Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism

*All darlings have been sarcastically struck from this post

Yup, here I go being cynical again.

Maybe you’ve already heard me rant on the subject. Maybe not. Maybe I don’t care.

This is in response to the style of writing I feel is being taught to us here at the J School thus far. The basic, obvious, boring, tape recorder style writing.

I get it. Building blocks, fundamentals, work your way up, walk before you run.

That’s all great, unless you intend to fly.

I’m not necessarily criticizing my professors. Possibly it’s the way that they were taught. Possibly it’s the way they think is best to teach us. Possibly it’s the unwritten, unspoken, uncompromisable rule in journalism.

Or possibly it’s the reason they have had jobs in journalism and I probably never will.

But sometimes I feel suffocated by the rigid structure.

(more…)

(image from esquire.com)

Question: What just turned 75, has the masses in debate over its worth, and could quite possibly carry the hopes of an entire industry, for better or worse, on its back? (hint: McCain is only 72, try again)

Answer: Esquire

If you have been following any journalism, business, or tech news over the past few months (or if you are an Esquire addict like myself) you heard rumor of the evolutionary cover that Esquire has been working on for nearly a year in anticipation of its 75th anniversary.

Well, it’s here (unless you are a subscriber to the magazine, in which case the issue delivered to your mailbox is normal. Then, it’s not “here,” it’s on a magazine rack a few blocks away for $5.99).

Utilizing a technology know as E Ink (that of the Kindle for you Amazon fans), Esquire added motion to a once static medium. The cover, hyped for some time, has been generating a good amount of buzz over the last few days (brownie points expected for this link to Jarvis’s blog).

And the majority of the buzz has been negative (see also: here).

But why? It’s as if Esquire’s attempt to do something progressive wasn’t progressive enough. I understand that this was not exactly an earth-shaking innovation — it’s flashing lights after all. But certainly I can’t be the only one who sees the enormous amount of possibility that this technology possesses. Even more so now that it has been presented to the public.

Additionally, in a Facebook/Google moment, Esquire has asked for the help of its inventive readers in finding ways to progress the cover even more.

With the entirety of print media at a cross-roads, any honest attempt in blazing a new path for the genre should be applauded. That is not to say that these attempts should be free of criticism — guidance is essential in any growth. But detractors should not be blinded by the (flashing) glare of pessimism.

After all, Esquire may not have saved journalism’s world today, but neither have any of us.