The Interview: Jacki Schechner

I was going to post this before I went on hiatus but the bambino came a little earlier than expected. Still, I'm pleased to post the third installment of my interview series that features discussions with people who have influence in more than one online community and like to discuss policy.

Jacki Schechner is probably best known as an on-air Internet reporter or "blogger chick" for CNN. She spent a good deal of time examining how the media, both online and off, covered political campaigns. She writes her own blog and has an occasional guest post and podcast at Americablog. She recently interviewed Senator Kerry and Speaker Gingrich for the Virtual Energy Forum. She also had some interesting thoughts on the whole AP "fair use" fiasco.

Jacki just started working as communications director for Healthcare for America Now, a new grassroots campaign with an obvious mission, based on the name.

I asked Jacki some questions that focused on the nexus of journalism, online communication, and politics. Enjoy.
Q: How did you develop an interest in journalism?

Growing up, we had a family friend who was a news videographer, and he used to tell these incredible stories about witnessing and documenting history. The more I learned about what he did, the more fascinated I became in the world of journalism. I chose the University of Pennsylvania for college, but since their communications curriculum was more theory than practical application, I studied history and used my time away from school to pursue TV. I spent time in England with an ITV broadcaster who let me tag along to work and shadow his staff. I interned at two television stations - one in Miami and one in Philadelphia - and I contributed what I could to the teeny student-run TV station under the cafeteria at Penn. But none of this was sufficient to get me a gig after graduation so I found a Masters program in my hometown and took the plunge. I've been strangely addicted to the profession ever since.

Q: You're one of the first people who has really made a substantial impact in both mainstream and online journalism. Do you feel these two channels are still mutually exclusive, or do see more integration?

I don't think either form of journalism can survive in a vacuum anymore. Most news/political blogs initially gained traction by linking to, commenting on, and/or supplementing mainstream media work. Interest and financial investment have allowed many of these new independent ventures to grow significantly to the point that they can thrive independent of the traditional outlets. But both sides would be foolish to attempt to ignore the power of integration. For example, TV time and print column space are both limited. Every story has to be edited down in some fashion. The Internet, in contrast, is limitless and offers the chance for mainstream media to offer supplemental content to the work you see on television or in print. On the flip side, online ventures can learn from the world of traditional journalism. When the basics are done right - how to research a story, how to tell a story, how to source a story - they're invaluable.

Q: Many traditional journalists express concern about the new competition they face from blogs and social media sites, essentially saying "bloggers aren't journalists," while many bloggers constantly attack the credibility of traditional journalism. How can consumers of information know who to trust for accurate information and smart commentary?

You absolutely have to be paying attention. No one is going to do that homework for you.

Traditional journalists should be afraid of the competition. The line is blurrier now than it's ever been, and many bloggers are getting very good at working hard to get the scoop and break the story. Mainstream media outlets have the benefit of more resources and better name recognition which can get them quicker access to information. But the key word is can. There's still hard work to be done, and that's where many feel mainstream reporters and producers are dropping the ball.

If you're looking online for information from independent sources - meaning sites not affiliated with traditional news outlets - the best thing to do is start with larger bloggers who have built their reputation and traffic over time. Because there is a great call for transparency in the world of online media, it's not tough to suss out where someone's coming from. Perspective is important, but most bloggers are upfront about their political preferences, so again, if you're paying attention, you'll have an easy time learning the ropes. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts either. But that goes for both mainstream and new media. No one's got the full picture anymore. You have to be active and piece that together yourself.

Q: More people are learning about "breaking news" such as wildfires in San Diego, Earthquakes in China, or even school shootings from social media channels such as Twitter or even cell phone texting and video. As a professional journalist, how do you compete with the "citizen journalists" who happen to be where news breaks?

You don't compete. You integrate. It's the only way. Offering up an avenue to accept citizen journalism - many networks have them now - is a good start. You still have to hone the process of vetting content before you put it on the air, but making it easy for someone to upload video or email a picture is an important part of the process. Since you are often the liaison between the amateur and the audience, you have to get the story and do it justice. Every little bit of color or emotion helps bring the footage to life. And finally, never forget attribution. Too many mainstream journalists think it's ok to snag content off the Internet without giving credit where due. That's a huge no-no in my book.

Q: Mainstream networks such as CNN and ABC are partnering occasionally with online entities like YouTube and Facebook to cover the presidential election. How would you assess the job they've done so far?

Fair. I think CNN did a pretty good job with the Democratic Youtube debate. I was in-house for that one and found myself captivated by both the questions and the answers. There was an element of newness that sparked interest, and anything that gets people excited about politics again is a good thing in my book. ABC's partnership with Facebook was abysmal. The network reported information culled from the social networking site without context. For example, Ron Paul's Internet-savvy supporters played a huge role in stacking online results in their candidate's favor - as they have often done online throughout this primary season. However, the ABC reporter tasked to "covering" the Facebook poll results made no mention of this important caveat. Mainstream news organizations still have a lot to learn about covering the online world as a real beat. I assure you it's much harder than it looks.
Q: 2008 will be remembered by many as the first "YouTube Election." How do you think social media will change the way we cover campaigns in 2012?

Wow. I don't know, but I'm excited to find out. I'm a little bit of an Internet geek like that.