A few more responses have cropped up from around the blogosphere. Most notably from Roy Greenslade.

More on Roy’s comments later, but first, I’ll turn my attention to Linda Jones’ posting:

STUDENT (and freelancewritingtips.com contributor) Dave Lee takes Phillip Knightley to task for saying that ‘print journalists should just do print.’

In his post calling for journalists to face up a changing media landscape, alongside illustrating it with an image of nauseating bloke in a purple dinosaur suit, Barney, (last seen on the telly in this house singing Yankee Doodle Dandy before us common folk could afford DVDs) Dave asserts:

Sadly, I’m sure Knightley is one of a huge number of journalists that share the same view. They’re stuck in the past. He criticised computer-aided-reporting as being a poor way of working. No way. What better way of gathering the opinions of thousands than through the internet? Get out and talk to people, by all means, but remember what your goals are.

I really can’t follow Dave’s argument here – remember what your goals are? My goals are to tell people’s stories. I’m not going to be doing that very well by continually shouting out for case studies online, emailing questions and trusting what I find on Google or Wikipedia.

It’s the testimony of a single witness to an atrocity, say that can often make the most difference, or the compelling and painful story of a survivor. And to get that we erm, need to talk to them, yes we can get in touch through a blog, or make a podcast – but these are just the means of contact and delivery. The basic journalistic skill, that Knightley evidently has in spades, is getting the best out of the interviewee – however that interview is fixed up, or reported. How much do such new media methods really add to knowing what questions to ask and getting the answers needed?

What we have here is a question of purpose. The goals I speak of are incredibly simple. There are only two: 1) Tell the story in the best possible way and, 2) Do it in the quickly.

Now when I say quickest, I’m not saying we should all rush out stories as soon as we can. No no. As reporters, we must take time to carve out the story to its fullest potential. However, there is a lot to be said for finding something out and then telling people as soon as possible. I like that sort of journalism. I’d be pretty miffed off with a reporter that holds back an important story in order to persue an added quote. Tell us the facts — and add the quote later. The internet allows us to do this so so easily, newspapers not so.

New media methods add a huge tool to the reporters arsenal. I’m not dismissing traditional journalism. In fact, I don’t really like calling it traditional journalism at all: It’s journalism, full stop. What I’m saying is do both. The internet can help you find better interviewees. New angles. Extra facts. You can approach stories that you know little about, find some debate on the web, and find yourself awash with opinions and knowledge.

Yes, go out and talk with people, it’s essential. But the internet is the greatest tool we have. To question its value is ridiculous. Oddly enough, I know Linda does use the internet extensively to get case studies and leads — so I’m not sure where her argument stems from.

Here’s what Roy Greenslade said:

Naturally enough, I’m with Lee on the journalistic value of the internet. I’m also surprised that Linda doesn’t grasp that the reason we have come to appreciate faceless, nameless contributions is precisely because they come from people who are out there, talking to other people and witnessing events.

Where I depart from Lee’s argument, and wonder if he has been carried away with a misplaced missionary zeal, is his desire to dispense with the kind of journalistic qualities that Knightley represents: dedication, diligence and the desire to delve and dig for months on end.

I’m not for a moment wanting to dispense with the journalistic qualities that Roy mentions here. I’d be a fool to want that to happen.

There needs to be a distinction between using computers and the internet to aid reporting, and using computers and the internet do a report. At my university, you’ll find some great student journalists. I’m looking forward to reading and watching information and seeing some old coursemates popping up all over the place — because they will. These journalists are the ones that actively report on stories. They’ll ring people, visit people, invite interviewees out for a sly pint or five in the attempt to grab a slightly better quote. We all love it.

But, inevitably, there will always be student journalists that regard Google as their informer, and email as their number one form of contacts. It’s horrible. I’ve had ‘budding’ reporters report back to me after being assigned a news story for The Linc saying: “Oh, I haven’t got any quotes, because they didn’t reply to my emails.”

I scream a little inside, and drop the story, naturally.

Sadly, I think a lot of the people commenting on my blog posting about Knightley associate computer reporting with that kind of scenario. Lazy, bad journalism.

But those who fully utilise the internet to report do, I’d argue, a better job than people who don’t.

Knightley added to his comments about print journalists just doing print by saying that journalists are now too busy faffing about setting up cameras and blogs to concentrate on the reporting. What I’d be inclined to think about that comment is that for someone who perhaps isn’t entirely comfortable with using that equipment it’s a big burden. I fear Knightley’s argument that the technology isn’t neccessary actually arises from a problem of not feeling confident in using it. It adds complications.

But, modern journalists shouldn’t be like this. It’s a piece of cake to turn on a camera. There is no reason why we can’t all be multimedia journalists.

Anyway, again, thank you for all your comments. The lecture was recorded — and I’m trying to get hold of the recording so I can share it with you all.

If any of you are in and around the Lincoln area on Monday, the next guest lecturer is David Woodfall. Richard Keeble emailed me the details:

David Woodfall has worked for 20 years as a photographer specialising in issues concerning our relationship with the natural world. He has won a number of international awards including sections in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year award  and Natures Best (USA). He set up the agency Woodfall Wild Images, www.woodfall.com in 1995 and this now represents 130 photographers around the world specialising in environmental issues, wildlife, landscape and conservation issues. In 1995 BBC Wildlife magazine described him as the poet laureate of British and Irish landscapes. He is mostly glad to support Swansea City.

It will be held in the Cargill Lecture Theatre at the University of Lincoln at 6pm. Drinks and nibbles afterwards.