“The question that mass amateurization poses to traditional media is ‘What happens when the costs of reproduction and distribution go away? What happens when there is nothing unique about publishing anymore because users can do it for themselves?’ We are now starting to see that question being answered.”—Clay Shirky
“The whole notion of ‘long-form journalism’ is writer-centered, not public-centered.”—Jeff Jarvis
“As a journalist, I’ve long taken it for granted that, for example, my readers know more than I do—and it’s liberating.”—Dan Gillmor
“As career journalists and managers we have entered a new era where what we know and what we traditionally do has finally found its value in the marketplace, and that value is about zero.”—John Paton
“The story is the thing.”—S. S. McClure
One
Ida M. Tarbell, a writer for McClure’s Magazine, a general-interest monthly, was chatting with her good friend and editor, John S. Phillips, in the magazine’s offices near New York’s Madison Square Park, trying to decide what she should take on next.
Tarbell, then forty-three years old, was already one of the most prominent journalists in America, having written popular multipart historical sketches of Napoleon, Lincoln, and a French revolutionary figure known as Madame Roland, a moderate republican guillotined during the Terror. Thanks in part to her work, McClure’s circulation had jumped to about 400,000, making it one of the most popular, and profitable, publications in the country.
Phillips, a founder of the magazine, was its backbone. Presiding over an office of bohemians and intellectuals, this father of five was as calm and deliberative as the magazine’s namesake, S. S. McClure, was manic and extravagant. Considered by many to be a genius, McClure was also just an impossible boss—forever steaming in from Europe, throwing the office into turmoil with new schemes, ideas, and editorial changes. “I can’t sit still,” he once told Lincoln Steffens. “That’s your job and I don’t see how you can do it!”
At McClure’s, there was always, as Tarbell would later put it, much “fingering” of a subject before the magazine decided to launch on a story, and in this case there was more than usual. The subject being kicked around was nothing less than the great industrial monopolies, known as “trusts,” that had come to dominate the American economy and political life. It was the summer of 1901.
The natural choice, in the end, was oil. Tarbell had grown up in Pennsylvania’s oil country; her father had run a business making oil barrels and a small refinery; her brother worked for one of the few remaining competitors in an industry 90 percent dominated by the greatest of all monopolies, the “mother of trusts,” John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. She drew up an outline, and Phillips approved. But McClure, recovering from exhaustion, was on a doctor-ordered yearlong rest in Switzerland. “Go over,” Phillips said, “and show the outline to Sam.”
“I want to think it over,” McClure said after Tarbell pitched the idea in a Lausanne hospital. He then announced that they would mull over the story while traveling to Greece, where McClure’s family would spend the winter. “We can discuss Standard Oil in Greece as well as here,” he said. So they headed south, stopping along the way for tours of Italy’s Lake District and Milan—then to rest at the famous Salsomaggiore spa, where they took lengthy mud baths and “steam soaks” and contemplated just who and what they were about to take on.
Finally, eager to get started, Tarbell cut the trip short. Approval in hand, she returned to New York to begin reporting on what stands, to this day, as the greatest business story ever written.
I just want to condense a little about what the real "future of news" is about.
You mentioned Marshall McLuhan? Everybody's heard the saying "the medium is the message" by now, but what that mean?
What I always thought it meant was that the medium of information transmission affects the content received by an audience. The medium of a message shapes the message much as the tone of a voice shapes the meaning of speech.
The first great mass medium was art. Stain glass windows and sculpture depicited the events and people from which members of society built a narrative. A person looked upon these works and absorbed them as truth. It was a passive medium.
The next great mass medium was the press. It placed a burden on the audience in that they had to acquire the skill of literacy. Because the production of information became incredibly affordable for even beggars, there appeared a utility in having a fully literate population. This became a policy goal and soon societies started providing universal education. As a medium, the press made an audience more active than before since, to absorb the medium's information, you needed to sharpen your reading skill.
Then came the tv and radio medium. These mediums are sense to sense information projection. Because the information goes to your senses and requires no additional skill to absorb, it becomes a part of your narrative much like the art of the past. People have a hard time evaluating the truth of information they have "experienced" through audio/visual presentation. We became a passive audience again.
What has transformed in the network age is that :
a) information once again requires skills and equipment to acquire. People are not able to just walk around in a sea of background tv images and radio noise to acquire information from the net. You need the skill of computer literacy.
b) in all the previous mediums, authors projected their information onto the canvas of the audience. The canvas doesn't talk back. The means of consumers to give feedback were limited to walking out and/or writing a letter.
The revolutionary aspect of the network is that it puts the tools of mass communication into every audience members' hands, literally. The audience can talk back. The audience can write their own narratives. The audiences can be active unlike any time before. The audience doesn't have to remain an audience, it can become an actor.
And this was the future of journalism that Jay Rosen has been trying to communicate to the professional journalists. They don't control the narrative anymore. Every person with a smartphone has potentially a microphone with global reach. Journalism has a million new competitors and an audience that is learning to discern quality from common Washington knowledge. An encyclopedia's worth of knowledge on any subject is a web search away and video documentation of the past is archived on youtube. Be on your toes, mediums of the past. We're watching you.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 03:28 AM
Mr. Starkman, your new piece for CJR makes for interesting reading.
The argument is not particularly new. It goes something like - ok, you have a new biz model but how does the quality of the journalism stack up? The argument is coupled with the usual broadsides aimed at pro vs am journalism and that those who argue for the new biz models never understood journalism or journalists.
