What is original about Charlie Beckett’s ‘conceptual model of networked journalism’?
May 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm paulbradshaw 5 comments
Charlie Beckett, the Director of the LSE and LCC thinktank POLIS, and former Senior Editor of Channel 4 News, has just published his book SuperMedia - and if you follow this blog you’ll find his conceptual model of “networked journalism” rather familiar…
Below you’ll find my ‘Model for the 2st century newsroom’ and, below it, Beckett’s own “conceptual structure”,
Beckett acknowledges that “In my attempt to give some sort of conceptual structure to this process I am indebted to the work of Birmingham City University’s Paul Bradshaw and his “Model For A 21st Century Newsroom” at his website, Onlinejournalismblog.com.”
Unfortunately, he’s not indebted enough to directly reference the post that included the model (despite numerous footnotes referencing other blog posts) – or to include the original model in the book – or, of course, to mention it on the page containing the model (i.e. the one that will be photocopied, etc.).
Because, for all his talk of indebtedness his personal claim to the model is quite clear when he introduces it: “As part of the definition of this more connected or “distributed” journalism I want to imagine a different kind of “newsroom.”
Except that “conceptual structure” had already been created back in September 2007, and this is merely a slightly tweaked reproduction.
I’m not laying any claim to the constituent ideas behind the 21st century newsroom (which are linked to in the original post). And this isn’t an ego trip – I’m more than happy for anyone to rip the model to pieces, rebuild it, adapt it or build on it. That’s why I published it. That’s why I write this blog. What is frustrating is the absence of the transparency we should expect from academic publishing and aspiring networked journalists. (The proper academic thing to do – and what the editor Anna Feuchtwang should also have done – is use the phrase “adapted from the Model for a 21st Century Newsroom, Bradshaw, 2007″).
Even more frustrating is… well, couldn’t he have done something better with it? Surely there’s some holes to pick in it? Or big improvements to make? It’s a nice illustration of how it works in practice, but…
But perhaps I’m missing something – perhaps indeed, Beckett’s model is so substantially different as to not warrant any more than a mention of my name. Perhaps I’m expecting too much academic rigour from the head of a university thinktank, or ‘networked journalism’ standards of transparency. I’d love to know your thoughts.
If you want to see it in context the graph and its attribution can also be found on pages 54-57 of chapter 3, available for download from Harvard University (PDF):
My original post that introduced the Model for a 21st Century Newsroom, is here.
UPDATE: Charlie emailed quickly to clear things up: “Any fault in attribution is down to me and my transfer from TV journalism to book form. It was a very late addition and I wasn’t careful enough. I’m not a trained academic and I don’t pretend to be one. I spend a lot of time linking to your work, both literally online and in referencing your work to other people.”
He has also agreed to amend the PDF with appropriate references, and include an addendum slip in the US edition clarifying the origin of the model.
Thanks Charlie, now, as you say, Let’s get back to the real issue which is the future of journalism.
Entry filed under: online journalism. Tags: 21st century newsroom, charlie beckett, LCC, LSE, POLIS, supermedia.
1.
Alexandre Gamela | May 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, i agree with you, i’m halfway through the book and despite all the great things in there that are making me believe that it will turn into a reference for the future, i noticed that bit. The copy i have is from the Harvard site, without the footnotes and the pictures (i’m buying the book anyway) but when i got to that model part i noticed there was any type of mention to your work, besides the reference in the previous page. This might sound as an academic quarrel but it’s very importante specially in these times where someone’s idea can become everyone’s idea; it’s most likely, being totally candid about it ,an editorial flaw. Beckett’s book is awesome because it sums up the stream of conscience around Online Journalism, allied to a admirable perspective, and i agree with lots of his ideas. It would give a fantastic school book for Journalism freshmen, and is taking the understanding of the social part and function of the business into another new level. But yes, i noticed credit was due, and even here where copyright and authorship is disrespected easily in almost every university, the use of those specific pages would have a better footnote, even if handwritten on photocopies. It’s a totally understandable complain, in academic grounds, and over copyright practice.
Have you talked with him?
PS: i wrote a post a few days before that described part of that same process in a similar way, and i admit that most of my ideas come from minds like Paul Bradshaw, Jeff Jarvis, Ryan Sholin, Mindy McAdams, and many others that became my unexpected ,for a lack of a better word, teachers. I credit these people referencing their work the most and the best i can. And everytime i have one idea i consider my own i know it truly never is. So i’d like to thank you all, and hope that the mark you’ll leave in this business and in the generations you’ll teach becomes indelible.
2.
Charlie Beckett | May 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Alexandre,
Thanks for your appreciation of the book and yes, you are right, the problem of the citation of the diagram was an ‘editorial flaw’. and entirely my fault. I gave a big obvious credit to Paul and his website in the text. I emailed him while I was writing the book to say what I was going to do. My intention was clearly to give him the credit, it’s just that I didn’t label the diagram properly. It was a late addition and I screwed up on the footnote. I have subsequently written to Paul to apologise for not giving him the proper footnote credit to the diagram. I pointed out very clearly in the book and in my letter to Paul that I am not an academic and don’t claim to be one. I don’t claim to be ‘original ‘ anywhere in the book. (I am a journalist after all…) I apologised to Paul for the lack of care in the citation and promised to make amends.
It is a shame that Paul hasn’t acknowledged or responded to my apologies.
If you go to my blog (www.charliebeckett.org) and search ‘Paul Bradshaw’ you will see many laudatory references to Paul’s work with full links and ample credits. The idea that I am trying to deny the debt is laughable. I don’t think I have any great disagreement with Paul around the issues so I regret that he is so furious about this academic (but important) technical issue.
Let’s get back to the real issue which is the future of journalism.
cheers
Charlie
3.
paulbradshaw | May 27, 2008 at 10:14 am
Thanks Charlie – I’ve now updated the post. Apologies for the delay (have been offline with a new baby). Happy to get back to the real issues.
4.
Charlie Beckett | May 27, 2008 at 10:41 am
Paul,
Congratulations on the new baby.
I am delighted that we’ve sorted this out.
cheers
Charlie
5.
Seeing is believing « Content Ninja’s Weblog | May 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm
[...] Paul Bradshaw, writing at the Online Journalism Blog, did the world a service by pulling together his diagram for “A Model of the 21st Century Newsroom” and author Charlie Beckett’…, which builds on Bradshaw’s [...]