Despite the tedious posturing of both Web triumphalists (Jeff Jarvis to the Newspaper Association of America: “You blew it!”) and ideologues on either end of the political spectrum (two recent reader comments on CJR.org: “The mainstream media has sold out to our corporate controlled Congress,” and “Newspapers deserve to die like Pravda and Izveztia [sic]”), nobody is winning the debate over what the future of journalism will look like. For all the unhelpful pronouncements from the futurists of “innovate or die,” none of the innovations thus far has produced the kind of public-service journalism that our newspapers, at their best, still manage to deliver.
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
I have to say you traditional media people think a great deal of yourselves considering:
-- The way you were duped into lying us into a war
-- The way you allow "balance" in reporting about such topic as smoking and global warming
-- The way you promoted a bailout of your sponsors in the financial industry (and the way you caused the meltdown by refusing to push when the meaning of financial reports was distorted by changes in accounting and measurement rules)
-- The way you are now ignoring the actual will of the American people on Single payor
-- The way you pretend that the twittering opposition in Iran is actually made up of US friendly reformers
If you think that Journalism is what drives newspapers you have a funny idea of what Journalism is. I want to save Journalism as much as anyone, but we are in fact at a Gutenberg moment where we might actually go from nothing to something by abandoning the organizational structures that have lead to through and through corruption of Journalism. And while I'm at it let's put an end to anonymous sources and when a reporter cites a press release or a pole or a study they should use a proper citation format that will provide enough information for me to Google the original source. Better yet, try linking.
The problems of newspapers are indeed partially structural. Newspapers are the aggregation of old putting weather, sports, local, national and gossip into a single format. Why would I go to someone you aggregates this. If I want weather I will get it from the experts at a site dedicated to weather; sports, same thing; international I'll get it from the BBC, for gossip there is TMZ. The newspaper is no longer a gateway to the news of the day, only specialist will survive.
Posted by Timothy Murray on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 10:02 AM
Bloggers for the most part are not journalists. I think people fail to make this clear distinction. Bloggers opine on news presented and discovered by journalists. If it weren't for journalists, most bloggers would have nothing to contribute other than random thoughts.
Posted by michael lamb on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 11:38 AM
So, as media organizations continue to debate the merits of pay walls and revisit other decade-old issues, they should just get a free pass? You would think from all the "sniping" that news organizations would "get" that they have to rethink their normal mode of operations. That's not happening. Forget about the year 1500, newspaper executives seem perpetually locked into the year 1996.
Posted by Steve Fox on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 12:40 PM
I'm don't see how the Schlosser example supports your point.
If I infer correctly, the author -- not the publisher -- on his own initiative hired and paid for the fact-checking and legal vetting of his book. This is why we need to save newspapers? Or, in this instance, book publishers?
So maybe the slogan should be: Professional journalism -- where the writer has to cover a lot of the costs.
Posted by Eric Etheridge on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 12:44 PM
I was following along with your commentary to kick off a discussion until the end - that last paragraph.
There are many examples of acts of serious journalism that have already been produced on the Internet and Web.
Just the other day, ProPublica produced an investigative report that led to serious action in California in regards to nurse care quality.
You were right to call out a need to build some bridges and move past rhetoric, but unfortunately, that last paragraph just contributed to it.
Posted by Karl on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 01:37 PM
I add to this discussion this blog post "Behind the Mainstream Media Veil: Secrets and the Internet Press Guild" http://www.nicheknot.typepad.com/ for a different view of journalists and how they are adapting to changes in the media.
Posted by Pam Baker on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 02:28 PM
I'm sure that felt good. But other than one rather weak example, an out of context quote from Jarvis and a reference to two commentators no where do you support your assertion that "Web triumphalist" are "tediously" dancing on newspapers self made grave. Unless of course criticism from one well respected journalist and professor and two anonymous web posters qualifies as tedious these days. To play your game I now use this editorial as evidence that all newspaper journalist are arrogant, prone to exaggeration and thin skinned.
Also, you use a book author as evidence of the valuable work that newspapers provide. Are you defending newspapers, since the editorial speaks specifically of their demise or the print industry in general? Methinks you could have benefited from Mr. Schlosser editor.
Two points. One, do we need journalist. Most certainly. But the notion that only someone who collects a paycheck from a news organization is the only one who can report the news, well that is absurd. I offer Marcy Wheeler over at EmptyWheel as evidence to the contrary, she broke the torture memo stories on her web site (which was then picked up by the NY Times) and I challenge you to find someone with more knowledge on that topic than her. Supporting evidence that paid does not equal professional would be Maureen Dowd, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, the WaPo connecting lobbyist and Washington insiders for a fee and so on.
Two, this whole web versus print meme is stupid. News organizations are in the business of reporting, not printing. The medium upon which those reports are delivered is not relevant. If a good product is available the people will follow. Certainly the business model changes when you move from ink on paper to bytes on screen, the pool of free (albeit not always reputable) resources is vast, the subscription model doesn't work quite so well but you also lose a lot of overhead and my understanding of most newspapers business models was that subscriptions really only covered the cost of delivery anyway.
Given the failing subscription numbers and reduced advertising revenue of most newspapers I would say someone other than "Web triumphalist" are sending you a message.
Posted by Seve Suranie on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 07:21 AM
Well said Seve.
Posted by Karl on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 12:40 PM