Change is happening at a very rapid pace. What journalism was and what journalism will be don’t share a lot in common beyond the basics of good, solid reporting. As long as we don’t forget the basics and don’t fear the future, we’ll be OK.

But have enough journalists gotten the memo? Sometimes I feel like we’re in Office Space, because we have to keep asking our colleagues “did you get that memo about how the Internet changed everything?”

I got that memo. It’s my favorite one.

Amy Gahran has a fantastic blog post about a possible toxic culture forming at many journalism organizations and within the field of journalism.

I highly recommend you read Amy’s post and think about it. What she is basically saying is that many journalists are overcome by hubris or a journalistic arrogance, as Sam Zell put it. Those toxic journalists believe that they alone can produce good journalism, and they believe only established media outlets can produce journalism.

Obviously, attitudes like that are not helping journalism. We only have to look at insurgent operations like Politico, TechCrunch, Talking Points Memo, etc, etc, etc to see that this is simply not true.

I’ll add a few more toxic ideas from journalists to append Amy’s list.

1) We are the gatekeepers — This is the No. 1 reason why user-generated content is not taken seriously at news organizations. Yes, some UGC is corny and stupid, but other UGC is impact and powerful. UGC is sometimes the best way to report on disasters, as we saw with 9/11 and the recent disasters in Myanmar and China.

This is a major reason why most newspapers don’t accept photos from events like high school sports. But what’s the point in trying to send a photographer to ever high school sport to snap a few shots, when every high school game has several parents who take hundred of photos? We should harness that power. Everyone would be better served with a partnership like that.

This ultimately stems from the belief that only journalists can produce meaningful content. That is demonstrably false.

2) Someone else should be responsible for my training — Most of us did not have an employer pay for our education. So, why are so many journalists moaning that they would get with the program if only “someone would pay for me to get training?”

Listen, you’re in a dying industry (at least what we used to know of journalism). Layoffs and buy-outs are all around you. Do you think having a passive attitude is going to save your career? Hell no.

Journalism needs doers. Journalism needs thinkers. Journalism needs go getters.

Plus, even the most expensive account at Lynda.com is only $400 a year. That’s nothing, and you can learn a ton of really useful stuff in a year from that site.

3) The public needs to be better educated to appreciate our greatness – This one comes courtesy of @kev097 on Twitter (Kevin Koehler). Basically many journalists believe that if more people had educations and read more and understand the world more and blah, blah, blah they would appreciate newspapers more.

The issue — as many journalists see it — is that people are not smart enough to appreciate journalism. You know, the journalism that many journalists insist on giving us, regardless if we want it or if it is useful.

But here is the funny thing: First, many journalists are not exactly pushing the digital envelope. Many journalists are behind the average American when it comes to technology and Internet adoption. I still hear about how a lot of journalists don’t see the need to get Internet access at home. I had an editor in the last year (freelance work) who didn’t even have an e-mail address. I always had to call him on the phone (what?).

Who is the non-educated one now? Plus, journalism was never a field where having a college education was a necessity. The idea that journalists are somehow smarter, better educated and more learned than the average media consumer is ridiculous.

The problem is us. It’s never the consumer. That’s business 101.

Amy sees the changes in journalism as positive for not only our audiences, but also for journalists:

The way I see it (and I’m far from alone in this view), right now is a time of immense opportunity for journalism and journalists to take on a broader and even more vital role in society. It’s a chance for journalists to not only continue doing good work, but maybe also to have more impact than ever before. If they can make this progress within updated, adapted news organizations, fine. But if not, they can find ways to do it independently, collaboratively or by founding new supporting institutions or businesses.

Plus, new approaches to journalism can simply be more fun. As a group, journalists don’t seem to have nearly enough fun. In particular, engaging directly with your community can be fun and rewarding. Learning to monitor and improve the spread and impact of your work can be fun. And the process of learning anything new at all also can be a lot of fun. In fact, that basic craving for continual learning is what drew many of us to journalism in the first place. Remember that?

Paula Froke has jumped headfirst into the world of online and multimedia journalism with her upstart blog, Paula’s Adventures in Multimedia.

While she may not have been born a digital native, she has quickly become an enthusiastic adopter. And as the Deputy National Editor for the AP, she is a manager, not a content producer. So she doesn’t have to learn all this stuff, but she has anyway.