And like most who make the argument you pursue in your feature it is presented as a zero-sum game.
Well, I have, over 35 years, been a:
copyboy
overnight editor
police reporter
general assignment reporter
political reporter
feature writer
assistant city editor
acting city editor
city editor
assistant managing editor
editor-in-chief
general manager
publisher
corp vice president
president
ceo
chairman
investor
Now, you might have learned some or all of the above, weighed it and included it or discarded it. But to do that you would have had to interview me before you questioned either my business sense or commitment to journalism.
Your turn Mr. Starkman.
Regards, John Paton.
#2 Posted by John Paton, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 10:23 AM
FON consensus hype will pass, when we're all unemployed, and working as computer operators for hedge funds with no recourse to democratic governments.
#3 Posted by Ced L.T., CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 12:01 PM
Hi John,
Thanks for this note.
I'm sorry you feel I'm questioning your business sense or commitment to journalism and am puzzled about which passages in my piece lead you to think that.
I do question your idea -- the one I mentioned -- that the value of journalism is about zero. I disagree with it, clearly, and I believe the market does, too.
And while I appreciate your credentials, candidly, I don't see how they are relevant here. My piece is about ideas. I expect people to feel free to disagree with mine without feeling the need to interview me.
Thanks again for writing. I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Dean
p.s. Thimbles and Ced L.T., thank *you* too. Back later.
#4 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 12:06 PM
FON consensus hype will pass, when we're all unemployed, and working as computer slave operators for hedge funds with no recourse to democratic governments. But seriously. What about good scholarship like Naom Chomsky's Manufacturing of Consent. There are strong, "non-guru" positions which do not always shed a positive light on the newsroom as defender of the people.
Many of us are tired with FON consensus, but equally tired with JFD thinking—or, Journalism for Democracy. Elections are bought and advertising dominate news pages. Do we not all see how FONs and JDFs are both singing the same happy-go-lucky songs ("we are righteous!") which contradict our lived and experienced reality?
#5 Posted by Ced Lapa, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 12:10 PM
Good piece that everybody who cares about journalism should read.
And, Mr. Starkman, I think you arrive at the right place -- there is a middle ground of institution-based journalism in a networked world.
I often cringe at the theorizing of what you call the FON crowd. As you correctly point out, it's rarely fact-based opinion. I don't dismiss out of hand the degree to which old school journalism will be disrupted in an increasingly digitized, mobile and networked world, but I do know there is an audience for third-party reportage, both small and great in scope. I don't see a way in which that might ever change. The big question will be in an increasingly turbulent media environment: how do we pay for it?
None of the FON crowd has answer to that question.
In the near term, I think I see a path forward, but I also see a horizon out there, a scary one and uncertain how far out, in which news media is much too disrupted to be profitable in any form.
#6 Posted by Howard Owens, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 01:30 PM
As I wrote here there are three pay models for journalism.
"A) reader sponsored subscriptions.
B) commercial sponsored advertising.
C) benefactor sponsored commons."
I may be wrong, but for a journalism venture to be successful, you have to have one or a mix of these three.
The problem facing journalism today is the same problem facing music labels and movie content providers, people can do their own production and distribution because the process of distribution over the network carries near zero cost at near instant speed.
This acts as a cost pressure driving down margins of profit from subscriptions and ads. Once you've softened the professional requirement for journalism production and distribution, it becomes difficult to justify charging the professional premiums.
In that, the pay wall seems like a necessary innovation to make people pay for value again by restricting the supply of professional content and research. The profit margins won't be quite as high because the ad model won't pay as much as it did, but getting the users to pay for what they read is a workable model so long as the quality of what they're reading exceeds that which they can get for free.
And people who don't produce that quality - looking at you Tom Friedman, David Brooks, and George Will - aren't going to help the paper compete.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 01:59 PM
A very good piece, although I think the notions of public interest and public good are little loosey goosey. One key point you might have mentioned is that we are increasingly seeing the emergence of high commodity value news, in the guise of Bloomberg Government, Politico Pro, and other analysis driven subscription services, which add to the high-sub specialist news publications. In many ways, the FT and the WSJ are the cheapest entry points to a world in which serious news has a high monetary value. Then, at the very top of the news pyramid, are the specialist analytical reports that command really big money. The more you need to know what's going on in the world, the more you pay to know what's really going on. That this, often forgotten side, of the news business, has been growing while the FON crowd have been theorizing the future of journalism is telling.
#8 Posted by Trevor Butterworth, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 03:25 PM
"And while I appreciate your credentials, candidly, I don't see how they are relevant here." Dean, be reasonable, you started off the piece by saying the people you want to talk about are neither real intellectuals or real journalists.
#9 Posted by Stijn Debrouwere, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 03:39 PM
Thanks for this piece, and thanks for starting with Tarbell!
I'm a journalist turned English teacher, and I've read a lot of Shirky, some Rosen, and I didn't know That Other Guy.
Neither bloggers nor user-generated content can take the place of the muckrakers like Tarbell. To some degree Old Media shot itself in the foot by allowing the blurring of opinion, news and entertainment. Hate radio and Talk TV haven't really raised the level of public discourse in this country, but actual meaty information, the stuff you Really Need To Know to live and thrive, not just be entertained -- this is what only actual journalists can give us.
