Jacqui Maher is the most recent addition to my Interactive News team at the New York Times, and although she started almost six months ago, I have yet to get her business cards — an embarrassing fact she (rightly) points out at regular intervals. I’m not raising this to highlight my shortcomings as a manager, but rather as a plea for help.
The biggest reason Jacqui doesn’t have business cards? I just can’t come up with a title that…fits.
This is a problem of no small significance, because as the career paths of journalists and developers converge, the labels we use affect how we are seen by those around us. I experienced this first-hand a few years ago when I went from being a journalist who used data in his reporting to a computer-assisted reporting specialist.
As soon as the term “reporter” got qualified, I was no longer viewed the same way in the newsroom. At best, I was seen as a reporter with specialized skills. At worst, I was that nerd in the corner you’d call to help with a spreadsheet and maybe troubleshoot your email.
Labels matter. And as this niche of journalism grows more mainstream, labels will matter that much more. So, who are we?
We Are (Not Just) Engineers
According to human resources, everyone on my team falls into one of several categories under the broad title of “software engineer.” I’ll admit, I kind of punted on this question for a while, and “engineer” is the title most of my folks have on their business cards. It’s certainly not inaccurate; it’s just not complete.
Engineer doesn’t in any way fit the position because we are, after all, as much editorial as we are technical. Plus, it’s just a bit too N.A.S.A. for my tastes.
Then there’s the term that seems to be more and more in vogue — “programmer-journalist.” And while that definitely captures the dual nature of mission, it feels like a bit of a cop-out to me. Like we couldn’t find a good title, so we’ll just jam a couple half-baked ones together. It’s clunky to say, clunkier to write and it’s just a little too combination Pizza Hut/Taco Bell, you know?
What About Hacker-Journalist
A slightly more casual Friday version is Brian Boyer’s “hacker-journalist,” which I don’t mind as much, even if it shares the same problem as above. Maybe it’s the term hacker, which I’ve always liked. Unfortunately, it’s a show stopper here since the term is perceived as a pejorative among those who don’t know better. Plus, there’s the Pizza Hut/Taco Bell thing again.
At one point, I thought maybe we’d just go with “reporter” or “editor,” which is what we did on the Times’s computer-assisted reporting desk when I was there. But while that title would be newsroom chic, it has the opposite problem as “software engineer” in that it completely ignores the technical aspects of what we do.
Finally there’s “news applications developer,” which is the title the team at the Chicago Tribune uses. It’s a mouthful, but not too bad. Of all the options I’ve considered, it’s probably the best at capturing what we actually do day-to-day. Still, I’m holding out hope that someone will think of something better.
Suggestions welcome.
View Comments (31)
"Editorial Developer" is something I heard somewhere and kind of liked. It's a bit shorter than News Applications Developer, but I'm still holding out for something better.
the word you are looking for is contentonist
Since the emphasis is on reportage (vs. information) and probably some understanding of the role of technology, I'd suggest the following:
(1) for the overall concept, use applied journalism (much as the terminological distinction between applied and pure mathematics) -- the "applied" moniker is just technical enough to fly well for those-who-know yet only two syllables long and generic or open enough in usage to allow for increased functionality/responsibility as the positions and roles grow, while "journalism" preserves intact the heritage of the social/cultural function of news organizations, so one would not get pigeonholed as the "IT guy" and still keep creds with non-technology-enabled journalists on the beat ... positions in this area could run as "reporter, applied journalism" and "editor, applied journalism" and in conversation, "I'm a Times reporter in applied journalism, covering the blank-blank beat"
(2) use a portmanteau, technojournalist, technology-enabled or -aware, along the lines of photojournalist, who reports via images ... this coinage is a little too cyborg for my tastes though
(3) another portmanteau: infonaut, to key up the concepts of information and navigation (the organized application of information to chart the news frontier), punning on the exploratory resonance with "astronaut" and the navigation meme of the Web/Internet (think, Netscape Navigator) and indicating the changing nature of news and information in the multimedia digital age, a kind of frontier where the reporter examines, explores, records, and transmits ... also would open up to the area as "infonautics," the meta of information-gathering, evaluation, and dissemination in the Internet of today and whatever it becomes in the next decade; this term has a better marketing edge, too, and is distinctive enough to separate this type of journalism from "reporter" or "editor" -- it's a brave, new world; why not "think different[ly]"?
Since the emphasis is on reportage (vs. information) and probably some understanding of the role of technology, I'd suggest the following:
(1) for the overall concept, use applied journalism (much as the terminological distinction between applied and pure mathematics) -- the "applied" moniker is just technical enough to fly well for those-who-know yet only two syllables long and generic or open enough in usage to allow for increased functionality/responsibility as the positions and roles grow, while "journalism" preserves intact the heritage of the social/cultural function of news organizations, so one would not get pigeonholed as the "IT guy" and still keep creds with non-technology-enabled journalists on the beat ... positions in this area could run as "reporter, applied journalism" and "editor, applied journalism" and in conversation, "I'm a Times reporter in applied journalism, covering the blank-blank beat"
(2) use a portmanteau, technojournalist, technology-enabled or -aware, along the lines of photojournalist, who reports via images ... this coinage is a little too cyborg for my tastes though
(3) another portmanteau: infonaut, to key up the concepts of information and navigation (the organized application of information to chart the news frontier), punning on the exploratory resonance with "astronaut" and the navigation meme of the Web/Internet (think, Netscape Navigator) and indicating the changing nature of news and information in the multimedia digital age, a kind of frontier where the reporter examines, explores, records, and transmits ... also would open up to the area as "infonautics," the meta of information-gathering, evaluation, and dissemination in the Internet of today and whatever it becomes in the next decade; this term has a better marketing edge, too, and is distinctive enough to separate this type of journalism from "reporter" or "editor" -- it's a brave, new world; why not "think different[ly]"?
Recent news from Columbia Journalism, which seems to demonstrate the relevance of the discussion here: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/04/09/j-school-seas-offer-dual-degree-digital-media-focus
Seems to me that you are too concerned with titles. In the end your experiences matter not how you categize yourself. How about you focus on solving a real problem?
It's kind of hard to determine when you haven't described your job functions. Could you list them?
How about Technology Editor? I think that incorporates not only knowledge about tech topics, but that you incorporate/use technology as part of your job. Sometimes that might mean writing an application, some fancy HTML, or querying a db directly to get some unique slice of information.
I've always like the word Technologist as well, but Technologist Journalist is a mouthful.
I disagree with the earlier comment that the of "programmer" or "developer" equates to a faceless clone. Perhaps it's because I'm one myself, though my latest titles have been "Technical Architect" or "Solutions Architect" which doesn't clearly identify me a code junkie to anyone not in the geek circles. I usually end up just telling people at parties that I'm a programmer, which often surprises people since I'm gregarious and wasn't sitting in the corner alone with a pocket protector in my shirt pocket.
I agree with just "journalist." Aren't we all expected to be technicians on some level these days? It's a given.
How about Com-Porter?