A whole debate has sprung up on whether or not journalism schools should be teaching Dreamweaver and the basics of Web design.

I’m not going to touch that debate today, but I am going to argue that every journalist should know a little HTML. Every journalist should know how to make a link, whether using the built in link tools in a CMS (or Dreamweaver) or writing out a link tag by hand.

Every journalist should know what this tag is: <a href=”"></a>

That’s not asking much. Every journalist should also know how to bold and italicize words, and understand when and how to use header tags like <h3></h3>

I also believe that every journalist should know how to make unordered and ordered lists. These are basic HTML tags that can make a big difference when posting content on the Web.

And these concepts can be learned in less than a day. HTML is a hell of a lot easier to learn than the English language. So, if you can become a wordsmith, you can learn some HTML.

Many journalists will be transitioning over to the Web to produce content. Journalists will need to know basic HTML, in addition to knowing how to use a CMS. Journalism schools should really be teaching the ins and outs of how to use a (good) CMS.

Many journalists are already being asked to blog. Can you imagine blogging without knowing how to make a proper link?

Another day I’ll tackle the Dreamweaver/WYSIWYG issue. But I think we can all agree it’s not asking much for journalists to know a little HTML.

Have journalism schools, and more specifically journalism professors, been honest with students about the state of journalism and the pay/benefits of the profession?

Many readers tell me they were never apprised of the realities of journalism by their professors. Isn’t it an obligation that professors be honest about the state of journalism? Or are many professors too out of touch with the professional world to know better?

I graduated in 2006, and none of my journalism classes had a discussion about the state of journalism, the massive amounts of buyouts and firings or the worsening pay/benefits of the profession.

File this post under the growing canon about how you can’t teach culture.

Honestly, some journalists cannot be helped, and most of the people who believe that all journalists can be helped are journalists who desperately want to believe they have a future in modern journalism. The journalists who need the most amount of help — those who don’t remotely understand Web and digital culture — are the ones desperately clinging to an idea that we can teach culture. But the more I talk to some journalists and the more I read about some of my colleagues, the more I realize that many cannot be saved.

Here is another excellent example of how you cannot teach culture in a post from Mindy McAdams about the Future of Science Journalism Symposium:

Second, after an informational talk about E Ink by David Jackson, director of marketing at the company that holds the patent, one journalist stood up and asked when we will see the E Ink screens or display devices replicate the size and shape of a broadsheet newspaper.

I was stunned. I know my jaw fell open.

I had been sitting there thinking that what I want to see in the displays (now only black and white) is color. The journalist was thinking about imitating a dead format that most people find awkward and inconvenient.

The journalist who asked that cannot be helped. He or she will never get it. You cannot teach culture.

E Ink is a really cool technology, but it does have a long way to go. The biggest advancement E Ink needs is color technology as Mindy said. The idea of making a “portable” reader that is the size of a broadsheet paper is one of the stupidest ideas that I have ever heard.

It’s inconceivable that someone could honestly make that suggestion. It’s even worse that someone would ask that publicly. And it’s embarrassing to journalism that one of our colleagues honestly asked the director of marketing for the company that holds the patent for E Ink that question.

The person who made that suggestion has clearly never seen a Kindle, and probably is not the kind of person who would buy a Kindle or a similar electronic reader based on E Ink. People who would rather read content on a Kindle than in a printed newspaper or book are the kind of people who don’t like the broadsheet format.

The biggest audience for these devices are people who live in urban areas and ride public transportation. I ride the Metro to work everyday in downtown D.C., and I almost never see a broadsheet on the train. I do see plenty of tabloid newspapers, but the broadsheet format is really awkward, especially on the go.

The Kindle is supposed to mimic the size of a book anyway, which plenty of people read on the go. You’ll find more people reading books on the Metro than you will see reading newspapers. The Kindle is 7.5″ x 5.3″ x 0.7″, about the size of an average book, but much thinner (it weighs 10.3 ounces).

I could also see electronic readers becoming very popular on college campuses as a convenient way to carry around a semester’s worth of books in a small package. But I believe that will have to wait until color E Ink hits, because many text books rely on color.