That’s the kind of manager journalism needs. Her blog is helping to inspire other mid-career journalists to try new things. Paula’s blog has been making its way around the journalism blogosphere, and people like Mindy McAdams have been impressed with her work and spirit:

I’m also in love with a new blog called Paula’s Adventures in Multimedia. Paula is a journalist somewhere, I don’t know where, but she’s taking us along for the ride while she and her colleagues learn to make slideshows and do podcasts and shoot video — and it’s really fun!

Below you’ll find an interview I had with Paula recently. The cliff notes of it is this: Learning multimedia and online journalism is fun and not nearly as difficult as you think.

1) I know your time at Poynter in January was one of the inspirations for starting your blog. What were your multimedia skills prior to then?

After 23 years as a print-only editor, I got my feet wet last year by shooting — but not editing — one video and producing one podcast, both as introductory training efforts in what was then our multimedia service for younger readers. That inspired me to buy an HD camcorder and a new laptop. Then I taught myself basic video editing with iMovie and did a couple of personal videos. Howard Owens’ list of 2008 objectives for non-wired journalists gave me more ideas and goals, and that combined with Poynter kicked everything into higher gear at the beginning of this year. Literally. I wanted to start the year off well, so I shot a personal video on Jan. 1, edited it on Jan. 2, and uploaded it to YouTube — a major thrill.

2) What are your multimedia skills today?

My skills are still relatively rudimentary, but I’m confident that if time and my position allowed, I could fairly easily shoot and edit an acceptable news video for Web publication (with iMovie; I still need to tackle Final Cut). I was astonished and delighted when a complete stranger saw one of my personal videos and asked me to produce a video of him for entry in a reality show contest (I declined — I’m not THAT confident — but now he’s trying again and wants me to do part of it.) I could produce audio slideshows and podcasts, again if time and circumstances allowed. I certainly have a far, far greater understanding and appreciation of the power of all of these formats.

3) Why did you end up starting your blog?

I supervise traditional print editors whose job as it’s now defined involves being appreciative of other forms of journalism done in our other departments, but not actually doing it themselves. Like me, I think they were both intrigued and intimidated by the possibilities of the evolving world of journalism — but weren’t at all sure how to get started themselves. As I gained more comfort and appreciation through what I was learning on my own, I wanted a way to share that with everyone on the staff. A blog seemed ideal — I could talk about it in a casual way, and have a multimedia format with which to share the results of my own efforts and theirs. It’s given me a chance to take a “learn as I learn” and “if *I* can do it, you can too” approach and to encourage them to learn in a low-key, fun kind of way. I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m willing to look foolish for the sake of learning, and I think that’s helped. It also gives me a way to let them do guest posts and share their own video, slideshow, podcast and Web site creation efforts.

4) What’s the biggest thing you have learned from it?

How fun, fulfilling and liberating this kind of work is. It’s been absolutely fascinating to learn how to convey stories in ways far beyond what I’ve done all my life. A second thing: There is, in fact, a fair amount of crossover among the formats. A lot, though certainly not all, of what makes a good story and what’s required of a good editor and a good reporter is similar from format to format: compelling detail and quotes, vivid color, strong drama, cohesive structure, and of course, accuracy, integrity and ethics. I think the more you learn in each format, the better you get in all of them.

5) How hard was it to set up your blog and begin producing multimedia content?

The blog itself was remarkably easy to set up. I did it literally in between bites of pasta while hovering over my laptop in the kitchen the night I returned from Poynter. Once I got the idea in my head, I was so excited about it that I just plunged in. After that I just kept plunging. For better or worse, I took a scattershot approach — delve a little into video, a little into audio, a little into HTML, invite others on the staff to share what they’re learning … the result was something not at all structured and therefore perhaps not all that instructive or helpful. On the other hand, it is indeed a recounting of what I learn as I learn it, and I think there’s something to be said for getting a broad exposure to as much as you can in the early goings.

6) How do you see your new skills impacting your journalism career?

They certainly open up a lot more possibilities in every area — as a manager, as an editor and as a multi-format reporter. I mean possibilities for me personally, and possibilities for far more meaningful journalism reaching and touching a far wider audience. It’s extremely exciting.

