I think the odds of there being less investigative journalism in the world are zero. I just don’t think there is any evidence that that will happen. Just walk through your bookstore.
DD: If investigative journalism is here to stay, what will it look like?
JG: Either small groups of writers will team up or there will be a single writer and you will develop an affection for them—through whatever, the Facebook recommendation of a friend or a discovery engine—and you’ll follow that person and you’ll care what they have to say. Think about how you follow bands or movie stars.
If you’re going to see a Megan Fox movie, do you really care that it’s being made by 20th Century Fox? Individuals involved have a lot more to do with the movie than the guy who owns the studio. That’s definitely true with newspaper articles.
The entire history of media is a tradition toward developing affection for individuals. That’s not just the Web, that’s Oprah, that’s Limbaugh, that’s pundits. Think of record labels. You might have a feeling toward Motown, and every once in a while there’s a record label that matters, but basically you like the band.
Every successive wave of technology has democratized the creation of journalism and with that the ability for more and more people to participate. And all that’s done is increase the power of individuals versus institutions. And, given the choice, people would rather relate to people.
Great interview.
Jonathan--where do you think the AP fits into this? In my opinion they provide a needed, high quality service, but their owners have to shoulder a lot of costs make things run, like putting people in dangerous places.
#1 Posted by Michael Mallin, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 09:15 AM
There are many people more qualified to discuss the future of the AP than me.
My uneducated guess is that many of their members and customers will be under pressure to cut costs as they face increasing competitive pressure. I'd also propose that the value of a ubiquitous wire service is worth less to Internet-only businesses, where you can see the same exact story on hundreds of other sites and because search engines tend to 'punish' pages that feature non-unique content.
I'm not sure there's anything that can really take the place of the AP as it is. But I'm very confident that, after a period of disorienting dislocation, we'll see a ecosystem of individual experts, reporting teams, non-profit media (both local and international), and for-profit companies doing reporting from dangerous places.
Why am I so sure? Because all of the conditions for that ecosystem are already in place:
- plenty of readers of reporting on dangerous places (not as many as we may like, but the collapsing cost of access to the Web increases total global readership enormously)
- a meaningful subset of readers who will pay for this reporting (donations, online events and classes, premium content like books and movies, corporations and investors)
- plenty of passionate talented people who want to tell stories and share opinions about dangerous places
- steadily decreasing tech cost of gathering and producing interesting stories and opinions on dangerous places, and sharing that in interesting ways
What seems unlikely to me is:
- the domination of a small number of large reporter-employer organizations
- that many people will pay for today's newspaper article format
- that adjacency/banner advertising is a sufficient revenue model to support this content creation for all but the largest sites
#2 Posted by Jonathan Glick, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 10:08 AM
Good interview. One thing I'd like to ask Mr Glick is this: in the future, will we be reading the news on paper surfaced products, real READING, or will we be screening these digital newspapers on PPS (plastic pixelated screens)? In fact, Jonathan, are you reading this right now or screening it. Your answer will say alot about the future of newspapers and journalism. Find out more at my blog: http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
#3 Posted by Dan BLoom, CJR on Fri 31 Jul 2009 at 09:59 AM
He makes great points about traditional news media. The average person doesn't want to be engrossed with an entire newspaper anymore. We just want what we want. If we are only wanting sports news, why would we buy a newspaper? It's a waste. We'd rather go online to our favorite blog or sports site and get exactly what we want.
footprints in the sand poem poem footprints in the sand
#4 Posted by Jimmy Soldier, CJR on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 12:37 PM
Fascinating; thank you.
But how will the investigative journalists get paid? Will they have a "donate" button on their own websites?
And the lead time for feature films is months if not years. How can that work in news? Who will play the role of move executive producer in news? And if people aren't paying per story, like movie goers buy a ticket, where will the money come from?
#5 Posted by Dana Sterling, CJR on Mon 10 Aug 2009 at 01:29 PM
In my opinion, the AP has been incredibly behind the curve for better than a decade, still is, and isn't even fully cognizant of today.
It never leveraged its own version of vertical integration to charge Google, Yahoo et al sufficiently steep rates to reuse AP content to force them to paywall it.
I think it's still possible, but it's going to take more effort by AP, and someone with a different vision than its curent leadership. Dean Singleton is clueless.
Now, notes to other commenters above.
Jimmy Soldier, where does your blog get the news about which it blogs?
As for that sports site, if it had brains, it would charge you for it, if it has unique content.
That gets back to the AP.
Dana Sterling, I've raised that issue more than once, and most touters of "newspapers are dead" haven't directly answered it.
Beyond that, is the "new media" always better? Talking Points Memo, for example, referred to anonymous sources six times in a 750-word story earlier this week. It wasn't about national security; rather, it was the tussle over a public option between President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Just like old media.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com
#6 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 12:40 AM