E Ink is not here to replicate a newspaper. That’s not what the technology is for. Only a person who has no idea about what they are talking about would think that.

No E Ink technology has two gigantic advantages over LCD technology that is used in computer screens and mobile devices like the iPhone: battery life and lack of eyestrain. First, many people surfer from eyestrain (like myself) from looking at backlit displays for several hours every day. Devices uses E Ink are not backlit, thus they are much easier on the eyes.

Reading a newspaper or a book (the primary audience for the Kindle) is much easier on the eyes because there is no back lighting from a book. A computer screen is backlit, and the pixels are constantly changing, which forces our eyes to constantly readjust. This is not the case with books and newspapers.

The Kindle is easy on the eyes like a book, but it has the ability to carry hundreds of books at once (and newspaper articles, blogs, etc). Plus, the Kindle allows people to buy books, download blogs and get newspapers on the go. You don’t have to be at a bookstore or newsstand to get new news or content when you have a Kindle with you.

That’s the power of the Kindle.

The other ingenious part of E Ink is how it allows for really long battery life. E Ink only uses power when it loads new text. As long as you are reading a page, it doesn’t use power.

Which means if you don’t pick up your Kindle for a week, it’ll still be charged up. Only when you turn the page will the Kindle resume using power for a short period of time. If you turn the Kindle’s wireless off (which is only needed when you purchase new content) the device can get more than a weeks worth of battery time during normal use.

This is why E Ink is such a cool technology. The first-generation Kindle is a pretty cool product, and maybe one day it will be seen as revolutionary. It has a lot of promise, especially once color E Ink becomes available (I won’t seriously consider getting an electronic reader until color E Ink is available).

Just like making a Web site to mimic a printed newspaper is a bad idea, so is making a portable reading device the size of a broadsheet. Can you imagine how many pounds a Kindle the size of The New York Times would be?

Plus, the Web is an infinitely better news telling medium than a printer newspaper. Why would someone want to mimic an inferior product?

People are moving past printed newspapers. They want to get news on computers, smart phones, portable readers and more. We need to make our content shine on these new delivery methods, not try to shoehorn legacy content onto new mediums.

I’ve been tossing around the idea of starting a weekly podcast to discuss many of the topics that appear on this blog.

The podcast would discuss recent industry news, the state of journalism, developments in online journalism, Web development that pertains to journalism, blogging, social media and more. I’d also try to have at least one on-air interview a week with journalists, academics and students. And, of course, there would be some commentary.

The real question, however, is not whether or not I could make a podcast, but whether any of you would actually be interested. If you think this is a cool idea, let me know. If you have any suggestions on what to cover and how to cover, let me know as well.

The other stumbling block is that I think this podcast (and just about any podcast) is a lot more enjoyable with a co-host. That’s something I’d have to figure out. I envision the podcast being like Buzz Out Loud, but with some on-air interviews mixed in.

So, let me know what you think. Thanks.

If you could do it all over again would you major in journalism?

A journalism degree is not needed to be a journalist, and many journalism programs aren’t teaching the skills that journalists need to be competitive today, especially computer and Web skills. Most online journalists learned their Web skills on their own.

Would a major in computer science or graphic design be a better choice? Is journalism best served as a second major or as a minor? (I was a political science and journalism major. Political science was my first major.)

I wrote recently about how many newspapers have incredibly unrealistic job postings, especially for Web positions.

Most of the papers with these unrealistic job openings (usually looking for Jesus Candidates) are smaller papers that don’t really have a clue how to make compelling Web content or how to hire appropriate Web talent. When I look at job openings from the best dailies in the U.S., I usually find much more sensible postings.