No idea who's going to pay for that now, or how. But I'm anxious for the next phase.
Actual news is very much not a commodity. Gossip, entertainment, cat macros, maybe. But not news.
#10 Posted by Dana Sterling, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 03:39 PM
You make passing reference to what has driven me most crazy about the FON fraternity who decry paywalls and anything that would actually produce revenue for people doing the work of covering Standard Oil or Pawtucket City Hall: they usually do their brick throwing from behind their own paywall of tenured professorships.
The institutions that they represent, that pay their paychecks, are just the sort that they decry in their FON critiques. They are insulated guardians of knowledge and information which have the ability to bestow that on people who pay them a lot of money, a lot more than it costs to get over the New York Times' paywall.
What these institutions actually have is the ability to grant certificates of learning, degrees as we call them. Now, consider a different model, one that would allow people to take tests that would give them B.A.a and M.A.s, even Ph.D.s. Where would they get the information needed to excel on such tests? By attending classes for free at universities? Watching lectures posted online by those institutions? After all information wants to be free and this is the new flat digitized world, so we all should have such access, right?
I guarantee if that world came into being many of the people calling for the demise of institutionalized journalism would be building the biggest paywalls they could around their institutions. The reason: because they quite rightly feel that they should get paid for doing all the work that they do. Otherwise why would anyone do it?
Which is exactly what journalists defending some form of the traditional model have been trying to tell them all along.
#11 Posted by Michael Hill, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 04:35 PM
Nice piece, Dean.
That FON types (Jarvis in particular) have confused buzzwords with ideas and self-aggrandizement with value hardly needed elucidation.
Then again, maybe it did. So thanks for that.
You also touch on--but don't fully explore--something I think might be relevant. Back in the early-mid '90s, there came these hippie-visionary-tech defense boomer types and their evangelistic "everything's free" schtick, and it was all you heard about. Meanwhile, Tribune's boss--Brumback--was trying to arrange all the big newspaper companies into a pay-only, web-based thing he called The New Century Network.
This according to James O'Shea, who covers it some in his book, "The Deal from Hell."
The New Century Network never came to fruition, obviously. O'Shea says the bosses at the NYT, WaPo, etc. didn't have the vision for it.
His corollary: if those guys had got their shit together, everything would be different (and better) now.
But I wonder. If the media bigfeet had tried to form such a consortium in, say, 1995, what would have been the reaction at the Justice Department's anti-trust division? And more relevant, what would the public--weaned on "everything's free" Wired culture--have thought and done?
#12 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 04:37 PM
Ced, I like your construction, Journalism for Democracy (JFD), and agree everyone needs to avoid the mistake of glamorizing their own schtick. The question becomes, what's the alternative?
Dana, I'm glad you like Tarbell. She was remarkable in many ways, but for me especially because to write the Standard Oil series, she had to invent a journalism form as she went along. Amazing.
Ed, I don't know what would have happened but the outcome could hardly have been worse than what actually happened.
Michael, yup, institutions are easy to bash (especially from inside one) but they do pay the bills while reporters do their jobs. You might find this piece interesting on the value of, well, bureaucracy: "The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the network society": http://nms.sagepub.com/content/13/2/243.abstract
#13 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 05:05 PM
As a freelancer, I've reported for both online and print publications. A few years ago, I participated in an open-source news-gathering experiment by Wired.com. I volunteered, reported my bit of open-source coverage to the community volunteer editor. Many, many community members signed up to report in this community-reporting experiment. Few, few community members actually turned something in, despite their initial enthusiasm.
It's still work, it takes time and effort, even for what seems like a small bit of cool news. (Community volunteer reporting does work well for weather disasters, though, and in responding to specific requests -- by an editor, at a publishing portal -- as others have noted.)
Maybe the great enthusiasm and revolutionary fervor is like that too -- once the actual work begins, the interviewing, writing up ... not too many folks actually want to do this for free or in their spare time.
And I think that well-reported, well-edited news is hugely taken for granted. It's all around us all day long, available from so many sources. When that is no longer the case (if worse comes to institutional worst) and people want to know what's going on--why the streets aren't getting fixed, why the police didn't come when you called, why the hospital closed its ER -- then, I suspect, some phoenix will organize itself in order to rise from the ashes.
#14 Posted by Suzanne B, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 07:26 PM
Cons, unlike sexual harassment (I am listening to a certain candidate), are real.
Let's take as our text: "Son of a Grifter." Show me an example where the media are into a con, up to their eyeballs. Where papers such as NYT, The Globe and Mail, and The Australian have their resident grifters fixing the news in the cause of a big league scam:
Practices in higher education in the United States, Canada, the UK, and Australia are adrift:
[UQ pips Melbourne in new life sciences ranking BY: JULIE HARE From: The Australian November 04, 2011 1:00AM
As usual US and UK universities dominated the league table, taking out 19 of the top 20 positions, with a sole Canadian institution – the University of British Columbia – spoiling the fun at 14.]
[The Times Higher Education World University Rankings were developed in concert with our rankings data provider, Thomson Reuters...].
[Copyright National Post Company Mar 29, 2008
Re: The Ugly Face Of Medicare, John Turley-Ewart, March 28.