7) Do you have any advice for mid-career journalists looking to learn new online/multimedia skills?

Short answer: Just do it. And have fun.

Longer answer: While I took a wide-ranging approach, it might be more reasonable to pick one area that’s especially appealing to you, whether it’s creating a personal Web site, starting a blog and uploading photos to it, borrowing a camera and shooting some video, doing a podcast or whatever. Find a knowledgeable co-worker or friend or a cheap intro course — for instance, whatever the local Apple store offers, even if you don’t have a Mac! — to help get you started. Take advantage of a wealth of online resources for tips and techniques. Consider tapping into your personal life for opportunities to practice — I’ve been doing videos of New York Cycle Club rides, which give me plenty of chances to work on shooting and editing. Don’t be afraid to look silly or to fail. Seek feedback from others. Study the work of those who excel at this. And — have fun.

David Cohn discusses his latest project, Spot.Us, which was made possible by a Knight News Challenge grant.

Some of the things we discuss:

1. What is Spot.Us and what will it mean for journalism?
2. Why people should apply for Knight News Challenge grants?
3. How hard is it to apply for a grant from Knight?

Click here to stream the interview. Or you can download the mp3.

I’m still having some problems with the Marantz PMD 660 for phone interviews. I had to amplify this interview and my voice comes in much softer than David’s. Any suggestions for better phone recordings would be most welcome.

It’s not the Internet that is ailing journalism and newspapers.

We’re killing ourselves.

I was always struck by what Mark Felt, AKA Deep Throat, said to Bob Woodward. He said didn’t like newspapers because he “thought newspapers were too shallow and too quick on the draw. Newspapers didn’t do in-depth work and rarely got to the bottom of events.”

William M. Hartnett writes that his brother and sister-in-law were reporters in a top-50 market up until a few years ago. Yet, even they don’t subscribe to the daily newspaper anymore:

All of which is to say that they were not driven away from the printed newspaper by disruptive digital technologies, at least not primarily. No, they were driven away by our industry’s old problem, the one that was killing us before we found a more convenient villain online: We’re boring. Predictable. Thin in our coverage, and often intellectually lazy and shallow.

Unessential.

These are former reporters. They are not digerati, and yet even they have found little value in the daily newspaper. My girlfriend, a former copy editor, finds the coupons to be the best part of the Sunday Post. She has already read/viewed the news in a much more timely fashion, and the Web allows her to get incredible depth on subjects that newspapers or cable news never could.

The irony is that the local reporting is where newspapers and journalists could be hitting home runs. Instead, we find decreasing amounts of good, local reporting. Journalists are being asked to do more with less — AKA produce shallower content.

I also see many papers with business, tech, health, living and other niche sections. The problem is other publications and Web sites cover those areas much more throughly. With CNET, TechCrunch, etc why would someone want to read shallow and cursory newspaper coverage of the tech industry? Business? Motley Fool, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc have that covered.

The average daily newspaper, however, could have a monopoly on great local coverage. Local coverage has become so bad lately that we have had to come up with a new term to describe actually covering local events: hyperlocal journalism.

Hyperlocal journalism is real local journalism. The fact that we had to come up with a new term shows how far many journalists and journalism companies have strayed from the beaten path. People care about local journalism, which is why national outlets like ESPN are getting into high school sports.

Sean Blanda writes about how he is tired with token young people stories (or as my professor called them, “the kids these days” stories):

One would think that with young people flocking from their medium, newspapers and other mainstream media outlets would at least take a second to look at how they cover their hemorrhaging demographic. But instead, we see the same recycled stories with no real depth. Allow me to save them the trouble of thinking of “new” story ideas by presenting every story ever written about young people.

Blanda goes on to list eight tired story ideas like “LOL! they use text speak in paperz!” and “We are a bunch of pampered babies.” Stories like these are the zenith of shallow and lazy journalism.

I’m not sure if newspapers ever really connected with this demographic, but patronizing stereotypes aren’t going to win anyone over. And one day “young people” will be “old people,” which is the core demographic of newspapers. Do you really think people who were made fun of by journalists and newspapers when they were younger are really one day going to come around?

To quote my British alter ego, “Not bloody likely!”

Will Sullivan, yet again, has a fantastic post with job advice for journalists, especially new grads.

