News item: The Los Angeles Times fired its top editor earlier this month after he rejected a management order to cut $4 million from the newsroom budget, 14 months after his predecessor was also ousted over a budget dispute, the newspaper said. (AP)
A dozen years ago, I left the daily mainstream media, disillusioned with the direction of the industry and, frankly, more than disgusted with how newspaper journalism had evolved from the days of my youth into a bottom line-oriented, do-everything-on-the-cheap profession in which the accountants had taken over the true seats of power and relegated the news producers to second-class status. I vividly recall the irony of one Friday afternoon when the newspaper at which I was employed at the time had won a major award for its journalistic prowess. Thirty minutes later, the publisher instructed the newsroom brass to cut back the size of the paper to save money.
One need only look at the recent angst at the L.A. Times to see the straits a once-noble business finds itself in today. Newspaper circulation keeps falling nationwide as more of the public gets its news from the Internet. Let's face it: The long-time advertising model that has provided much of newspapers' revenue streams is fading in favor of the more focused and varied options on the Web that can yield a higher return on an business's marketing investment.
But while we witnessed that transition, a not-so-funny thing happened as we stumbled into the 21st century. News organizations believed in reporting on the cheap, with fewer editorial staff. What that leaves is less experienced people bringing you the news, and in the interest of filling newsprint space, they'll do whatever is easy rather than engage in true, thoughtful, impactful journalism that will raise eyebrows and inspire outrage. And this has infected TV journalism (especially local outlets) as well, which is also fighting the Internet for attention. Think about it: How many times when you're expecting a snowstorm do you see a nightly newscast address it in the first few minutes? It appears as if it's the same drill for every snowstorm: Trot out the meteorologist, interview a couple of people to find out how they "feel" about the coming snowstorm (Bleccch!), and add some light-hearted banter with a few laughs as you're about to be hit with a couple feet of snow, which you look forward to as much as you would a root canal.
Remember the presidential election of 1988, which will go down in history as one in which the media was roundly - and rightly - criticized for not focusing on the issues? The media has tried to rebound from that, but, 20 years later, it hasn't come around full circle. I watched a debate last week in which I heard one candidate speak very eloquently about the issues, more so than the other hopefuls. The debate recaps in the media were more interested in the verbal jousting between two of the candidates.
Hopefully, the media will come around to recapture some of its lost stature, and focus on stuff that matters rather than, say, a celebrity's addictions or who a star quarterback is dating. Of course, the rest of us need to care enough about stuff that matters, lest the media think we don't. Otherwise, we could all be headed for trouble.
What about you? How do you see the media's role today and what could it do better?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The more things change for CIOs ...
During the several years I spent as a journalist and research analyst in the IT space, the call for chief information officers to become more business savvy and less "techie" was so loud it bordered on being a tiresome cliche (To some, it probably was). Well, several years later, guess what? That call hasn't gone silent, or least muted. The perceived "gap" between the CIO and the rest of he executive suite apparently remains, if you believe a recent piece by former CIO Alan Guibord in InformationWeek (Small disclosure: Alan was my CEO for about a year at Computerworld).
Amid the rise of the personal computer and the Internet over the last two decades, mid-level and large corporations have placed their information organizations in the hands of top-level officers who could help them understand the business advantages of technology. The problem is: Most of them have cut their career teeth on the wonders of technology and not on the factors that help a business grow and stay alive. Theoretically, the "chasm" Guibord addresses should have narrowed over the last decade while CIOs became more versed in the ways of business and told their CEOs, for example, if and how a new technology could improve the security of confidential customer data.
Has there been improvement? If so, is this "techies don't know business" perception merely a stigma that won't be erased, at least for the foreseeable future? Unlike other C-level execs, CIOs have to live in two worlds: knowing the direction of technology and knowing the way of business. That's not easy. Can you think of an athlete who became an all-star in two professional sports? If you can, I doubt you can name more than one (I'm even hard pressed).
What businesses need to recognize is that it's hard to find CIOs who can thrive in both spaces. If a company hires a CIO who is expert on the business side, for example, that CIO should be allowed to bring in someone who can speak technology as a top-level assistant. That way, they can work together to bring IT closer to the business while striving to excel on both ends.
