News of the ouster of The New York Times' first female executive editor, Jill Abramson, and the immediate appointment of Dean Baquet as the first African American in such position, surprised everyone.
Media analysts were on the story within minutes, debating the causes for Abramson's dismissal. Was she not as well compensated as her male counterparts? Could it be her management style—described by some as "brusque"?
While this news dominated media blogs and commentary in the U.S., across the Atlantic, a similar story was breaking that barely made it into the U.S. press. The same day as The New York Times story broke, Natalie Nougayrede, the female editor of Le Monde, which we could describe as a Times' equivalent in France, was also out.
Here, too, there were accusations of sexism in the firing of Nougayrede. According to The Financial Times, Nougayrede was forced to quit when "not just her staff but also the majority of her senior editors rebelled over plans to tilt resources decisively towards Le Monde's online operations away from the daily newspaper...."
While I don't know anything more than you about the firing of these two editors from the Times and Le Monde, I do know a thing or two about the culture of many newsrooms today. I am not at all surprised that, through the lens of these personnel upheavals, we get a glimpse into the tension inside these iconic newsrooms as they attempt to embrace digital.
As someone who visits a different newsroom almost every week in some corner of the world, I can say that there seems to be an invisible and often not too silent hostility toward the prospect of shifting attention from print to digital.
What I observe in many newsrooms is a combination of fear, confusion, frustration and a sense of not knowing what will happen next.
The ghost of frequency
While many publishers and editors talk the digital talk, buzzwords and all, such philosophy is rarely fully implemented. All it takes is sitting in one of those now somewhat obsolete morning meetings (the ones where the news agenda for tomorrow's edition is set), to realize that many in these newsrooms come there everyday to produce a newsPAPER, emphasis on paper. It is business as usual. It could be 1957 or 1987.
The ghost of frequency rules the day:
"We are a daily. We appear at 5 a.m. each day. We put all our thinking and resources into what 'the paper' will contain tomorrow. In the process, we are not consciously aware that our brand is now a 24/7 operation and that the flow of news is constant. We do not pay much attention to that 'raw meat' that we should garnish a little and serve over the course of the day. We are concentrating on cooking that big steak, with three or four accompanying dishes to boot."
A publisher will remind you that "print is still the cash cow" and that "many of our older subscribers will be offended if we don't give them exactly what they have always expected from their daily newspaper."
Mastering a trio of disciplines
What is an editor to do when trying to truly become digital first? How can the Jills and Natalies of the world operate? They are trained as journalists. They likely still romance print, as much as they work to understand and promote digital. They, and their entire organization, are suddenly confronted by the dynamic trio of disciplines in which no single person can claim total expertise: journalism, technology and economics. The leaked New York Times innovation report, indeed, makes clear the issues the Times has had in dealing with this trio.
It is this trio of disciplines that causes the rifts, the discomfort, the lack of focus.
Today, we must look at journalism and technology in a very different way from the way we did 20 or even five years ago. The two must tango. It's a tight dance. Body against body. That type of connection.
Who can claim to be able to not just do that tango, but also lead a team with many reluctant dancers?
I have read a series of Twitter and Facebook discussions with the question: Would you like to be led by a journalist or a management type?
This is not at all the key question. I have seen many great journalists who are also firm and compassionate managers. Plenty of them, if you ask me.
Today, it is not just about managing journalists to write the right type of stories. It is more than that. It is also about convincing them that they must think about digital. That they must return from their interviews and write the story for a digital platform first.
Easier said than done, but it is amazing how much progress is made in newsrooms where this is mandated.
It's all about "digital first now"
That is why I would say that the phrase "digital first" is not quite good enough. It must be "digital first now."
I am not a newsroom manager and, God knows, I certainly don't wish to be one.
But I observe my surroundings, and have done so for over 41 years in over 650 newsrooms in 110 countries.
I must add that I have never experienced a more fascinating time than today. Challenging, yes. But, what amazing opportunities to tell stories across platforms, if only we develop a plan of action, a philosophy, then stick to it.
The first step in that plan is to name an editor who really understands digital. It's interesting to read that Abramson had apparently tried to hire Janine Gibson, the digitally minded editor of TheGuardian.com, to become a key player in the newsroom.
This, indeed, is the right approach.
Digital first now will not happen with a group of print-oriented editors who say they believe in digital first, but whose mentality remains that of publishing a daily printed newspaper.
The firing of Jill Abramson and Natalie Nougayrede, two editors universally recognized for their journalistic excellence, is a reflection of the tumultuous times experienced in many newsrooms large and small. It is a reflection of journalists' resistance to change—of letting go of what was.
If something good can come out of what is truly a sad story, it will be that publishers and editors everywhere will realize that change is good, that digital is here to stay, that their brands will have a new vibrant life as digital publications, and that they can't delay this from happening.
Then they should recruit the best digitally minded editors, put them in positions of authority, and start doing digital first now—whether they use that term or not.
First, however, those at the top must truly believe that this is the way to go. I would not be surprised if Abramson and Nougayrede resurfaced in the future as leaders in some "digital only" outfit. Their journalistic chops will allow them to shine there, and part of their success may be that there is no print elephant in the room to derail their ambitions.