In the past week or two, I could relate to you stories similar to Jennie's, but with the diagnoses of misdiagnosed spine fractures, paralysis due to metastatic cancer to the spine that was undiagnosed for weeks and gradual paralysis due to spinal stenosis (an easily treatable degenerative condition). Dr. Marcel Dvorak, head, Division of Spine, Vancouver Coastal Health and University of British Columbia.]
Unethical behavior often goes unrecognized when time zones intervene. Whatever its merits, UBC suffers from many pathologies, compounded by lapses by Canadian media, very active in university rankings.
The Globe and Mail resists analysis of UBC's problems. Even to the point of deleting comment that alludes to the Dvorak letter. I therefore consider Thomson Reuters-(Globe and Mail) to be inherently unreliable as to the rating of and reporting on UBC, a major advertiser in and ally of The Globe and Mail.
What surprises me is that, in context, such a startling, unjustified, and essentially unqualified rating of UBC generates such torpor on the part of other institutions. Perhaps their leaders are aware of how the game is played.
[Stephen Matchett used to work in universities, now he watches them. matchetts@theaustralian.com.au]: The higher education fixer at The Australian who suppresses comment about university pathologies.
[The Washington Post:
Posted at 09:30 AM ET, 11/08/2011
Penn State football should be retired, permanently
By Jennifer Rubin]
[The Australian: More special treatment claims at UQ
JULIE HARE AND BERNARD LANE
November 09, 2011 12:00AM
The scandal that has already claimed the scalps of the University of Queensland's most senior executives still has a way to go.]
The players in higher education in America, whether those in obsolete admissions offices (I mean you, Harvard), ETS, Kaplan, or the publishers of third-rate college rankings, with no requirements that institutions identify their pathologies and deal with them, need to be brought into line with appropriate behavior.
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 07:42 PM
Michael Hill writes: "You make passing reference to what has driven me most crazy about the FON fraternity who decry paywalls and anything that would actually produce revenue for people doing the work of covering Standard Oil or Pawtucket City Hall: they usually do their brick throwing from behind their own paywall of tenured professorships."
On Twitter (July 2, 2010) I wrote: "I am glad this is being tried http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors... I think it will be instructive. How 'bout you?"
The link goes to a report on the paywall at the Times of London.
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2010/07/02/the-times-and-sunday-times-what-a-paywall-looks-like/
#16 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 10:04 PM
Many of the FON types remind me a bit of the newspaper design gurus who roamed the country in the '80s and '90s, redesigning newspapers and promising to grow (or stabilize) circulation by drawing in readers who, well, don't like to read.
Like many of the FONers, the design impressarios had all sorts of buzzwords and they, for the most part, hated storytelling, long stories and real reporting on real subjects. At one of the news shops where I worked, the newly installed design guru declared that "the words don't matter," that getting people to buy and read a newspaper was all about the packaging.
In the end the design gurus mostly just served to alienate readers who didn't like the new fonts and hey-look-at-me! graphics aimed at drawing in a young, cutting-edge demographic (some familiar?). Many readers drifted away as they found fewer and fewer good stories to hold their interest. The promised circulation gains (or circulation stabilization) never materialized and the design gurus moved on to offer their "expertise" to the next set of gullible newspaper execs.
By the time the 'net fully materialized as a force in the news biz, a lot of newspapers had already been weakened by their redesign lunacy, news staff cost slashing (which was often coupled with huge expenditures on new buildings, new acquisitions and other debt-heavy boondoggles) and the general push to dumb down the product.
#17 Posted by mwh, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 02:23 AM
Dean's extensive report makes for compelling reading. What NYU should do is set up, by January 1st 2012, a truly global Internet journalism review: [NYU operates study abroad facilities in London, Paris, Florence, Prague, Madrid, Berlin, Accra, Shanghai, Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv in addition to the Singapore campus of the Tisch School of the Arts and a comprehensive liberal-arts campus in Abu Dhabi that opened in September 2010. NYU plans to open a portal degree granting campus in China as part of its Global Network University initiative and plans to open a site in Washington, D.C. and in Sydney in 2012.]
NYU GJR. (The international coverage of higher education is parochial. Hopeless.)
Sometimes reader comments are as good as or better than what is in an article:
[Scandal tarnishes PSU's brand By Emily Kaplan Collegian Columnist
Robin 23 hours ago: Two things to think about, based on my PSU experiences in the mid-to-late 1980's:
1. While PSU may have great student athlete graduation rates, the devil is in the details.
I served as a football team tutor and few players were taking a full load of classes. Even fewer were taking challenging courses (hello, theater 101 - fundamentals of acting as well as English 4 and 5 in which students never wrote a paper longer than a single page).
One technique to avoid academic stress involved distance education. Players would take 6 - 9 credits in the classroom and fill out the remaining credit requirements via correspondence courses. These classes could be dumped within two weeks of the end of the semester without penalty, so athletes required to take 12 credits to maintain eligibility, actually took WAY less as little to no effort was made to pass the distance education classes. Hopefully this has changed but I have to believe that there are other ways to game the system at this point.
2. This is hardly the athletic department's first Hall of Shame moment and I am surprised not to find more referenced here. Systematically and over a number of years, women's basketball coach Renee Portland was found to have discriminated against lesbian players and other players who befriended them. She withdrew valuable scholarships and tarnished the reputation of players who sought careers elsewhere by claiming they were injured, among other loathsome tactics.
ESPN did a scathing documentary about this sorrow-filled timeline in PSU athletic history and legal issues arose and were settled over time:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/...
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/...
