WiredJournalists.com passes 400 members in three days

It’s pretty cool to see so many people jumping on board with Wired Journalists.

There’s a positive energy behind it that gets beyond any worries about a dying industry, the struggle to keep up or hand wringing about who is or isn’t doing what?  The people signing up seem real eager to learn or to help others.

I like what Zac Echola said about the site in his post:

We’re done talking doom and gloom. We’re done making lists of what we should do to better serve our audiences. We’re going to start checking off items. We will better serve our audiences.
We want you to join us.

Like I said, a positive energy.

WiredJournalists.com is starting to feel like a petition drive — people joining together to say, “I believe in the future of journalism, and I believe that future is wired.”

Come join the fun.

12 thoughts on “WiredJournalists.com passes 400 members in three days

  1. I have joined WiredJournalists.com, and it does feel very positive to be there. Perhaps it’s a sign that we journalists are beginning the fight to take back our industry!

  2. Yep – It is always fun watching the birth of a new online community – thanks for kicking it off.

    Nice that “NIng” makes it Soooo easy. Created a Ning community during a client visit earlier this month – while they were on a phone call. It is ridiculously easy now.

    Wasn’t so easy in 2004 when we launched Visual Editors – but the heady ramp up and enthusiasm you are seeing now is familiar, and no less thrilling. Bravo. (FYI, When I joined I spammed my A-List contact list about Wired-J’s – and I bet I am not the only one.) Facebook was fun for awhile – but with the privacy controls fiascos – I have noticed a lot of journalists stepping away.

    I am considering migrating the Vizeds forums over to Ning -but I don’t see a migration tool for PHPBB – and that’s a shame – cause I bet there would be a lot of people who would consider that option.

  3. Hmm — we’ll have to see if this effort is really about journalism, or if it’s just another way to push the design agenda, which has little to nothing to do with actual journalism.

    That push has led only to serious credibility problems in places like Orlando. Any serious effort to preserve journalism will cast aside the people and the ideas that are part of that colossal failure.

    Obsessing about tiny design details while other sites trampled over newspapers to deliver information didn’t work before, and it certainly won’t work now.

  4. This person “Wenalway” has left a few comments on my blog, always bashing designers for not being journalists and for “ruining” journalism. The person obviously has a big grudge against designers. It’s almost amusing.

  5. You should run that together in one word: whothehell.

    And you know what’s really amusing? The efforts of papers that have turned to the design-based approach. Bad puns, nonsensical headlines, giant numerals, crazy cutouts — no wonder readers are turning away in droves. To not realize that is a fundamental flaw for anyone aspiring to “save” journalism.

    Check out what happens when designers run the show:


    Cue up the Plain White T’s:

    No originality/no originality/originality

  6. I read Wenalway’s blog from time to time, and while he is correct on most points, he has no clue how to convey his message in a way that isn’t insulting and abrasive. Instead of constructive criticism, it’s name calling. The site calls on change, but belittles all the people who have the power to make the changes that need to be made. The site is filled with page after page of bad examples, but never once does it offer up positive examples.
    So don’t rule out what he’s saying, but please keep the positive energy flowing and show people how to do it right — not just always point out where they are wrong.

  7. Hi Howard:

    I would feel a lot better about the Wired Journalist site if more of the journalists actually uploaded photo icons. I am running a conference for local folks in Atlanta interested in social media. Of the 60 who went to our Crowdvine conference networking site only seven did not upload photos. So what is up with these journalists? They don’t understand social networking sites? Don’t know how to upload a photo? Don’t have photos on their computers? Just too busy? I mean you have to play the game to really understand it. I signed up at Wired Journalists just to see if there is a photo uploading glitch. There is not. I’ll probably post this message there too.

  8. Melody:

    The people who have the power to change refuse to use it. The argument of “It’s the way it’s pointed out” is beyond tired.

    And there aren’t many positive examples because few places are even doing the basics right. Today’s front pages are filled with softball news, bad puns and giant numerals. They’re awful, and it’s no wonder why people are steering clear of newspapers.

    If you want gushing praise for how well a page was designed, you can find that at any number of “pro-visual” sites. Wenalway is about pointing out the myriad flaws that result from the obsession with visuals. The copy editors could put a stop to this nonsense today by saying they’re through with trying to put out Picassos For A Day for a public that clearly is not interested in that type of newspaper. Instead, they hide under their desks and debate commas and song lyrics.

    I have no intention of changing either the message or its delivery for cowards and woodenheads who refuse to change and will kill off readership in the process. It’s already happened in places like Minneapolis and San Jose, and no one has learned the lesson: PFADs don’t work.

  9. I never blamed the flaws of other journalists on the way their mistakes are corrected. The flaws obviously existed before the chastising.
    But when I read your site, I cringe. I agree with so much of what you say, but your points are lost in often childish rants. It makes you sound petty, not professional, and vastly discredits you.
    You can do whatever you want, but don’t be surprised when people don’t listen.
    My purpose in commenting here was to persuade these folks not to write off the content of your message because of your tone.
    It’s ironic because you are committing the very sin you are criticizing. The vehicle with which you are delivering your content is driving away your audience.
    As I said, do as you please. But it seems like a great waste of time and resources if every time you make a valid point it is shut down because you can’t say it in a constructive manner.

  10. I’m not sure what’s so complex about the message that its meaning is lost. The list of things to change is quite simple: Don’t run impossible-to-read reverse type. Don’t run 250-point numerals as headlines unless they’re really, really relevant. Spellcheck your page. Don’t simply take the slugline of the article and add a question to it to make your lead headline. Etc.

    And people wouldn’t listen, no matter what the method of delivery. I explained that in the previous post. They’re either too scared, too clueless, or too obsessed with “something shiny.” There won’t be any improvement because newspapers don’t want to change. They’ll die on the horse they’re riding.

    I waited too many years for newsrooms to do things the right way. I have only one response: If the places don’t want to be ridiculed, then they should stop making the same mistakes again and again. Most of the errors are preventable. Start preventing them.

  11. Wenalway, if you want to comment on my site, stick to the topic. Disagree with me if you like, but stick to the topic.

    I’ve never written about newspaper design. I probably never will, but if I do, you’re welcome to comment.

    The next time you leave a comment about newspaper design, I’m deleting it. I’m not going to let you use my site to troll.

Leave a Reply