier to US model. If there is an influence then journalists and politics in Finland /North should know about the shift in US.

News is more entertaining but let’s not ignore what is happening.  We should also debate on Does yadda news add value?

Statements from the discussion: 

You may feel powerless because opinions are made for you

Young people read what is short and fun

Isn’t it ironic that journalists have reputation but people think they are moving away?

Problem: Journalists have budget but their work is not measured, evaluated

Contradiction: Terrific journalists but when interviewed their answers are wrong, they don’t understand what they are doing

Technology is not the explanation to change.

Journalists like to be interviewed but they are very difficult to interview because they are worried about where their words would lead to.

Chair: Professor Risto Kunelius, University of Tampere, Finland

Professor Risto Kunelius, has an introduction before journalists and researchers share their views on innovation journalism.  He states that journalism is defined by social, political scientists and not by journalists and political journalism varies depending on the political system (e.g. American vs. Finnish) He says developing national innovation ecosystem is crucial for the survival of nation and Innovativeness and  creativity are the key for our national survival in Nordic countries. He argues that we need new kinds of interfaces in this new ecosystem that is also changing journalism.

Vilma Luoma-aho, Senior researcher, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

She says the ecosystem needs good relations, god funding and attention next to researchers, development people and application people. She suggests that innovation journalist should be T shaped people:  broad knowledge in one area, cover deeply but communicative between sectors. They should go in different directions to feed the content.

Anu Partanen, Freelance journalist, US

She is sharing her experience in USA and compares journalism in USA and in Finland. There is paranoia in Finland that journalists should protect their integrity whereas in USA they have insiders in the system.

She defines Innovation journalism: describing solutions that help to understand. As a journalist she is trying to contribute to the solutions and ponders on the role of journalist is solving problems.

She suggests:  Innovation will happen as the company’s business plan. Narrow way of looking at what companies are doing is practical. As for relations between journalists and others – journalist being part of making innovation happen, she is not to identify with company.

Jyrki Alkio, Journalist, Talouselämä, Finland

He thinks the role of the journalist in the process is the challenge. They should accept the importance of the question and see the journalism agenda. Media / journalism are a business of competition.

He argues that grass-root media doesn’t exist in Finland and that is of a big disadvantage for the ecosystem and for journalists working in next level. He also argues that the role of the journalists depends on on what level they operate

Carl-Gustav Lindén, Journalist, YLE, Finland

He has participated in Innovation Journalism program in Sweden, England, Pakistan, it was a great experience to see differences and it made him change his way of framing his work.

He underlines the interconnectedness of the world referring to global financial crisis.

The important is: What is the value journalists bring to society?

Such questions on Innovation journalism should be asked:   is it a new journalism for the good of society? Is it for money? Is it new journalism? Whose interests are seen?

He thinks definitions are not clear. He says: there also is bad innovation. How do you report on that?

Finnish innovation: saving the nation, is not there. Innovation is global              

At the end of the first round of talks the Chair opens up the discussion, below are the statements from the interactive discussion:

Innovations are adapted in different ways – e.g. USA vs. Finland, checks vs. bank transfer- and they are not always global and they don’t spread globally. And journalism is not global as such.

Global comes more surprisingly/ unpredictable – e.g. Nokia (company) and Nokia (city) may be mixed up on google searches.

Re:  Difference between giving attention and promoting it?

What is in the content is promoting. Frame is the best marketing part. Promoting is giving. Giving is promoting. You could be critical you don’t have to promote. PR machine is promoting attention.

It depends on the country and it goes down to core values.- e.g.  Consensus in Europe, failure in North, to be on news and it is different in USA.

Re:  innovation and democratic systems comparing – how do you see the comparison?

You can vote more than once in innovation ecosystem. It is more flexible. Power is with those who are able to communicate better.

It goes back to the role f journalism and what topic we take to the agenda.

Re: Can journalism contribute to innovation processes by highlighting the process rather than just covering the existing innovation?

If policy is not done by regulators but by new actors, how do you put this in democracy? Journalism to facilitate public discussions on the issue.

Re: Is there a distinction between covering innovation and covering how it happens?

It’s risky/boring to cover innovation, could be a failure because you don’t know how it will conclude but on politics you are safe when you cover a political decision.

Re: Professionalism.  Journalists are sometimes afraid of being PR – writing what they are said to write.  Reflections?

Academic- journalist cooperation

There is an interdependence of all actors in society.  Innovation journalism is able to integrate many perspectives.

Re: Are we expecting too much if we want T journalist? What would be the alternative solution?

You don’t need to know all but know all to cover your own special topic. More specialization rather than cover a bit of everything is needed.

Re: Research on changing nature of knowledge work and specialized knowledge. Knowledge workers also have division of labor, work in teams. T shape people are able to combine this expertise in a meaningful whole  – does it apply to journalism?

Engineers have to learn how to communicate from journalists not only journalists learn from engineers.

American journalism is much more specialized. It is not narrow but the challenge is to put knowledge together with others.

Innovation is business driven. The solution approach:  innovation for public good. It is not always for public good.

With globalization, there is an overload of information. Therefore there is customization of information that leads to polarization in society. Journalist should show a broader picture. Traditional role of journalism doesn’t work that well in globalization.

Re:  if innovation key word in Finland, should we have innovation journalism?

Journalistic work is needed.

Journalism has missed an opportunity to open a discussion on which way /policy to follow.

An international evaluation of Finnish innovation will come out at the end of October and it will spark discussions.

David Nordfors is taking floor : Journalism Driving Innovation – Innovation Driving Journalism

Prof. Hannu Nieminen is opening the conference