First, I recommend you check out his full list of 32 tips. I’m going to highlight a few here and make some comments:

1. Your boss matters way more than where you are working.

Horrible, stifling, untrusting, unengaging, uncaring bosses will crush your soul faster than anything. Choose your boss wisely. I’ve been pretty fortunate throughout my career to have bosses that gave me some leash and threw me some bones.

If you don’t get along with your boss, you’re screwed. If you’re with a boss that doesn’t allow creativity, you’re screwed. If you’re with a boss who doesn’t really care about your work or journalism, you’re screwed.

2. Your coworkers / your environment matters a lot too.

Nothing is worse than being in a toxic environment where people just show up to collect a pay check. The kind of environment where creativity and risks are discouraged. Stay far away from places filled with lifers. If your coworkers aren’t willing to lose their jobs, they’re not willing to fight for a better future.

3. Being good at ‘networking’ helps. A lot.

I’m not a fan of this either, but it’s true. Deal with it and evolve accordingly.

Networking is the name of the game for journalism. Don’t like it? I don’t know what to tell you. I can tell you this: It is about who you know and what you know. It doesn’t matter if everyone knows you to be a talentless bum. You want to be memorable for all the right reasons.

4. Keep studying.

I don’t think you need Will or I to tell you this, but dedicate yourself to a life-long quest of learning. It will greatly help your career. I have many, many more skills today than I did when I graduated two years ago.

5. “On the job experience” is still more valued than “Technical or skill experience.”

Unfortunately, there’s still a culture of ladder climbing and ‘putting your time in’ at many organizations. Most really skilled, smart tech people aren’t going to sit around doing web monkey producer work while they ‘put in their time.’ This is one of the reasons newspaper journalism in it’s current form will continue to fail unless it gets corrected abruptly.

Journalism often operates more like a union than a corporation, which means time served is often more important than actual skills or talent. It’s strange. It’s bizarre, but it’s reality at many publications.

Frankly, I don’t know what to tell you, because that makes no sense, especially in an industry that desperately needs an injection of talent. This is either one of those things that has to change quickly, or the industry will continue to die. For young graduates, don’t be surprised if you’re passed over for someone who has “paid his dues,” even though your skill set and talents fit the job better.

Honestly, you don’t want to work at a place like that anyway. It might not be around in five years.

6. Freelance like your life depends on it.

…Because at the least, your livelihood does. It’s very likely at this early point in your career, you’re going to get stuck doing the lower-level work. Freelancing often allows you the opportunity to pick up jobs and learn skills that you otherwise wouldn’t because you’re working third shift night cops. Or copy-and-paste web producing. Or shooting mugshots of buildings. It also requires you to have some business sense, which is critical for all journalists in this age.

Most young graduates will find that their first job will involve a lot of work they don’t want to do, especially for many entry-level Web jobs. This is were freelancing comes in. Never give up on doing what you love, and maybe one day you’ll get to do it all day, every day at your main job.

7. You should really be trying to get fired.

But do speak out with passion, vigor and conviction to any and everyone, regardless of rank, when you see your company doing stupid things in the dying, old media way. Your company probably needs you more than you need them. You can either speak out now and try to save both your butts, or sit back, fall in line and wait for them to cut your job to save theirs.

Journalism is filled with cautious people who fear being fired. Don’t be one of them. Be a rebel, a trailblazer, a maverick, an iconoclast.

Yesterday the JI had about 50 different posts receiving traffic.

You might wonder why that is a big deal? It’s a big deal because I usually write about 30 posts a month, which means that many older posts were being read and discovered. I keep harping on the need for rich SEO and social networking integration, and it’s because harnessing those concepts can bring new life to old content.

People are still finding and enjoying posts from 2007. And why not? It’s also important to actively encourage your readers and the Web community to link to your content.

I’m actively working on improving my SEO. I’m going to be changing my ugly looking URLs soon (hopefully if I can do it without breaking my old ones) to cleaner, more SEO friendly ones. I’m also looking into sitemap tweaks.

Perhaps the biggest change I’m looking to implement is making my individual blog post pages more sticky. Most people access this blog via subpages, not the main page. The main page has a right side rail with useful stuff in it like the hottest posts (top 5 most popular posts in the last week), recent comments, categories, etc.

