Part of the reason everyone’s pleased is that they feel like their strengths matched well. WNYC knows New York state government and regulatory agencies, and ProPublica, via Lustgarten, has expertise in how similar drilling schemes had played out in western states.
“Even though our newsroom is expanding, we still have a relatively small staff,” says Bernstein. “Sometimes our ambitions exceed our resources.” Since ProPublica was picking up Lustgarten’s tab, the story didn’t tax the station’s news budget as much as it might have had it been an independent investigation.
As work wrapped up, the team worried that events might outpace their story. Their news peg—the governor’s signing deadline—was looming along with their opportunity to make an impact. And to do that, it seemed wise to further expand the story’s reach.
“WNYC has us covered down in New York City, with the well-educated sophisticated audience,” says Engelberg. But most of the story’s action was upstate and around the capital, and the Times Union seemed a natural choice given its location and governmental focus.
“I would have preferred, in a perfect world, to have given Rex more time,” says Engelberg. But with Engelberg being mid-move, and Lustgarten still settling into his new NYC digs, things were hectic enough that finishing the story got more attention than its final distribution plan.
Along the way, the release date was pushed to Tuesday, July 22. Lustgarten submitted something of a draft late Friday, one partially prepared on an upstate bus trip after Susan White, his ProPublica editor, gave him motion sickness pills. He got the edit back late on Sunday, and the Times Union didn’t get a version until late Monday afternoon. It came in at 3,500 words, which the paper hastily cut to 1,500 for the next day’s front page.
With that timeline, Smith says, “we didn’t have as much of a comfort level as I would have liked to have had.” Next time, he’d like to have some of his staff join during a late stage of the investigation, or, at least, have more time to edit the story and compile photos and Web video.
When ProPublica launched, some press critics were concerned that the liberal record of the organization’s major funders, Marion and Herbert Sandler, would taint the project’s journalism and hamper its efforts by dissuading collaborating editors.
While Smith is a ProPublica fan, and has even praised the initiative on a public radio media show he co-hosts, he admits to having some mild “concern” about the fairness of a presumption against the powerful that he sees in ProPublica’s mission statement. As published, the article was accompanied by a box explaining ProPublica, disclosing the Sandlers’ backing alongside a reassuring mention that former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger was heading the operation.
“We put that in because we though that readers who wanted to know that information should have it in front of them. But I don’t see it as any different than an advertiser in our paper, or an underwriter on public television,” says Smith of the Sandlers. “I don’t think our journalists can be bought anymore than I think the journalists at ProPublica can be bought.”
“It’s a group of serious journalists,” he says. “I’m just tickled that they picked the Times Union to do it with.”
Marritz’s piece aired on Tuesday, July 21. Lustgarten joined him for an interview on a WNYC local talk show, and on The Takeaway, the station’s nationally syndicated morning program. Upstate, Times Union readers woke to see the story as their paper’s lead; they could hear Marritz’s piece on their local public station, WAMC, at noon. In the evening, ProPublica posted the full investigation on its Web site.
Later in the day, New York’s cabinet-level environmental official told WNYC that the state would demand disclosure of the chemical mixes used in the gas extraction—a new requirement. On Wednesday, the governor signed the bill, but not before committing to an overhaul of enforcement plans.
That’s impact.
As a former reporter and avid news consumer, I’m quite surprised that CJR did not even attempt to examine critically the question of whether public-policy advocacy – the stated mission of ProPublica – changes the fundamental nature of American journalism.
“Our basic motive is to try to make an impact,” ProPublica’s managing editor says. When I went to journalism school, I learned that the basic motive of newspapers was to inform the public – and let the voters decide whether THEY care to make an impact based on unbiased information.
As policy advocacy has become more professionalized in recent decades, news reporters and editors have learned that some advocates can be trusted more than others to provide accurate information and real expertise on subjects that can be extremely complicated. The role of the journalist has been understood to mean sifting through varying claims from competing advocates on different sides of a given issue. In this case, the journalists and the advocates are the same people – individuals whose job is “to make an impact.”
The picture is further complicated by the particular type of advocacy ProPublica practices: seeking to redress “exploitation of the weak by the strong and … the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.” These are enormously important goals, and complicated as well. In the case of New York State’s burgeoning natural-gas industry, for example, there is the issue of poverty in a region that has accurately been described as the new Appalachia. ProPublica’s article made no mention of the struggling workers who are likely to find good-paying jobs, or the farmers who will be able to pass their property onto another generation because of new income from natural gas. Should such benefits trump environmental concerns? No, consideration of the two should be balanced – by government regulators, and by professional journalists. The nature of policy advocacy, on the other hand, is to leave such inconvenient things out of the story.
To anyone who cares about the troubled future of journalism, ProPublica’s roster of news professionals is impressive, and its goal of informing the public admirable. Taking this important new entity seriously means posing questions about what it means for bias-free reporting. Perhaps in a future article, CJR will address such questions.
Posted by Bob Ward on Sat 26 Jul 2008 at 03:48 PM
Readers can find more about this issue in the July 26 Times Union, where editor Rex Smith gives his own account of why he ran this release:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=706739&category=REXSMITH&BCCode=&newsdate=7/26/2008&TextPage=1
Particularly interesting is this: "I had been intrigued by the idea of Pro Publica, and impressed by the credentials of its first two big hires: editor-in-chief Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, and managing editor Steve Engelberg, a onetime foreign correspondent for The New York Times and, until recently, a managing editor of The Oregonian. For months, they have been recruiting strong reporting and editing talent, aiming for a New York-based staff of a couple dozen ..."
With all due respect to ProPublica, what is so special about this staffing pattern?
Every advocacy organization with any brains tries to hire former journalists to promote its point of view.
As one such, I can testify that newspapers (including, in former times, the T-U itself) generally go out of their way to disregard the journalistic backgrounds of people who have "changed sides" (as has been said to my face) in evaluating the newsworthiness of the material being promoted.
When an organization declares its political goals on its web site and then offers copy only on condition that it be printed in time to influence a governor's bill-signing, that's advocacy - whatever the former careers of its employees.
Posted by David Shaffer on Sat 26 Jul 2008 at 05:34 PM