I’ve been pondering this question intermittently a lot recently, as it relates to a couple of talks I’ll be giving over the next month of or so.

Last night I spoke at the very inspiring FISH@6 Youth Innovation night (hosted by Future Journeys’ Janine Cahill) on innovation in journalism - or innovation in the kind of social analysis journalism I tend to do, at least - and came up with the following model of where we’ve come from and what we’re working towards.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but these are some of the principles I’ve been trying to apply to my own work.

Old model: Heritage media mastheads have all the cred. Emerging writers establish themselves as voices worth listening to/employing by being picked up by these mastheads on a regular basis (which yes, is basically how I launched my career).

New model: Heritage media still matters - for now, at least, it’s the biggest microphone around - but a new media presence is essential, too. Rather than sending everything off to the biggies (or only writing those pieces that can be shaped to be picked up by a major newspaper, magazine, TV station etc), writers choose the most appropriate media through which to communicate their ideas, with the most successful ones being genuinely multi-platform.

Big magazines and newspapers are both a great venue and provide the financial infrastructure for considered, smart, well-thought out writing (as Emily Gould once quipped, “insightful conclusions cost $2/word … [b]log posts ramble and peter out [sometimes]”); social media is better for the quick responses and niche stuff, as well as - importantly - serving as a direct line to people who care about the things you write about.

As more people - particularly young people - go online for their information, the internet will increasingly serve as both an incubator of new talent, and even a core, financially viable platform for some - think Gala Darling. I realise this is already happening to some extent, particularly in the US, but I haven’t encountered (m)any young Australian journos who see this as a serious option.

Old model: Authority is derived from a writer/editor’s distance from the audience - think Anna Wintour, the byline-less editorials in newspapers, and the general gatekeeper-oriented attitude of most heritage media. (This is not without reason - as most bloggers and anyone who’s worked for a big media company knows, you get a lot of weirdos contacting you.)

New model: The most influential writers are those for whom communication is a genuinely two-way street - who act as an audience to their audience and respond to them in return, like Andrew Sullivan. In new media, disseminating ideas is about building relationships, both with your audience and with other writers - whether heritage or independent. These will often be the same people, as people who care enough about ideas to want to seek them out online are also likely to care about them enough to want to write about them themselves.

Old model: Thought leaders are those with the loudest microphones (ie newspaper columnists, magazine editors and so on). Often, as Jillian York commented on Twitter yesterday, they’re only interested in communicating with others they have identified as fellow elites.

New model: Thought leaders are those who actively participate in the conversation, and whose contributions are judged as valuable by other participants. These may be heritage media employees (and they’ll continue to have an advantage so long as they hold those loud microphones), but they, like everyone else, will be judged more on the substance of what they have to say rather than simply the fact that we can hear them.

Thoughts?