As evidence for this proposition, Pexton cites “the readers who write to [him] by the score every day,” demanding a more populist approach to news. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those appeals. But one of the basic unfortunate insights of political research is that most people have better things to do than think about politics. The intense, and growing, demand for political information comes disproportionately from the “power elite” and an expanding class of political professionals. And while the popular audience is growing too, citizens who want to read about politics every day are more likely to be partisans than populists—and they may in some ways value Beltway-oriented coverage, which allows them to, in effect, listen in on insider conversation.
The contemporary newsroom that most closely resembles what Pexton calls for is probably ProPublica, which eschews inside-the-Beltway drama for investigations and accountability reporting. Along with its various publishing partners, ProPublica has produced many stories—on troubled mortgage modification programs, on tainted drywall, on environmental dangers, and more—that hold government (and big business) to account on behalf of the public. It’s a terrific record, and these stories no doubt connected powerfully with the ordinary people who were directly affected. But news organizations need to cultivate a regular, recurring readership, and ProPublica reportedly draws about 300,000 monthly unique visitors—not bad, but about a tenth of the traffic generated by Beltway-obsessed Politico. And its impressive reporting team, of course, is underwritten by generous philanthropy.
Maybe ProPublica is too investigations-heavy, too focused on specific issues, for a mass audience? Well, then the best analogue to what Pexton seeks might be the original reporting at The Huffington Post, which, setting aside its ideological orientation, captures some of the scrappy, populist approach he describes. (I’m thinking especially of Arthur Delaney’s tireless reporting on economic policy.) HuffPo, of course, has never suffered for readers, it doesn’t rely on wealthy donors, and it doesn’t charge a dime for its reporting. But that mass readership—which produces relatively modest revenues—has been built through hyper-aggressive aggregation and SEO strategies, a healthy heaping of tabloid material, and an unabashed liberal perspective. This is not a model that’s available to the Post.
The point is not at all to diminish ProPublica or the reporting team at HuffPo, each of which are very valuable additions to the political journalism world. Nor is it to diminish the important values expressed in Pexton’s column.
Rather, it’s to remind earnest media critics that there is a compelling logic to the Post’s current approach, which is to serve, in a nonpartisan way, an audience that already wants to consume a lot of news about politics. Pexton’s vision of high-quality, populist (but nonpartisan) political reporting, by contrast, depends on creating a mass audience by convincing people to consume a lot of news about politics. It’s a noble task, one that I’d be thrilled to see a major outlet take on. But it’s also a daunting one.
The Post's preoccupation with inside the beltway leadership, plus the buyouts of many of its famous writers, and what looks like a heavy hand from corporate management has turned the paper into a very predictable, timid and not terribly informative organ. I wonder how long this Omboudsman will last.
#1 Posted by Douglas L Turner, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 03:27 PM
The first news outlet/org/website that makes digging out the truth when "both sides do it" articles appear ( too often ), then has the integrity to present the facts to the reader.... that news org will begin climbing to the top in terms of readership. There is a vast hunger out here for a return to the days of hard hitting, truth seeking news orgs ( Bernstein/Woodward with ethical and brave bosses Bradlee and Kay Grahm ). We are truly sick and tired of whacko teabagger "spokesmen" getting the same amount of time and going essentially unchallenged when on tv ( I can't count the times I've wanted to throw a shoe at my tv as Andrea Mitchell, after listening to lie after lie from some hard right foot soldier, lets it go with a "well, thank you"..... aaarrrggghhh!.
The ombuds has the right idea. Won't happen with current ownership and management of the Post, though.
#2 Posted by Gary R VanEss, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 03:28 PM
The above poster has it exactly right. Only the most broadly based media (and that still means the network news) could truly make an impact on the (cliche alert) current narrative that presents tea a party extremism as a credible, even thoughtful alternative. Yes, Obama and, even more, his communications team have made some terrible mistakes. But the media have NOT helped them. As to the Post, I get it online but don't read it often; it's dull and technically clunky.
#3 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 04:42 PM
Wake up, WaPo and others.
There is no mass audience for “high-quality, populist (but nonpartisan) political reporting…”
There hasn’t been for years.
People consume the kind of political reporting, commentary, and analysis that corroborate their own political beliefs and reinforce the political arguments they hold dear.