So... let's remove our rose colored glasses and get real. College sports = big business. Nothing stands in the way of this. Nothing. 8 people liked this.]
We need a far better educated public, and far more alert reporters. It is artificial to say that the answers in the future will have to come from one sector as opposed to another.
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 12:29 PM
Thanks for the piece, Dean.
While it is inspiring to read FON texts that preach the benefits of new technologies breaking traditional journalism molds, I agree that institutions are necessary for reporters.
On a practical level, for reporters to obtain information, institutional backing gives them credibility. Saying, "I am John, a reporter from the New York Times" will probably grant you more access than, "I am John, a blogger from randomcommunitynewswebsite.com". Personally, I think that's where non-profit investigative journalism helps. Reporters and researchers have the credibility of a foundation or organization to support them.
#19 Posted by Bobby Lambrix, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 03:27 PM
Thanks for this piece, Dean Starkman. I agree that the FON appear to be trying to create a new elite exactly like the old one, although I hope I am mistaken in this suspicion. But most of their criticisms of the traditional system are important. They were never discussed in the past.
For instance, you say,
===
Not only does the FON consensus have little to say about public-service journalism, it is in many ways antithetical to it.
===
But please would you look at this carefully assembled evidence that today's system is not working. My second link is to a piece asking why journalists and editors publishing beneath famous mastheads have pretended as if an important public-service announcement about journalism by a top judge was never made:
How competition for advertising in print media let Steve Jobs warp history and steal the credit for the computer revolution
http://post-gutenberg.com/2011/10/25/how-competition-for-advertising-in-print-media-let-steve-jobs-warp-history-and-steal-the-credit-for-the-computer-revolution/
Why is The Guardian censoring debate about press reform and ignoring the Lord Chief Justice’s endorsement of citizen journalism?
http://post-gutenberg.com/2011/11/07/why-is-the-guardian-censoring-discussion-of-press-restructuring-and-ignoring-the-top-judges-support-for-citizen-journalism/
Clayton Burns (upthread) is right. We need to look beyond our national borders at the way journalism is being done today. In my country, the Leveson enquiry has been gathering evidence about the ethics and culture of the press. The upmarket papers, the ‘broadsheets’ (as opposed to tabloids) are doing their best to pretend that only the tabloids and their invasions of privacy, like phone hacking, deserve investigation. We all know that this isn’t true.
#20 Posted by postgutenberg, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 05:11 PM
I forgot to add that in the second blog post I listed in my last comment, there is a link to the entire text of the Lord Chief Justice's speech about citizens and a free press.
The Occupy protesters might be amused and inspired by his approving mention of the 18th-century rebel and agitator, John Wilkes, whose words about press freedom are interpreted in Britain as the basis for the independence of the 4th Estate.
As the judge said, Wilkes -- the equivalent of one of today's Occupy protesters -- was often hauled into court, and would be astonished to know that his words were at the core of the case for citizen journalism made by the top judicial officer over two centuries later.
#21 Posted by postgutenberg, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 05:29 PM
the pro buggywhip argument
#22 Posted by gregorylent, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 01:11 AM
The next format to be gamed by oligarch and their hacks, hustlers and hired spin..FON will make for an easy mark.
#23 Posted by gman, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 08:15 PM
What is the point of this interminable article? Who really cares about FON as long as the "N" that is delivered is the product of people mainly concerned with dining WITH people they should be dining ON. The sort of useless expertise offered by Rosen etc. adds zero to the end result although it doubtless precipitates seminars, panel discussions and such. With all these experts blathering away and stroking their chins and looking grave as they murmur "Yes, but...." why isn't journalism better than it is.
#24 Posted by Michael M Thomas, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 09:58 PM
It's good to see others are finding in journalism what has to be there if the news--24/hour or 1 hour, commentators, Google, CNN, Salon or Huffington--plus numerous others---would never come to be without the "old grey lady" or many others that clung to the paper form and spread to internet, ipad, tablet , phone etc. Many of the major items on CNN news come from those papers. Without them it would all be gossip or half guesses and half truths but no thorough journalistic writing of the incident--big or small. Many new magazines have come into being. Some are internet only but many are also in paper form and one pays accordingly. Harpers still runs well and the subscriber can go to all the past items back through 1830's; Atlantic Monthly is not as easy and have cut a lot of access off--why I don't know. Many magazines I have on line but I can only read the first 2-4 items and then have to subscribe. Whatever I do subscribe to on paper--I have 9 of them--I can also see on line. Many others have blogs and other incidentals from writers for the magazines or that write incidentally. They are every where. Whatever information one misses on one subject you can find it elsewhere but you do have to put out some money. It may be psychologically enjoying to get something free; but we prefer to judge the quality of something by the payment. Too much freedom in items makes them seem sloppy or makes one check elsewhere since the writer did it for free. Salon--a newspaper online that was supposed to be free has gone to subscription only as of early September. Since I missed more of what they wrote than I read, I dropped it. But Guardian is right in its features and investigative writing and they are causing Murdoch all kinds of headaches since the Guardian is right and he is cheating--the papers, the people, the court and now trying to get his son to lie for him and the son is not doing very well. Keep pushing the fact that we will always need the news in paper and in computer. If the electricity goes out, you can at least read the paper by daylight. Not possible on computer. Also--the NY Times also added more than 100,000 paper subscribers in that same time period--summer time at that!! Watch for more over this next time period. People may like much of the computer but they still find reading a newspaper more pleasant on paper. What is missed can then be found online.
