There was no mention of MoDowd. Instead, Josh Marshall, speaking at Columbia’s Journalism Day ceremony this morning, exhorted journalists entering and re-entering the field to consider not only what they can do to shape journalism in the future—but also to re-imagine it entirely. “It’s one thing to write a great novel,” Marshall said. “But it’s even better to invent the novel.”
Despite the financial and, perhaps, existential crisis journalism is facing (“you don’t have to look very hard for Cassandras saying it’s a dying business,” Marshall noted)—and also because of those crises—“there’s no time…that I would rather enter the profession than right now,” Marshall said. “It’s the people entering the profession now who are going to create the publishing models, the business models, that are going to shape journalism in the 21st century.”
Marshall, whose Talking Points Memo revolutionized the concept of online reporting, devoted much of his talk to extolling the creative potential of critical thinking. We “need to pay critical attention to everything,” he said—to question assumptions about journalism, and to consider, in particular, what is a core necessity of journalism, and what about journalistic practice is contingent. “So many things that we do,” he said, we do out of mere habit—because we’ve systematized accidents of history.
We need to bring a critical sensibility not only to our thinking about the journalism, Marshall suggested, but to journalism itself. We need to foster forms of journalism—and build publishing models—that, in turn, foster the “constant process of re-examination that is absolutely critical to our own work.”
We also need to embrace, rather than question, the notion of audience engagement. “In this period of not only rebuilding the practice of journalism, but what sustains it, our compass really has to be what can find an audience,” Marshall said. Just as journalists have had a tendency, he noted, “to measure our seriousness as journalists by our indifference to the publishing and business side of the operations that sustain what we do,” we’ve also adopted a kind of principled indifference to the audience itself. Yet people “who are so focused on their journalism—so focused on their stories,” Marshall said, deprive themselves and their audiences of the engagement that is, and must be recognized as being, the core of the journalistic mission.
“Building audience, and engaging readers, is the fundamental test of what you do” as journalists, Marshall said. News stories—and journalism more generally—must reflect that dynamic relationship. “This isn’t writing the definitive Hittite dictionary that can sit on its own in the library,” he said, to the audience’s laughter. Discrete news stories, rather, are organic entities—and the publishing and business models that will emerge to sustain them need to reflect that.
Marshall singled out for criticism the kind of ‘he said/she said’ journalism that, no matter how often it’s decried by media critics and the general public, is still alive and well in reporting. “One of the great failings of journalism has been the tendency to emphasize balance over accuracy,” Marshall said. Reporters’ “excessive regard for balance” positions journalism not with, but against, “the core of what sustains it: a fundamental honesty with readers.”
The good news is that “the more balkanized and diverse period that we’re going into,” Marshall said, fosters that honesty. While media consolidation encouraged the notion of balance—large news organizations, he noted, “had to be appealing to everybody, all the time”—the Web’s toppling of barriers means that “you can have a much more healthy ecosystem of different news organizations.” And those organizations, in turn, can feel liberated to turn the equation around: to emphasize accuracy—which is to say, honesty—over balance.
But that liberation will require journalistic institutions to engage in the hard work of self-reinvention—so that, first and foremost, they can live long enough to enjoy the freedom. “He not busy being born,” Marshall concluded, quoting Bob Dylan, “is busy dying.”




Josh Marshall revolutionized online reporting? I thought that was Matt Drudge. Oh, I forgot. Political correctness.
BTW, Marshall calls for rethinking journalism, and then quotes from Bob Dylan. For all their 'progressive' pretense, these people hanker palpably for the 20th Century - New Deal, JFK, classic rock, etc. Maybe rethinking requires a good deal more depth than Marshall - and CJR - are willing to consider
Posted by Mark Richard on Tue 19 May 2009 at 12:51 PM
If you want to allege factual inaccuracy, fine, but wtf does this have to do with political correctness?
Yet, Matt Drudge was on the bleeding edge of online journalism (though since the late 90s his shtick has been almost exclusively aggregation rather than original reporting), but you'd be crazy to deny Marshall's influence. He's put together a credible, sustainable investigative blog that incorporates reader feedback like few others. Both of them revolutionized online journalism—just in different ways.
I wasn't aware rethinking an institution required you to forget everything about the past. (Besides, isn't it conservative wankers like Drudge who so desperately cling to the memes and mores of the past?)
