Change is now old news
My first newspaper job was right here with The Oklahoman (then The Daily Oklahoman) back around 1970. It was a transition time for the industry, which was going from “hot-type” to the “offset” printing process.
Because of that, reporters and editors were saying goodbye to their manual typewriters as technology had ushered in electric typewriters in the form of IBM Selectrics. These machines literally started the ball rolling in connecting the newsroom to the offset printing process.
Manual typewriters gave way to electrics in the newspaper newsroom as the 1960s came to a close, just as electrics gave way to computers a decade later, and as the printed newspaper is being challenged mightily by the Web-first edition. This manual features the last sports column written by Glenvall Estes of the Natchez (Miss.) Democrat. (AP Photo/The Natchez Democrat, Ben Hillyer).
The magic typing ball
These Selectrics replaced the individual striking keys with the typing ball that was calibrated to put the right letter on the page as you hit the corresponding key. You could change typefaces simply by changing the typing ball, and you could code the copy to be read automatically by an optical character reader (OCR) machine.
Someone would simply feed the typed sheets into the OCR machine, and out would come the typeset copy, formatted for your newspaper and ready to be pasted onto the newspaper page that would be photographed and magically converted to a thin metal plate. This was placed like a saddle on the printing press. The press was started and voila! A newspaper would emerge on the other end.
What’s this? Change?
This was the first significant change to occur in the way newspapers were produced since the early 19th Century, and it was the first stage of putting composing-room functions into newsroom hands. It also produced a great deal of angst among reporters. Ironically, those professionals who are always writing about changes in society have traditionally been some of the most resistant to change in the way they do their job.
For them, technology in the newsroom means change, and change means a break with tradition, and the traditions of journalism are as endearing to reporters as motherhood, baseball, and apple pie.
Resisting progress
I clearly recall reporters steadfastly refusing to give up their Royal manuals, even as they were ordered by editors to replace them with the new Selectrics. In some cases, they would actually hide those relics, sneak off and use them instead of the shiny new machines that were placed on their
From typewriters, to laptops, to mobile devices, change remains a constant in the way news stories are produced and delivered to news consumers. (AP Photo/Ferdinand Ostrop)
desks. It took more than a year for some die-hards to realize copy produced on manuals wouldn’t work in the new technological system.
Once they got used to the Selectrics, however, they realized this new delivery system of news was easier (for the most part), let them have later deadlines (which all reporters crave) and – most importantly – this technology did not affect content.
The reality of change
This is the new reality for journalists today, as we have long-since crossed the threshold of computers replacing electric typewriters and Web editions of newspapers challenging the print product for supremacy with readers.
And it doesn’t stop there as I recently heard a Dallas editor talking about his newspaper past Web-first to Twitter-first.
The new delivery system of Web-first media does not have to affect news content, and it is that content that is so important to society.
Web-first journalism
The new generation of journalists who have come into the newspaper and television news industry over the past decade now take this as a given: the Web is here to stay, and more people are getting their information from it than from traditional newspapers or even 30-minute TV newscasts.
That said, newspapers and television news have to play first to the Web and then to their traditional delivery systems of printed papers and nightly newscasts. The change is occurring at a more rapid pace with newspapers than TV, although the latter industry is catching on fast to the new reality.
OK, I get it now
While this change is – at times – heartbreaking for those professionals who have always considered themselves first to be newspaper journalists or television journalists rather than information providers, it is now becoming second nature to most in the business.
Perhaps it is a good thing, as well, because journalists can now focus squarely on content. That doesn’t mean they all do, however, as many are getting distracted by the lights, colors, and bells of software applications.
Shifting sands
All journalists, however, realize the means of producing and delivering that content will continue to evolve. The traditions of producing the news are about as trustworthy for journalists as the shifting sands on a beach.
The old grains of sand will be replaced by new ones tomorrow. Yet the beach itself remains and continues to draw customers.
Thank you for joining our conversation on A Virtual Unknown. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
It is rather humorous how reporters refused to give up their Royal manuals, even as they were ordered by editors to replace them with the new Selectrics. The fact that they hid their relics demonstrates the human’s need for consistency and know-how. Though as humorous as the scenario sounds, I often do not like change myself, and so I can see how difficult it must have been for those reporters to dive into a new territory with unfamiliar technology and totally new techniques. The Royal manuals were symbolic of the reporters’ hard work and livelihood: they mastered the art of journalism on these devices…reporters did not have the same connection with Selectrics. This dilema is sort of like having to buy a new football couch-seat, when the one you had previously was perfectly fine and absolutely comfy!
i think this article is fascinating in that the new technology could bring both good and bad things to the world of reporting. i agree with aprils comment that while the new technology may make it easier for big name news reporters to get their stories out to the masses, it also allows any person off the street to see an event and report on it with their own spin. this leads to people reading their news in many different places and not getting the same story. the problem with this is that the viewers and readers are going to start getting suspicious and they might not even believe anything they hear, which would be a shame. i think that the introduction of new technology is a great thing, as long as viewers or readers are careful about where they go to get their news.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article regarding the immense change there is in how the media does its process. It is so advanced in comparison to what traditional journalists did in the 1950’s, 1960’s era to the now “digitized” era of technology. Everything journalist need to do to jot down their notes, and even create a new article can be right there at their fingertips. I believe that if you are a great journalist you will be able to the great advances in society.
I found some of this very interesting. I had always wondered why journalists kept those ancient (yet very cool looking) typewriters and machines in their offices. I never understood that it was a source of pride for them. I now look at those offices I see with old machines in them in a new light. I think it’s funny that they would hide their old typewriters and use them instead of the new ones. I also think that the change could help journalists to focus more on content than on all the bells and whistles. I think that no matter the changes, it is just important that journalists remember why they are doing their job and what their responsibilities and priorities are.
I never thought about the technology used in reporting in terms of the content that is produced. You seem to be saying that changes in technology will not necessarily affect this content… but what about the issue of citizen journalism? Because blogs have made it possible for anyone with an Internet connection to post news for thousands of others to read, the quality of their news reporting can be diminished. Mass audiences can hear content on a major broadcasting company that is relatively trustworthy; however, they can now also get their news from a disgruntled citizen who distorts the information to their advantage in a rant on their blog. So, I think it is possible to use new technology without changing the content, but I think it can still have a great impact on content as well, if we let it.