#25 Posted by trish, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 12:17 AM
It is remarkable that such a lengthy article on the future of the news biz could be written by someone who has apparently never read a Sunday newspaper in his life. Next time you pick up a dead tree Times, throw it on a scale. It'll come in about 5 lbs, and you'll find that if you separate it out, about 3 of them are straight up ads, and another half to three quarters of a pound are opinion and criticism, leaving a solid .5 to .25 lbs for the news.
Tarbell might have been the pinnacle of journalism. But what Starkman considers journalism has always been a pinnacle, on top of a very big pyramid. And what paid for the pinnacle was the ads and the trash: the sports, the gossip, the style section, the recipe cards and the crossword puzzle. The problem is that the public can now get the trash for free, and the market for vegetables is considerably smaller than the one for candy. Public goods are always subsidized, and the internet has atrophied the subsidy of the news.
When Shirkey et al speak of the news as a commodity, they're not talking about groundbreaking investigative journalism that Starkman---rightly---lauds. They're talking about the box scores and the celebrity snapshots and the car ads and the movie reviews and the Dilbert cartoons --- the day in day out wash that pays for the original reporting. That's a commodity. No one disputes the worth of the pinnacle.
But the pinnacle cannot continue to exist in the absence of the pyramid. All those poor young fools aren't tweeting until their thumbs bleed because the hate depth and thought. They're doing it because they are in a minute-by-minute competition with infinity, and the advertisers can see by exactly how much they're winning, and pay them accordingly. The FON people have not won a battle of ideas. The steam engine killed John Henry. Their FON folk's blather is merely an attempt to describe a change which has already occurred.
You say that if we did start all over, that journalism would arise anew, because it must. But plenty of cultures have survived and thrived without journalism as the mid 20th century knew it. If there were a nuclear apocalypse of news, I have no doubt that TMZ, like a cockroach, would survive --- and so would the flack armies of ConAgra and the American Cancer Society. Maybe that's the future --- bread and circuses for the mob, and bare-knuckle flack on flack "messaging" fights to sway the elites. After all, unlike everything else that's ever been suggested about the future of the news, its clear how that could be monetized.
#26 Posted by C. Sullivan, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 01:36 AM
Too long, slow to get to the point, little crossover appeal.
#27 Posted by Peter Barton, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 08:52 AM
"Maybe the great enthusiasm and revolutionary fervor is like that too -- once the actual work begins, the interviewing, writing up ... not too many folks actually want to do this for free or in their spare time."
I agree with Suzanne B. The only reason a volunteer-based model of news works at all now is the huge number of journalism students who still think that unpaid internships will lead to paid jobs. And the large number of unemployed journalists and highly educated people who are blogging and writing in the hope of getting noticed by a potential employer. When we all figure out that all this unpaid work does is result in profits for someone else and no paycheck for us, I predict the volunteer model will collapse. And we'll have a lot of professionals with graduate degrees working in retail.
#28 Posted by Sheila R., CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 12:40 PM
The interesting part of this discussion appears to have moved house:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/the-jekyll-and-hyde-problem-what-are-journalists-and-their-institutions-for/
#29 Posted by postgutenberg, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 05:45 PM
As a freelancer with more than 25 years reporting from Europe, I can only agree with Dean Starkman. Institutions in the US care more about entertainment and the latest gotcha moment of presidential candidates than about covering ideas and issues. Our first task is to contribute to an informed citizenry. To do that well, we need professionals who are paid a living wage. Last month I was offered $150 for a 5,000-word magazine article. This is a business model that is not sustainable if we want qualified, competent, reliable reporters.
#30 Posted by AKLangley, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 08:46 AM
What a disappointing essay. We get one tough line: "FON thinkers, who emerged only in the last few years, represent a new kind of public intellectual: journalism academics known for neither their journalism nor their scholarship."
Among people in Silicon Valley, Dan Gillmor is actually revered for his journalism, back when he was covering the tech industry for the San Jose Mercury News.
Jay Rosen, who is a journalism academic in the purist sense, is basically praised in the piece.
Jeff Jarvis, your prime target, makes no claims of being an academic, he is a media practitioner who among other things got Entertainment Weekly going.
And Clay Shirky isn't a journalism academic, he teaches at NYU's Interactive Telecommunications Program.
Full disclosure--they're all friends of mine. But really, CJR, did you need to publish all this heavy-breathing and produce so little illumination?
#31 Posted by Micah Sifry, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 07:47 PM
A belated post (not all of us can study such matters every day) but congratulations on a valuable counterbalance to the new orthodoxy of the FON approach.
New media have brought so much beneficial public involvement in news-gathering, comment and the dissemination of information that opposition to the FON consensus gets dismissed as simply Luddite.
Yet the vague FON optimism, that somehow committed activists will replace much of what journalists do, remains unjustified.
A notably fatuous claim is that 'news is a conversation'.
News is a service which people require for many reasons - and most people no more want to have a conversation with a journalist than they want to have a conversation with the postman.
An awful lot of the public remain pretty happy to receive every 24 hours a considered summary and analysis of the news, served up in print form.
So I wish the FON enthusiasts would advocate new developments without damning the journalistic systems on which we still depend.
