A few weeks ago, the media economics professor Robert G. Picard argued that, in order to justify themselves and their profession, journalists need to create more economic value in their everyday work. (“If the news business is to survive,” he wrote, “we must find ways to alter journalism’s practice and skills to create new economic value.”) Last week, Nieman Watchdog’s Dan Froomkin declared that “playing it safe” is killing American newspapers: “We need to come to terms with the fact that one reason we’re having such a tough time is that we are still fundamentally failing to deliver the value of our newsroom to Internet users.”
At stake in both pieces—and in the several similar ones that have been posted and published in the past weeks and months—is the notion of value itself. We generally discuss journalistic value in theoretical terms (intrinsic value versus instrumental value, economic value versus political value, etc.), but abstract treatments often gloss over a basic question: whether journalism can be fairly understood in terms of market value alone, or whether it does, indeed, have intrinsic value.
So, this week, we’re asking for your help in defining journalistic value at the ground level. When it comes to your local news outlet(s), what particular pieces or projects or elements—from breaking-news stories to comic strips, investigations to weather reports—have you, personally, found most valuable? Why?
Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.
My local paper doesn't publish comics (except for some terrible editorial cartoons) and as for local weather, there's nothing it can tell me that I can't find just as fast on the Internet. But no other news source anywhere covers my county government. That's very important to me.
I would gladly dispense with the "Pervert Discovered Behind Playground" and "Deadly Car Wreck" type of story that they often put on the front page--accounts of lurid but random incidents without much wider significance or context. It's not that I think they shouldn't report such stuff, but to create value from my point of view, they would do better to keep it in a police-blotter style listing in the back of the paper, and maybe periodically look for any interesting trends and write stories on that.
#1 Posted by D. B., CJR on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 01:19 PM
New dining options. New businesses/closing businesses. Local real estate trends. Personal finance tips. Where to find the best gas prices. Tips on things to do that really have some editorial thought and time behind them. Sales. Restaurant reviews. Movie reviews. Today's sports on tv. Trend stories. Pro team looks ahead. More detailed weather for seasonal planning. Gardening tips customized to this week's actual weather. Important regional news coverage with context.
#2 Posted by D.S., CJR on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 02:13 PM
In Oklahoma City, power is highly concentrated. We have only one locally owned station. Interestingly, the Fox/Sinclair affiliate in our town gives pretty fair coverage, and does an occasional progressive/populist view on a story. They cover things the other stations won't touch.
OKC is crazy. We have the worst newspaper in America, they say it is local but the owner, Gaylord, has done a LOT more for Tennessee, essentially because years ago he started doing that in protest of us not having "right to work" laws (we do now).
Check out my Oklahoman Editorial Watch site by the way! http://okedwatch.blogspot.com/
#3 Posted by Steve Hunt, CJR on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 04:57 PM
Ralph McGill would be revolted by what the AJC has become. I pay absolutely no attention to it any more. Local coverage would be useful except there isn't any. For a long time, the only reason I subscribed to it was the comics. But Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side retired so there was no longer that justification either.
This, I know, is very bad. Local politics is important and I am pretty ignorant of it. The trouble is my choices are between being ignorant for free and being lied to for money. We actually have better local coverage in the Creative Loafing than in the AJC.
For what it is worth, though, value, to me, is the same in local coverage as in any other -- go for truth, not balance. Truth is inherently unbalanced since there is only one side. When a statement of fact is made that is patently false, say so. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Stop being an idle, mindless conduit for random words, and start using your brain to look around, behind and beneath the words for the truth of the matter. That involves actual work rather than just working the phones, but it is the only thing I am willing to pay for.
#4 Posted by Paul Camp, CJR on Thu 4 Jun 2009 at 01:44 PM
Completely agree that traditional media platforms need to find a new value proposition. Currently, with the influx of consumer journalism via professional and social networks, traditional media platforms need to identify a new market strategy (primarily focused on pull). They're going to have to take risks and be venturesome. Of course, many will fall by the wayside, but I'm not sure about the total extinction of traditional media in the future landscape.
#5 Posted by Ethan, CJR on Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 09:07 AM
Completely agreeable Ethan. There is going to be a great need for new market strategy with all this new social media marketing taking place. But the thing that gets me, is that we will probably have this same conversation again in a year or two.
#6 Posted by Helmet Veshdon, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 04:09 PM