Take this opening for a Web developer at The New York Times:

- Minimum of 1 year experience with Ruby on Rails, Django, or a comparable web framework
- Some experience with C, Python, PHP, Perl etc.
- Knowledge of SQL and experience with MySQL
- Experience with benchmarking and tuning website and web application performance
- Experience working with Unix/Linux (Solaris 10 and Red Hat Linux preferred)
- Familiarity with agile development approaches
- Experience developing and supporting APIs
- Excellent communication skills

That’s how you do a job opening for a Web developer. The Times is specifically looking for a Ruby on Rails developer (although they’d take someone who was really good at another framework like Django because that person could learn Rails). What you’ll notice is that the Times isn’t looking for a Rails developer who also knows Java, Ajax, XML, Javascript, Flash, ActionScript 3, SEO, how to bench press 500 lbs., etc, etc.

The Times knows exactly what it needs, a Rails developer. And any good Rails developer will have some experience with PHP or Python or Ruby (but the Times is not asking for high-level knowledge of any of these programming languages). Plus, anyone who works with a Web framework will also have knowledge of MySQL or another SQL database.

Another thing you’ll notice with job openings at major papers like the Times or The Washington Post is that they don’t have ridiculous minimum years of experience needed for Web jobs. Many smaller dailies still operate under a time warp where time served is some sort of major qualification (and maybe it was a luxury papers could afford in a print-only world, but now newspapers have to compete for top Web talent against every other industry that needs Web people).

I’ve got news for those papers, most of the best Web talent — especially with newspaper knowledge — is young. Rails and Django are both very young frameworks. Much of the best talent working in these frameworks isn’t very old.

Heck, the father of Django and programmer-journalist extraordinaire Adrian Holovaty is 26. I’m not saying to only hire young people, but it’s much more important to look for specific examples of work (a digital resume would be nice) that a candidate has instead of just merely seeing how many years a person has been working.

Newspapers should take a cue from some of the papers that get it right on the Web — you’ll get better candidates with more realistic job openings, and, frankly, you’ll get more applicants. If you’re looking for a Rails developer, try to find a really good one, instead of trying to find someone who knows Rails and every other computer language under the sun.

Russ Stanton has been at the helm of The Los Angeles Times for about a week, and he is already shaking things up.

It’s too early to say whether or not his decisions will positively impact the Times, but it is clear that Stanton believes the status quo cannot continue. Most observers would agree that the Times needs to rethink what they are doing.

Firing a managing editor (the second highest position at a newspaper) is a big deal, but that was one of Stanton’s first official acts. He told features managing editor John Montorio to not let the door hit him on the way out. The New York Observer calls Montorio a “print apologist,” and with good reason:

Mr. Montorio said that he never had a “long and philosophical conversation” with Mr. Stanton about the newspaper’s role on the Web, but he offered this: “The Web may be the future, but right now print is the goose that laid the golden egg. It’s invaluable. No one is saying that the Web is not—maybe I sound anachronistic, but what print can provide, there are lots of things web can’t provide, just like there are some things that the web can provide that print can’t.

“Print can provide thought scoops,” he continued. “The paper can provide analysis—that’s what I mean by a thought scoop. You look at something in the New York Observer and think ‘holy shit!’ You read something that was not formed in your brain, and suddenly a reporter connects the dots for you. That’s what I think we can do. I’m much more bullish on the print industry, even if Wall Street isn’t.”

Apparently many Times employees thought Stanton would fire Montorio, and it doesn’t seem surprising that a former innovations editor (head of the Web) might be put off by one of his managing editors being so anti-Web, despite the fact that readers are going online in droves. Everyone on the Web gets that print still makes the lion’s share of the money for a newspaper, but most people also get that print revenues are falling without fail every quarter (especially at Tribune).

Those revenues have to be made up somewhere, and it sounds like Montorio was too married to a print past that he loved. I don’t really think a major metro paper like the Times should have people at the top who are print apologists, especially in the face of continual newsroom cuts. Maybe print laid the golden egg, but that egg is starting to look pretty rotten.

Stanton is credited with helping to make latimes.com better (it still sucks), and he wants to do a lot more to improve it. Stanton gave a speech on Feb. 14 where he outlined several new online initiatives that the Times will be undertaking immediately. Here are some excerpts from his speech:

One of the keys to reversing our fortunes is improving our coverage of Southern California, and our website and our readers will take a big role in helping us accomplish that. David Lauter and his crew are off to a great start reorganizing the local report, and you can see their progress in each day’s paper and on the website. As we reexamine what we do across the paper, we need to retain some of the hallmarks of our coverage, such as our foreign and national reports.

