When newsworthy turns worthless

Journalism 1.0 defines newsworthy on the basis of what is new and different. It's inconceivable that a news story could be scooped by a history of the same old story. Yet in Journalism 2.0, it will no longer be about new news, it be about what works for people making a difference in the diverse worlds. The latest may not be nearly as useful and patterns from the past that are worth repeating or are better to be avoided. Breaking news may appear broken, rather than what sells.

The migration to Journalism 2.0 is one of those paradigm shifts where the ground is not in the same place, the prior assumptions are no longer valid, and the familiar concepts no longer make sense. This new frame of reference will critique time-honored practices with fresh eyes. Things long taken for granted will be questioned and revised. When Journalists 1.0 claim that something is newsworthy, readers, subscribers and contributors to Journalism 2.0 will be thinking:
  1. "No way something new could be more important than what is slowing gaining acceptance, traction and momentum"
  2. "Yeah right. As even if something I didn't know before is the most important thing to consider right now"
  3. "Show me the pattern. How does this 'newsworthy thing' fit into a more useful context that helps me get something accomplished"
  4. "Just because it's newsworthy, does mean it gives me a clue what to do with it"
  5. "Why should I care that you think it's newsworthy, when you're not in in my corner, wearing my shoes, or looking through my eyes"
  6. "Who are you to tell me how information should be tagged? Did you miss out on the folksonomy revolution or what?"
  7. "I'll tell you when something is newsworthy and what makes it that way in my frame of reference"
  8. "Since when are their experts, other than myself, in what works for me?"
  9. "If it helps me get results with my skill set, resources and one-of-a-kind situation, that's newsworthy!"
  10. "You're implying that whatever is not newsworthy is worthless, when the reverse is actually true for me. Who's the customer here?"


  1. Interestingly enough, journalists are no longer necessary as the message can be broadcast directly. Look at what the white house currently is doing in getting the message out about healthcare.

    There is a direct conversation between the newsmakers and the readers without the journalist to "interpret." Many journalists feel that this will distort the "story". However, what needs to be done is that the reader needs to be educated in finding information and interpreting it, rather than having the journalist interpret it for them.

  2. This gets me wondering if the journalists who worry about direct reporting "distorting the story" are failing to look in the mirror and see they are pointing out their own "distorting the story". I suspect the day is coming where "distorting the story" will be valued as a good thing, so long as readers have enough distortions to piece together a comprehensive grasp of the story. The school children learning the story of the 3 Little Pigs from the wolf's viewpoint as well as the pigs, will expect every point of view to fall short of the full story.

    Thanks for comment, Virginia!