Does the definition of “quality journalism” ever change?

Author, publisher and media analyst Thomas Baekdal asks a good question about that leaked New York Times innovation report from a few weeks ago that I can’t seem to stop writing about:

What if Quality Journalism Isn’t?

It’s a question not just for the Times, but for any media organization. Here’s what he means: The innovation report says that “The New York Times is winning at journalism,” but “we are falling behind in a second critical area: the art and science of getting our journalism to readers.” Baekdal says this is a contradiction:

This is something I hear from every single newspaper that I talk with. They are saying the same thing, which is that their journalistic work is top of the line and amazing. The problem is “only” with the secondary thing of how it is presented to the reader.

And we have been hearing this for the past five to ten years, and yet the problem still remains. There is a complete and total blind spot in the newspaper industry that, just maybe, part of the problem is also the journalism itself.

Emphasis in the original.

Baekdal is writing about newspapers, but I think the question fits for anyone creating content: “If their daily report is ‘smart and engaging’ [quoting the innovation report], why are they failing to get its journalism to its readers?”

The question reminds me of conversations that happened a lot in my early days at Bleacher Report as we were working to transform the site from its rough-and-tumble origins to one at which excellent content was the top priority.

At one meeting I was prattling on about the hurdles that lay between us and the kind of high-quality stories one might find in the best newspapers or the top professional sports websites. Someone said, “We have to redefine what’s meant by ‘high-quality story.’”

That didn’t mean lowering standards so that what once would have been considered mediocre would now be “high quality.” What this person meant, further conversation revealed, was that our definition of high-quality content should be the coverage and analysis our readers are looking for, delivered in formats and on devices that they want to use.

That has turned out to be a damned good definition. It’s a profoundly different one than “stories that meet journalism and aesthetic standards that have been in place for decades.”

There’s nothing wrong with defining quality in that way. It’s just not the only way. And, as Baekdal argues, it’s a way that can be limiting.

As the media changes, technology changes, consumption habits change, we all have to make sure we’re working with a definition of “high quality” that’s changing appropriately. Because rest assured: At least some competitors are, and your readers will probably find them.