In short, my subpages aren’t serving their purpose. I’ll greatly lower my bounce rate by making my subpages more sticky. These proposed changes should further increase the amount of non-direct traffic this blog receives.

And those changes will further breathe more life into old content.

Sarah Hartley and others have taken offense to the term digital native.

They don’t want to feel like immigrants. That’s fine. I don’t want to get into a debate over semantics.

The terms mean nothing. The reality means everything. We need people at newspapers who get and use the Web — especially on Web staffs.

Maybe we should just call them (Web) technologists — regardless of how or when they got there. Newspapers need people who enjoy and understand technology, especially Web technology. I don’t care if it’s a 60-year-old woman who has only been an enthusiastic adopter for a few years or a young male who grew up with a laptop in his crib.

We need people at newspapers, especially on the Web and in decision-making roles, who are committed techonologists — people pushing the digital envelope. People willing to forge a new, modern frontier for journalism.

Andy Dickinson doesn’t like the term, but he believes we need more people with diverse skill sets and backgrounds at newspapers:

So what we need to talk about here are not digital natives but people who have gone native (or better still the enthisiastic adoptor that Sarah Hartley talks about.) Picking up on Pat’s theme, I want to see enthusiastic adoptors of any age get a chance to change the way things are done and make newsrooms look more like the community they serve. It is essential that we get more of that diversity that is so vital both commercially and socially.

Maybe everyone can’t be an enthusiastic adopter, but many working in the newspaper industry could if they really, truly wanted to. I am, however, always wary of people who seem to find God (the Web) when their lives (jobs) are on the line. My love of the Web has nothing to do with my job, and newspapers will only be held back by false Web prophets.

In fact, when I first graduated from college two years and began my job search, I found very few newsrooms looking for technologists or Web people to fill journalism roles. That clearly can be blamed on the fact that the people in charge didn’t value the Web and didn’t know how to staff the Web.

Now the tide is turning. People are beginning to realize that journalists need technology skills. But the tide can only fully turn when management begins to reflect demographics and when we Web staffs are filled with Web people.

We’re not there yet.

Sixteen projects were awarded $5.5 million today by the Knight Foundation to help build innovative journalism in the 21st century.

The most high-profile project to date by a past winner is probably Adrian Holovaty’s EveryBlock. EveryBlock was made possibly by a $1.1 million grant from the 2007 Knight Challenge.

The biggest surprise was Sir Tim Burners-Lee being awarded $350,000 for his project Transparent Journalism:

With the copious amounts of information – and misinformation – on the Internet, the public needs more help finding fair, accurate and contextual news. This project will create a system to do just that. The plan: to design a way for content creators to add information on their sources to their reports, as a form of “source tagging.” For instance, a reporter could note that an article was based on personal observations, interviews with eyewitnesses or specific, original documents. Filters would then use this data - the “story behind the story” - to help find high-quality articles. A reader searching the phrase “Pakistan riots” for example, might find 9,000 articles. But filtering by “eyewitness accounts” would yield a more selective list. Berners-Lee, Moore and the Web Science Research Initiative are working with the BBC and Reuters on how to best integrate the tagging into journalists’ normal workflow.

Two notable journalism bloggers and young new media trailblazers also won grants. David Cohen, AKA Digidave, was awarded $340,000 for his project Spot Journalism. Ryan Sholin was awarded $15,000 for his project Reporting On.

Click here for the full list of winners. Take a look at the winners and leave your thoughts on them. What ideas would you like to see in the future?

How important is it for Web staffers to have their own personal sites?

Clearly, a personal site/blog showcases online skills, but is it a necessity to get hired? I think the answer usually should be yes.

Yes, I know some talented Web people who work at newspapers who don’t have Web sites, but I also know plenty of untalented Web people who work at newspapers who don’t have Web sites. The issue comes down to this: it’s so ridiculously easy for anyone to at least have a blog, what is the excuse for a “Web” person to not have a bona fide Web presence?

It shows initiative, inquisitiveness and an entrepreneurial spirit. It shows a lot of things I’d want in a journalist, especially on a medium that requires initiative, inquisitiveness and an entrepreneurial spirit.

I don’t just mean Web developers. I also mean multimedia and online journalists. Frankly, I’ve seen so many journalism students with great personal sites and blogs that I can’t imagine hiring a so-called professional without one.