Posted by pardon? on Tue 19 May 2009 at 04:09 PM
Fix link, please: The (Josh) Marshall Plan
Posted by Tim on Wed 20 May 2009 at 08:12 AM
Mark: How did Drudge revolutionize online reporting? Having a website and changing the way journalism is done are not exactly the same thing. Marshall has been a leader in crowdsourcing, enlisting his reader to dig out information and then synthesizing it. That's revolutionary. Passing along gossip is not. And I say that as someone who enjoys gossip.
Posted by Dan Kennedy on Wed 20 May 2009 at 12:28 PM
'Political correctness', in this context, refers to the fact that Marshall is strictly part of the Democratic Party's brain trust, and is therefore influential on the mainstream media, one of the Democratic Party's more loyal constituencies. It was Drudge who put the Internet on the map as a source of raw news, like it or not, by breaking the Clinton-Lewinsky story; it was at that point that the Internet had to be taken seriously as a driver of news stories.
I believe the Marshall's big 'news' scoop was the Bush firings of U.S. attorneys, which was perhaps politically maladroit, but legally within that administration's legal rights. Drudge runs news and carries links to news sources that are antagonistic to both parties; Marshall doens't seek 'sccops' that might embarrass liberal interest groups or ideas, making him about as transformative as an ordinary issue of The New York Times. The fact that the news media took the attorney-firings story so seriously is just a function of the MSM's responsiveness to Democratic talking points. (The story has mostly disappeared now that the election is over, the Democrats are in office, etc.) Drudge, on the other hand was a true rebel - not the fake 'leftist' kind, self-described radicals who always end up copping to the Democrats - who had to override the news judgment of the MSM by exposing Newsweek's withholding of the Clinton story. As an editor, Drudge still has considerable influence over journalism, partly because he will run or play up news that is generally downplayed by the MSM. The latter is wary of Drudge's ability to bring attention to such news, so from all accounts they pay attention to him, while institutionally denying he is a real journalist or that he has influence beyond the conservative media ghetto.
As for the usual conceit that Drudge (presumed to be a political conservative because he became famous over Clinton's scandals) must be the one looking at the past, while those progressives are always thinking about tomorrow, isn't this one getting old? GOPsters idolize Ronald Reagan, who governed in the 1980s, while there is an overwhelming nostalgia for the culture of 'the sixties' among Democrats, as anyone knows who talks to them - as if we really want to go back to the illusions of that low dishonest decade and the unpleasantness that followed it. (Which includes, for retro-minded Democrats, defeat in five of the six presidential elections that followed the liberal landslide of 1964.) I find liberal journalism much more likely to invoke glory days of the past than conservative journalism, though both sides understandably do so. C'mon, you guys know we have 'classic politics' the way we have 'classic rock radio' for baby boomers . . . the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Berkeley free speech, Selma, all those NPR 'anniverary' stories constructing a history of the country which is co-terminus with the history of the Democratic Party and its base constituency groups . . . it's the very air the orthodox media breathes . . .
Has Josh Marshall really changed that much, or is he just an online version of the sort of thing The Washington Monthly or The New Republic or The American Prospect has been doing for years? His admirers are all on the Left, whereas even Democrats have to pay some attention to Drudge, or ignore him at their peril. A single guy with a computer, working from home, who was able to set in motion the impeachment of a President would ordinarily be some kind of hero to journalists who profess to admire those lonely figures who 'speak the truth to power'. The reason Drudge is still marginalized by the J-school mentality is political partisanship, nothing else.
Posted by Mark Richard on Wed 20 May 2009 at 01:13 PM
I don't know whether Josh Marshall has revolutionized reporting or not - the claim sounds somewhat overblown to me - but Drudge has never done any reporting, at least not siince his web site became popular.. That's not a knock on Drudge; I don't think he would claim to have done any reporting. He created an aggregator service, one that has been extremely influential in terms of how the web has developed. And yes, he's managed to bring headlines to the attention of America sooner than the mainstream media outlets wanted to release those stories. He's important, all right, but his importance has to do with changing how information is disseminated, not with reporting the information.
Posted by Greg Andrew on Thu 21 May 2009 at 07:45 PM
While regarded by those he calls out as a crank, Bob Somerby over at The Daily Howler has rightly given Marshall a lot of guff for his embrace of lame brained, mainstream media constructions and narratives. I agree with Somerby. Page views and carrerism (possibly insider-ism, too) seem to have overtaken Marshall's critical thinking apparatus.
Posted by Tom on Thu 21 May 2009 at 09:52 PM
All intelligenct observations, comments, questions - thanks.
Posted by Mark Richard on Fri 22 May 2009 at 01:36 PM