Online, we must continue to find innovative ways to display the great storytelling produced by our staffs. Look at the tremendous progress you all have made on the website under the direction of Meredith, Sean and crew.

Our traffic is soaring and the site is taking our journalism to the farthest reaches of the Earth — to places the paper has never been before. We must continue to supplement the stories, photos and graphics produced by the print staff with material that is produced by the Web staff, and our readers. Speaking of readers, we will to continue to enlist them to expand our ability to deliver information all the way down to the neighborhood level. Along the way, we must understand, embrace and uphold the journalistic values of the Los Angeles Times.

We made great progress last year, but we still have a lot of work to do. First and foremost, our two newsrooms need to - and will — become one. And the people in them need to better understand and work with each other. We must be smart about how we carry out this merger of operations, recognizing the unique traits of each medium. We also must expand and improve the education and training of both staffs, and plans are in the works to do just that.

Yesterday, we rolled out the first of our breaking news blogs, in Metro, L.A. Now, which is led by blogger extraordinaire Veronique de Turenne. And the first of our neighborhood pages will debut this spring. We have several cases of new video gear in the building, an entire video staff, and we’re about to hire a full-time instructor to teach those who are interested how to shoot and edit video for their stories.

We were one of the very few papers in the country to report a gain in circulation in the most recent six-month reporting period. Online, our traffic continues to grow more than 20% annually and at a greater rate than the rest of our industry.

After reading that, and Montorio’s thoughts, it’s easy to see why Montorio was asked to leave. Stanton wants to be surrounded by people who believe the Web is the future. I think print is still important, but neglecting the Web is not a good survival technique.

And frankly, the Times needed to be shaken up. Stanton’s suggestions seem to be a good start, but the Times (and most newspapers) may need a more Palm Beach Post style shakeup. But a newspaper has to start somewhere.

I really like the idea of a breaking news blog. I believe every newspaper should have one. I also really, really like the idea of having a full-time staff member to provide video training.

If you’re going to do video, you might as well do it right. It’s also great to give staffers opportunities to obtain new skills if they want. Every newspaper should provide free training for its employees.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Stanton’s recent moves will make the Times a better news organization?

What is with people constantly saying “I didn’t get into journalism to be rich?”

Well, duh! But, I didn’t get a college degree to be poor either. Savvy?

There is a huge difference between being rich and being poor. Many journalists struggle to make a legitimate middle-class living. That is something to complain about.

We can’t expect journalists to have better qualifications (remember when journalists didn’t need expensive college degrees?), have broader skill sets and do more work, all while getting paid less. Starting journalism salaries have been stagnant for years, while inflation has marched on.

And benefits? What are those? Take post No. 350 from AngryJournalist.com:

I am angry because I’m taking money out of my IRA to get my wisdom teeth removed, while the barista at the Starbucks across the street will get it done for nearly nothing.

Is expecting workplace coverage for a routine procedure like getting your wisdom teeth removed an attempt to “get rich?” So, spare me the whole “I didn’t get into journalism to be rich” talk. That’s what corporate wants you to believe and that’s what idiots tell themselves to justify worsening workplace conditions.

This post was inspired by a post (No. 336) at AngryJournalist.com:

I am a happy. Today, I purchased a baseball bat and now have it next to my desk, conveniently within reach for the next person who smilingly reminds me that I didn’t get in to journalism for the money.

If you’re a journalist and you are angry about something — the state of journalism, your job, your boss, the people you cover, etc — then you should head on over to AngryJournalist.com and leave your thoughts.

The blog sprung up a few days ago and appears to have been taking off the past few days. Right now there are 282 angry comments, and I’m willing to bet that the site will pick up considerably after all the recent press it has gotten in the blogosphere.

The site is a sort of Post Secret for journalism, where journalists have been leaving their gripes about anything and everything. I found those gripes to be incredibly fascinating.