#32 Posted by Martin Huckerby, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 02:55 PM
H. Barca's interesting exchange with Emily Bell on this CJR site last week is considered in a new post here:
http://post-gutenberg.com/2011/11/15/good-guardian-bad-guardian-and-two-more-censored-comments/
#33 Posted by postgutenberg, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 07:29 PM
What a tiresome, navel-gazing bloviation with no clear point. the writer actually concludes with his own "model" for the future of news: Use social media to promote substantially reported, traditional works of investigative journalism. Wow, thanks for having us plow through 20 pages to acquire that invaluable insight. Is CJR really publishing this crap?
#34 Posted by Pyetrovich, CJR on Fri 18 Nov 2011 at 12:59 PM
As with all those who critique those folks attempting to discuss the possibility of a weakening role of legacy media institutions in journalism, their arguments—and Dean's—assume the legacy media they esteem and demand deserves respect for their tireless work of telling me where the horoscope and crossword is on the front page every day are regularly performing exceptional acts of journalism— and readers (to whom they bombard with banal advertising about stuff they don't need, drives them in debt, etc.) just don't care about or want to pay for good journalism.
What's your hometown Dean? You tell me that or the brand of another legacy newspaper/website that is producing quality journalism that makes the FON group's concerns, analysis and conclusions a waste of time. You tell me and I'll perform a content analysis on that paper using peer-reviewed methods and we'll see how well that paper jives with your argument and the FON's.
Frankly, you didn't help your argument when you had to reach back to the turn of the century to find an example of quality journalism (And you it seems you thought we needed at least 10 paragraph to remind/teach us who Tarbell was).
What's been done of late?
You couldn't acknowledge WikiLeaks, ProPublica, Texas Tribune, News21, Spot.us, etc., they look like the institutions of which the FON are proposing we need more .
I would have recommended using the Walter Reed stories as an example of great legacy media journalism ... Oh yeah, that was before 2008, before the bottom fell out of the marketing B-Model that drummed how great a public service newspapers provided communities.
#35 Posted by Christopher Krug, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 02:00 AM
Of course, the FON crowd starts with one half of Steward Brand's famous quote:
Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.
And, of course, the FON crowd is coming down emphatically, and simplistically, IMO, on the "free" side. That's why they fight paywalls, diss micropayments and other things.
#36 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 09:22 PM
Few more thoughts.
1. Other than Gillmour, long ago, have any of the "fluffers" actually worked at a newspaper?
2. Have any of them ever pored over financials?
2A. Do they take ANY cognizance of the continued plunge in online advertising rates?
3. Do they at all address the issue of "financialization" of newspapers, as McChesney, Nichols and others have?
@Krug ... WikiLeaks is a one-off. And it does no "reporting," really. It just gathers and disseminates. The others? People better than me have discussed the financials of sites like Pro Publica. Sparkman did here when he said there's no clear evidence they can "ramp up." And, contra your own claim, you admit great journalism was being done just a couple of years ago.
@Sullivan: On the ad side, sports draws little in the way of "dedicated" advertising in hardcopy, at least. The pyramid isn't always so good, and some major newspapers have dumped things like HS sports on separate websites.
@Huckerby: Agreed on the word "fatuous."
#37 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 10:28 PM
Mr Starkman,
I find it ironic that you chooses examples of investigative reporting that are far more successfully handled using crowd sourcing and anonymous whistle blowing. I wonder how Standar Oil would have fared in an era with Wikileaks and Anonymous... More and more, the traditional media does not break a story, but takes its cue from the independent bloggers and writers. There are some exceptional examples of this in the war reporting of the past decade, where, frankly, the 'institutions' have wallowed in apathy while independents grabbed the real stories.
When the realities of today's institutionalised news is actually considered, your edifice of absurdity falls down ridiculously fast. The news is filled with sensationalism, even some of the most venerable and traditional of outlets.
You major implication, and frankly what irks me the most, is that the community is incapable of deciding what is of 'public interest' and acting to elucidate those stories. Somewhat patronising, to say the least, even to passionate investigative reporters, who are cornerstone of the community you so quickly dismisses.
And as for recalling the origin and provenance of the ideas of community, it is nothing except a well written genetic fallacy, which seems a little childish and desperate.
We are not in the realm of beliefs, Mr Starkman. I have the tools to handle the raw data of a news story myself, and ability to derive meaningful information out of it. I welcome insight and investigative work, Not only from some self described journalistic elite, but from everyone.
Furthermore, storytelling cannot die. It's in our bones. Deep within our psychology. Good storytellers will always find sources of income, even if they give their stories for free. Decentralising the production of stories/articles does not in any way reduce their value. It is simply that the article's audience will be the judge of that value, and no one else. And that scares you, I think. The decentralised world does not in any way reduce the value of resources, only the value of gatekeepers.
At least you get one thing right, Journalism will not get abolished. We need great journalists, and I, for one, am willing to support them. And a journalist is very much "One who does the work", And those are the people I wish to support. The traditional newspapers and media outlets, however, are, somewhat ironically, desperately short of journalists. Were it different, I might get my news from them.
That, frankly, is hilarious. This is exactly what internet based community do best, to even pretend that institutions are better at doing this than the the people themselves is a ludicrously untenable position.
Similarly, your description of a journalist slave to the social media is a poorly constructed straw man. The very people you oppose are examples of this. The media works for them, not the other way around.
