What is a professional consumer reporter do to when the Internet has empowered anybody to be a critic of everything from cars, to credit cards, to healthcare plans? Worse still, at a time when government and industry have diminished the ability of consumers to protect themselves in an increasingly complicated marketplace?
Last month, the Columbia Journalism Review and Consumer Reports hosted a joint, one-day conference at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism that addressed those weighty questions. Titled “Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism,” the event attracted 100 participants from the United States and abroad who came to hear over twenty experts from traditional and “new-media” consumer-reporting outlets.
Slideshow by Curtis Brainard/Photos by Rebecca Castillo
As the name implies, there are both risks and opportunities associated with citizen journalism, social media, crowd sourcing, user-generated reviews, and similar, emerging norms. The ups and downs are not that hard to identify. It’s the wisdom of the masses versus the expertise of the individual, accounting for the fact that individuals are not always experts, and masses are not always wise. The challenge for traditional news outlets is finding that proverbial “balance” that both serves the consumer—journalism’s charge—and provides a stable financial model—journalism’s necessity.
Many speakers at the consumer conference noted that professional critics are on the “defensive” while amateurs are gaining ground. The success of Web sites like Wikipedia and YouTube have it made it abundantly clear that the crowd can both inform and entertain. In his keynote speech at the conference, New York Times technology columnist David Pogue pointed to over a dozen sites based on user-generated reviews and information about home electronics, travel plans, personal loans, and health alerts that are more accurate, up to date, and personalized than what people can get from traditional news outlets.
That those outlets need to collaborate with readers and audiences and incorporate similar strategies into their operations is now a given. The question, if professional journalists want to survive, or the very least retake the offensive, is where do they compete? Where do they make a strategic stand that will show that expert opinion is still indispensible?
Some guidance can be found in the last great rise and fall of consumer journalism. As Trudy Lieberman, a consumer-affairs and health reporter, argued at the conference and in an feature article for CJR, “The business community killed the consumer movement” of the 1960s, which had “pushed for laws and regulations to protect buyers from the excesses of the marketplace.” In its place arose “consumerism,” which stressed education over regulation by teaching consumers to be “better buyers.” A quote from a former editor at Consumer Reports in Lieberman’s CJR piece perfectly captures the change in reporting philosophy: “It’s much more interesting to find out how I can get a delicious and safe tomato for myself than how all tomatoes can be made delicious and safe.”
The Internet excels at producing that kind of tailored, news-consumers-can-use. Professional journalists, on the other hand, have an opportunity to prove their mettle on the “all-tomatoes” question. To be sure, crowd and user-generated information campaigns have affected change in addition to education. A number of conference participants talked about successes they’ve had in launching customer service forums, including AdAge columnist and On the Media host Bob Garfield, who created the Web site Comcast Must Die; Thor Muller, CEO of the site Get Satisfaction; and Ben Popken, editor of Gawker Media’s The Consumerist site. But there is still a wide gulf between better service and the kind of industry-wide regulation that will improve the overall quality, safety, reliability, and cost of everything from food and pharmaceuticals to home loans and credits cards.