Those who give a damn, from any political perspective, read in print and watch on TV what comforts them and encourages them. When they read or watch someone or something antithetical to their political beliefs, it’s only to outrage themselves with the banality of opposing views.
Those who don’t give a damn are so disinterested and irrevocably unreachable by any traditional medium that it’s pointless to target them and futile to believe that they constitute a potential audience.
There was a time, decades ago, when the vast majority of people wanted “straight” news and informed opinion from the news media. Today, only relatively small and widely disparate pockets of people even care about “news.” What they care about is what they respectively believe. The credibility of the news media rises or crashes depending on the media’s ability to cater to those beliefs. Only the media that “cater” have a chance of prospering, much less surviving.
Tragic.
But true.
#4 Posted by Andy Juniewicz, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 04:46 PM
Poor Washington Post information management:
1.Posted at 01:34 PM ET, 08/08/2011 Standard & Poor’s inconsistencies
By Ezra Klein
[Standard Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. economy is beginning to look like a kamikaze mission. The credit-rating agency delivered its payload, but at the cost of destroying its own credibility.]
2.Posted at 11:55 AM ET, 08/09/2011 A little perspective on S&P’s downgrade
By Robert Samuelson
[Next, let's try to understand S&P's $2 trillion "error" that's received so much publicity. What did S&P do wrong? Well, the Budget Control Act — the legislation with the budget deal that raised the debt ceiling — specified that one category of spending (“domestic discretionary spending”) would grow at the rate of inflation over the next decade. By contrast, S&P's analysts assumed incorrectly that this spending would grow at the rate of the economy (gross domestic product). GDP almost always grows faster than inflation, and the difference — when compounded over a decade — came to $2 trillion.
That's a lot of money, even in Washington. This is a serious mistake, and once the Treasury pointed it out, S&P might have paused to see if its rating conclusion warranted rethinking. S&P didn't pause, but it does have a rejoinder. Despite the revised spending, prospective budget deficits — the annual gaps between spending and tax revenues — remain so large that government's debt burden keeps rising. It goes from 74 percent of GDP in 2011 to 85 percent of GDP in 2021. The basic trends, S&P argues, don't change. (Under the original assumption, the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2021 would have been 93 percent.)
Is Klein on S&P's "error" no longer operative, then? Does Samuelson's explanation make sense on its own terms? Who knows.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 05:06 PM
copyediting niggle.
"But news organizations need to cultivate a regular, recurring readership, and ProPublica reportedly draws about 300,000 monthly unique visitors—not bad, but about a tenth of the traffic generated by Beltway-obsessed Politico. And its impressive reporting team, of course, is underwritten by generous philanthropy."
By "its" in the last sentence of the graf, I know you mean ProPublica, but the antecedent at the end of the sentence before could lead one to think you meant Politico, an Allbriton pub making a tidy profit.
If this wasn't CJR, I wouldn't bother commenting. I merely lament the lack of copyediting in all publishing platforms these days. One reason is that when people cut, paste and post out of context online, misinformation proliferates.
But I digress. Apologies. Otherwise a thoughtful post.
#6 Posted by Mike Snyder, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 07:23 PM
Maybe I'm more of an oddball than I think but I am one that does read articles about both parties and specific persons that stand out either for their lack of action or their sensible ideas that may go somewhere or may be thrown in the garbage for being too sensible in both major parties and even in the Tea Party.
If I read only my political preferences, I would not read The Atlantic Monthly or some items that come out in Time magazine. I limit myself to one newspaper for costs only. I used to read the San Jose Mercury News even after the initial owners of the 60's and 70's moved onward. I gave up on them mostly for lack of news simply because I found more complete items in the NY Times. Mercury simplified the Times two columns to two-three paragraphs or one-two inch block. I want details of how and why not just who and what.
Also, I prefer something written for someone of better reading skills than a second-language learner in fourth grade. I find too much of that in Time, Newsweek and Mercury News. Also I prefer the ideas from "overseas" that write both factual and critical articles about USA activities. We often think too much of ourselves and think no one understands why we do what we do politically and socially. Like Robert Burns' idea If we only could see ourselves as others see us. But then we would also find that many find fault--that would be horrible!!!???(tic) More understand us than we want to give credit to.
That also doesn't allow us to laugh at ourselves. We are funny and stupid--in many simple everyday and political ways.
\
#7 Posted by trish, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 11:46 PM