Should someone actually perform valuable journalistic work, I will be the first to praise their work, far away from commoditising it. You can only commoditise what is fungible. Quality journalism is most assuredly not. The current state of play bar a few exceptions, sadly, is.
Long form writing is far from dead. On the contrary, it has been revived in a way never imagined before. And more than ever, facts to back your opinions are de rigueur to be taken seriously. You should know that the modern audience is smart, better educated and more critical than ever. RSS feeds and twitter are not chosen out
#38 Posted by Brice, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 08:30 AM
I find it interesting that nowhere are Patch and Examiner.com mentioned, either in the article or the comments. Both are signposts to where news coverage is headed.
Examiner.com is a particularly troubling example: There are Examiner.com sites in every major city, and dozens of subject-matter Examiners for each site (politics examiner, dvd examiner, etc.). I was a Philadelphia front page Examiner for a brief time, and would like to pass along a few notable points:
---Examiners are paid by the page view, so the content motivation isn't accuracy, it's sensationalism
---Once an Examiner is approved as an Examiner, he or she has direct access to publish; while there may be post-publishing review of content, there's no editorial filter between the writing process and the publishing process.
---Examiner content carries strong search engine optimization "Google juice." Which means that sensationalistic unedited content may finish higher up in search results for specific subjects than more legitimate and authoritative content.
As Examiner (and Patch) gain more traction and visibility with the general public, these sites will need to put processes and filters in place to make sure their content is as solid as can be.
(Disclaimer: I'm not as familiar with Patch, but my understanding is their writers are salaried, and from my own experience, I find Patch's hyperlocal coverage to generally be excellent.)
#39 Posted by Craig, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 11:08 AM
It's a shame that this article does not touch on Wikileaks in what is an otherwise excellent article...seems like that would be an interesting counter-example of public interest journalism produced outside a news institution...
Regarding the issue of "commodity news," I've read a fair amount by the "FON thinkers" you cite. If they describe news as a commodity lacking value, it's because industry practices like those you yourself describe in your previous "Hamster Wheel" article have made it that way.
How much of that busy-work could be turned over to peer-production by the readership, if news orgs were ever willing to let go of their top-down, press-baron, command-and-control editorial stance? What kinds of storytelling and fact-gathering could journalists do with the new resources and extra time they would gain? -- especially if those journalists don't think of "mediating, facilitating, curating" as being activities that are somehow separate from, or antithetical to, "fact-gathering and storytelling"?
...with all due respect, when you suggest that "if one were looking for ways to undermine reporters in their work, FON ideas would be a good place to start," are you deliberately missing the point? It's like suspecting your neighbor of being an arsonist because he woke you up at night to tell you there was a fire in your chimney...Just because someone sees a problem doesn't mean they created it, or want to see it perpetuated.
#40 Posted by dsale, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 03:55 PM
As Scoop Nisker said, "If you don't like the news, go make some of your own!"
#41 Posted by Rory O'Connor, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 09:39 AM
Long-form advocates would appreciate this piece... but the unconverted might have abandoned it after 300 words. Still a good post.
I think the FON crowd and the old schoolers represent the typical polarization that Americans gravitate toward. Just look at the black and white political farce at play now.
It's obvious that both sides have good arguments, and the best path for journalism is somewhere in the middle. Peer production and "itinerant journalism" will supplement public service and investigative journalism, but it will never replace it. There are new tools that all journalists can use, but old skills should never be forgotten.
The ultimate question, which you allude to, is how will public service journalism be funded. Shirky's (or was it Jarvis?) idea that experiments are needed underscores the problem of redefining journalism, as it gets mixed up in the rethinking of the business models. Journalism is not a business. It’s a profession that business supports, and I think that distinction is important.
The community news company Main Street Connect has developed what appears to be a profitable model for scaled local web news, but they write advertisements and present them as regular news. This is criminal.
If, during our experiments, we find something that works financially, but it threatens the ethical integrity of the journalism profession, who really wins? I think the business of journalism should be completely separate from the profession. As SPJ notes, acting independently is one of the four ethical pillars tasked to a journalist.
That said, let's use new tools, but not let the tools use us. I am not a brand. I am not a microphone, nor am I an amplifier connected to a subwoofer. I am a professional storyteller. If you ask me, I think journalism should be publicly funded... not through the government, but through an alternative gov't structure, similar to NPR or PBS, but less dependent on foundations and endowments, more on regular people. But I am not a businessman. I tell stories.
My final thought won't tie everything together nicely, but will instead point out that you italicized "His" before mentioning Rosen's book, What is Journalism For? I think you also have an extraneous em dash somewhere in there, but I can't remember where.
Onward free press!
David DesRoches -
http://savingethicaljournalism.blogspot.com/
#42 Posted by David DesRoches, CJR on Fri 30 Dec 2011 at 12:58 AM
A generally very good article. Could have been a bit better in a couple of ways.
One — more critique of how the FON-ers don't get the business side of things, on how to pay for investigative journalism. You note Morgensen/
Two — quoting the FULL paragraph of Brand, including the second sentence, that "information wants to be expensive," and noting (per point one, and other things) how the FON-ers (deliberately, in my opinion) quote Brand out of context.
Three — more comment from Nicholas Carr .. and ANY comment from the FON-ers harshest critic, Evgeny Morozov. His voice should have been in this article, not just as a critical blast, but, on the positive side, alternative stances that he has offered on these issues.
#43 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 02:31 PM