And if you're a CIO or CIO wannabe, make sure you take note of accomplishments that impress the senior executives and make you more business savvy. That, after all, is what they want to see more of today. So, take some time to think of what you accomplished and put them into a working resume. As Guibord notes, you should keep your resume updated, not just in case you lose your job and need a new one, but as a way of documenting the good stuff in a career "journal."
Amid the rise of the personal computer and the Internet over the last two decades, mid-level and large corporations have placed their information organizations in the hands of top-level officers who could help them understand the business advantages of technology. The problem is: Most of them have cut their career teeth on the wonders of technology and not on the factors that help a business grow and stay alive. Theoretically, the "chasm" Guibord addresses should have narrowed over the last decade while CIOs became more versed in the ways of business and told their CEOs, for example, if and how a new technology could improve the security of confidential customer data.
Has there been improvement? If so, is this "techies don't know business" perception merely a stigma that won't be erased, at least for the foreseeable future? Unlike other C-level execs, CIOs have to live in two worlds: knowing the direction of technology and knowing the way of business. That's not easy. Can you think of an athlete who became an all-star in two professional sports? If you can, I doubt you can name more than one (I'm even hard pressed).
What businesses need to recognize is that it's hard to find CIOs who can thrive in both spaces. If a company hires a CIO who is expert on the business side, for example, that CIO should be allowed to bring in someone who can speak technology as a top-level assistant. That way, they can work together to bring IT closer to the business while striving to excel on both ends.
And if you're a CIO or CIO wannabe, make sure you take note of accomplishments that impress the senior executives and make you more business savvy. That, after all, is what they want to see more of today. So, take some time to think of what you accomplished and put them into a working resume. As Guibord notes, you should keep your resume updated, not just in case you lose your job and need a new one, but as a way of documenting the good stuff in a career "journal."
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Can You Survive a Recession?
The gauge watchers of the economy have been saying it for months and last week's news that the unemployment rate rose to 5% has turned up the volume on the prospect of a U.S. recession in 2008. I have yet to be convinced, though. I may change my mind come the spring to see how the housing industry performs.
Still, the possibility is haunting, especially if you work in an industry that is most vulnerable to an economic downturn, or if your job could be outsourced either domestically or overseas should your employer want to save a few bucks trimming payroll. This is especially true in IT, and I wouldn't be surprised if that has contributed to an increased air of pessimism among IT workers - generally a skeptical lot - in the oft-watched Hudson Employment Index. Granted, the majority of those surveyed are neither worried about job security, nor expecting job cuts at their companies this year. But there is a little more concern.
But why be caught by surprise? The recession talk should lead IT workers to look at the following:
* Their skills. How sustainable is your current skill set? What technologies do you see your company or industry adopting over the next few years?
* Their business savvy. Do you have a knack for figuring out what technologies can help make business processes more efficient? Or what technologies can help boost revenue generation?
* Their resumes. Losing your job is hard enough. Losing a job and not having an idea what to put on your resume is harder. That's why it's always helpful to have an updated resume that focuses on what you have accomplished in the workplace rather than just on your raw skills. Showing your experience might get you an interview, but showing how your experience helped your current and former employers may be the key to landing a new job if you really need one.
Still, the possibility is haunting, especially if you work in an industry that is most vulnerable to an economic downturn, or if your job could be outsourced either domestically or overseas should your employer want to save a few bucks trimming payroll. This is especially true in IT, and I wouldn't be surprised if that has contributed to an increased air of pessimism among IT workers - generally a skeptical lot - in the oft-watched Hudson Employment Index. Granted, the majority of those surveyed are neither worried about job security, nor expecting job cuts at their companies this year. But there is a little more concern.
But why be caught by surprise? The recession talk should lead IT workers to look at the following:
* Their skills. How sustainable is your current skill set? What technologies do you see your company or industry adopting over the next few years?
* Their business savvy. Do you have a knack for figuring out what technologies can help make business processes more efficient? Or what technologies can help boost revenue generation?
* Their resumes. Losing your job is hard enough. Losing a job and not having an idea what to put on your resume is harder. That's why it's always helpful to have an updated resume that focuses on what you have accomplished in the workplace rather than just on your raw skills. Showing your experience might get you an interview, but showing how your experience helped your current and former employers may be the key to landing a new job if you really need one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
