I don’t think we really disagree about encouraging journalists to experiment with new tools outside of their regular reporting duties. I probably wasn’t clear enough in the example I used. We actually had put our reporters through Twitter training prior to the assignment I mentioned. At the end of every session we encouraged everyone to experiment. We even had a test environment set up so they could see how their work would appear on the site.

My point was that our instructions about the coverage should have been more explicit. And — I think to your point — we probably should have required more experimentation with the application.

I think the bigger challenge in any newsroom is convincing veteran reporters that there is value in experimenting with these tools. I understand how Twitter or any other tool can be seen as just one more thing sucking time away from their “real jobs.”

I think that’s why we need to keep circling back. Re-train. Point out examples of how the tool is working. Show them how it can make them better at their jobs.

Right now, I’m pushing Tweet Deck as a great tool for tracking breaking news and for seeing what people are saying about our organization’s coverage. I have a few converts but not as many as I would like. Until the program actually tips us to a breaking news story, I don’t think we’re going to see wide acceptance. But I do think it will happen eventually.

There’s a value to being innovative without having to reinvent the wheel. Leveraging existing tools for new purposes is not only practical, in this case it also brings RMN to the social media table (read: new readers). RMN isn’t the first to use Twitter to deliver gems of info to audiences (many social media experts already do it), but I applaud them for being so adaptable when so many newsrooms have not been.

Why dismiss a tool just ’cause some people use it for less-than-interesting things? That’s what I call dumbed-down thinking.

IMHO, the main key to getting journalists comfortable with Web 2.0 (or whatever buzzword you equate to using current online media) is experience — and especially, experience on their own, not for work purposes, to explore and experiment without the pressure of being on assignment.

For instance, sending someone out to live-tweet an event who has never used Twitter much before and doesn’t really know how to interact with people there is probably not going to produce anything good.

I know that many journalists seem to think that in order to learn online or social media skills they need to get some kind of packaged and hopefully employer-funded official training. And I understand that desire — it’s human nature to want to compartmentalize and contain anything new that threatens to overwhelm.

But online and social media have gotten so popular precisely because they invite exploration, and because they’re generally simple enough that you can learn them on your own if you first open your mind to the possibility that this can be fun (or at least interesting).

That means allowing time and space to play with them, and to recognize that play as an important kind of learning. That means getting enough experience in this realm that you start to get a feel for what and whom you wish to emulate.

Once journos make this mental shift (I think of it as “upgrading the wetware”) I’ve found that more skills-specific, focused training works much better and has much greater effect. So yes, training is important — but only after the wetware upgrade.

- Amy Gahran

And they said the media was dumbing down.

After reading your article I went straight to look for the LG VX9900 online, but unfortunately, the technology doesn’t work in my country, but it was good to know and then I headed off and registered on twitter.

I hope to use these tools to enhance my online publishing skills.

Thanks so much, Mike, for sharing.