Post No. 277 deals with how journalists are being asked to do more and more, especially in the realm of multimedia:

I’m angry because on Saturday I was shooting video with my left hand and stills with my right. That, and our three-person staff is expected to produce over 700 pointless, wretched videos this year.

I love multimedia, but why do we think the public will just love the crap we churn out in a couple of hours?

The answer is that the public will not love that crap. The danger with news organizations, especially newspapers, trying to enter the video market with low-cost, rapidly produced video is that those videos have to compete against YouTube and all the other video sharing sites out there. Frankly, people expect better-than-YouTube-quality video from professional companies.

Video is good. Bad video is very bad. People and advertisers expect quality from professional news organizations.

If we can’t make better content than 15-year-olds than we should probably find new jobs. I’m just saying.

Post No. 272 seems to not care what users think:

I’m angry at my coworker who thinks his awful high school basketball videos that lack basic storytelling are good enough, because they get the most “clicks”.

If you would just stop worrying about “clicks” and just do the job you were assigned, which is production, not video, then our online department would be so much better.

It’s hard for me to judge the quality of these videos without seeing them, but I think there is something very powerful about stat tracking and what users find compelling. If users are watching these videos than that’s a good sign. At the end of the day, what’s important is that users find our content compelling.

We do not make content for ourselves. That’s a great way to find yourself irrelevant. Don’t get into a business to make products for yourself, because you’ll rapidly find yourself out of business (OMG, no way newspapers aren’t doing well lately?).

Plus, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people love high school sports. They absolutely love them. Some newspapers are finally starting to realize what many of us have known for years.

Post No. 265 represents everything that is wrong with some journalists today:

As a journalist with decades of experience, I have broken a number of good stories. I am angry that I have never managed to do enough of them in one year - or chose the wrong ones for my portfolio or been cursed with judges unsympathetic to a particular genre - to have won an award of any kind.

Some whose performance I consider less good and certainly without my “track record” seem to waltz into the awards ceremonies on the strength of one good and two what I consider unremarkable pieces.

I’ll probably end my working life being given a John Wayne-style “lifetime achievement” award. Or maybe not even that. Or maybe they’ll wait till I’m dead.

Yes, my blood is boiling. We do not — I repeat do not — make content for ourselves or award competitions. We make content for our readers and users. I don’t submit my content for awards competitions, because if I did, I’d start caring more about how to win awards and less about how to win readers and users.

Post No. 241 hit on a major problem with most newspaper Web sites:

I’m angry because my company, just like the rest of the industry, wants me to do more with less. They’ve said, “To hell with quality. Let’s just fill the website with as much shit as possible.”

I’ve written about the Wall of News before, but I guess I have to repeat it. If you put too much content on your news site — specifically your homepage — you will overwhelm users and they will leave your site. Usability is paramount for any good Web site, and most newspaper Web sites are completely unusable because they are overflowing with content, ads and advertorial junk.

Quantity does not equal quality.

Post No. 310 is yet another journalists who has contempt for the very people who consume our content:

I’m also angry because idiots in the public are turning to Web sites to get “news,” which is not written by people with expertise or any kind of journalistic background, and is not overseen or checked by anyone. They aren’t answerable to anybody, and the public is lapping up their stuff and thinking they’re getting good info.

Web news can be just as accurate, if not more accurate, than newspaper content. But let’s back it up here. Never, ever turn on the public — our consumers — because they are the ones who ultimately pay our pay checks and determine what is and what isn’t good journalism.

I am convinced that most journalists lack basic business sense. Smart business people (and we’re in the news business) aim to please their customers, not berate them for being “idiots.” That’s ridiculous.

I’d fire the person who wrote post No. 310 in a heartbeat.

There is so much gold on this blog that I might need to write a post a week about the best comments.

Can people who were in this industry before the advent of the Web be the ones to usher in the change that newspapers so desperately need?

Aren’t those the kind of people who still think the old ways of doing things can still work? That all we need to do is buckle down a little?

Do newspapers need leaders at the top who come from a different background? Do newspapers need leaders who aren’t tethered to the past or the old ways of doing things?