Journalist are persons too

Disclaimer:
That post was originally published at www.lolacomomola.blogspot.com as Los periodistas también somos personas.
That's a adapted to english speakers readers.



Journalists are people too. In case anyone doubted it, in case anyone forgot: journalists are people. Very ordinary people, with good and bad things as everybody, but after all, people like our readers.

I'm not sure we all may understand this post, but personally - and to the extent it may have value my personal opinion, that is rather short-this is one of the points that seem more urgent in journalism today. Let me explain.


I do not understand the media on who does it seems that the media must be some kind of discrete entity so that neither the reader stop to think who milks write / edit / paste the information that flows there. There, neither half-face and almost no middle name. Simply mark (oh demiurge!)



I think that "giving a face" is more important than ever, in a media that desperately need a new relationship with their audience. Again, journalists are people, not gods in Olympus isolated unattainable or sacred cows that should be worshiped. Not so.


We are ordinary people who go to the supermarket, pay bills, watch football-well, I do not ...-. And ordinary people that we should be as accessible as any other person.

Accessible. Yes, some of you might not understand that point, and can be even difficult to accept for some.



Nowadays, knowing the complicated situation of media, when the Washington Post gives some guidelines for its journalists in media and social networks, I can only think one thing: they're afraid (and no longer know how to commit hara-kiri ...).



And that fear I know very well where it comes from: from ignorance. Not enough to go for a single ride around social services and social media to understand deeo impact and changes in the relationship with the reader that these tools had bring.



If I would be a journalist of WP and would read thar guidelines, I would think best to avoid trouble, would not attempt, in light of the restrictions - some very absurd, such as virtual gifts at Facebook .

Hey, gentlemen,

Reporters can not remain at the top of defensive towers, isolated from everything and everyone-from the first, our own readers.

As any other citizen journalist have the right to interact in the social networks. Do not worry, if we are not on the street in pijamas, neither will at Twitter or Facebook it's called "COMMON SENSE".



Moreover, I would say that as journalists, not only our right but a duty to be there and listen to what people are saying, those who we are supposed to write for. We should care, is'nt it?



I read a column from James Poniewozik on Time.com , where this journalist make some reflections about Washington Post's guidelines. The author recalls that journalists have opinions on the topics we cover and it is foolish to try to hide such evidence, "to maintain the illusion that the news is produced by people without opinions, i.e., idiots"

"Objectivity" says Poniewozik- does not mean having no opinions"."It means having opinions—as intelligent, informed people do—but not subordinating your work to them".

Returning to the subject of the post, journalists and people interacting with others, speaks of these rules as an attempt to "sabotage" by the media "the kind of intimate connection with readers that Twitter and other services make possible, and that newspapers desperately need".


That's why I was talking about journalists being "accessible". Accessible because they want to be connected to their audiences, not to be worshiped, but to establish links and relationships capable of building communities of people around their media.

That's why I think is a great nonsense what is happening in the mainstream media: not knowing whether or not they want having journalists on the network "doing" things on their own.



Poniewozik thinks he has an answer

"I get why: to successfully use Twitter et al., you have to give up control, and that scraes scares the hell out of institutions like the Post. Their old way of doing business is to make sure that (except for a few stars like Bob Woodward) their staff remain anonymous drones who subordinate themselves to the paper's brand.

But that day is over, and the Post only hurts its brand by handcuffing its writers on Twitter. Its policy amounts to: just don't say anything interesting, and things will be fine".

I do not know if I get that far in my argument, but I think that to know a face who makes the news, to be able to reach him, to email him, have instant feedback for content, to open permanent channels of communication with some readers ...

I believe that things like this can be the key to succes.



That is called to build a community above personal relationships -even one to one-, besides allowing the reporter to get sources and discover new themes. This is especially possible in the local or proximity information.


Readers are today, and it will become more, highly sensitive to such details.


But journalists also need a change in attitude: stop hiding behind the brand, say who you are and what you devote your working hours (we know that many like to remain unanimous).

Back to the basics: the readers are there and they are people. Journalists are there and we are also people. Let it them to get to know each other, and let them to have a relationship, let them to trust again on each other.

That's where I see hope for a new journalism in a new relationship.