“The Hamster Wheel,” my argument against news organizations’ cranked-up productivity requirements for reporters, generated some nice discussion, including a post by Felix Salmon over at Reuters, who pushed back against some of its main points. I would have responded earlier, but I was meditating in the CJR yurt.

Felix’s post was gleaned from a compelling talk he gave at one of our Audit Breakfasts that got us all thinking about the idea of “reading” as a key function of this brave new journalistic world.

But his post (up 90 minutes after the breakfast ended!) mostly talks past my argument, which he frames as a defense of an old-top down model and a knock on the new journalism-as-conversation between and among people who may or may not identify themselves as journalists.

Where Dean sees vast amounts of “completely unimportant” dross, I see journalists simply engaging more with their readers, which is a good thing.

Actually, my piece is about the news organizations’ unthinking bureaucratic response to a harrowing new media climate—to squeeze more words per day—stories, blog posts, video, what have you—from their reporters. This is not “engagement.” This is panic. To put it in Felix’s terms, it is the opposite of reading. It’s writing, or, as I argue in the piece, motion for its own sake. Oh, and the quote he uses isn’t from me, but a WSJ staffer, one of many working journalists I cite who say the same thing. Their word should count for something.

Felix leaps to defend the examples of dubious resource-allocation decisions I cite, including the WSJ bright idea to have seven staffers live-blog the Winter Olympics opening ceremonies:

But these were WSJ reporters in Canada to cover the Olympics. There’s only one Olympic event going on during the opening ceremony, and such ceremonies always have lots of reporters at them. The only difference now is that the reporters are transparent about being there, and are trying to provide at least a little bit of value for their readers at the same time. Does Dean really think that if they weren’t live-blogging the ceremonies, they would instead be shouting into their cellphones over the noise, trying to track down some securities fraudster?

Here’s a question back: Does Felix really think there is zero cost to this exercise? Even if five (four, three, two) of the reporters were just resting, I would argue, that would be better use of their time. But if we really must all work 24/7, which is an implied tenet of a lot of current journalism discourse, they might instead of writing be, in Felix’s terms, reading. Or, yes, having a drink with a source or talking to them on the phone (or not covering the Winter Olympics at all). You can’t live-blog and do something else at the same time. It’s not complicated.

Felix also defends the poor Kokomo Tribune, which I picked on for its “Sheriff plans no car purchases in 2011”:

But the internal problems with the story aside—the department will save “$185,000,” it says, but without context—the point is that while the piece does add a scrap of new information, the reporter could have been doing something deeper and better about the sheriff’s department, or about anything else instead of a piece emanated from, and of course flattering to, local officials (“The county recently approved the purchase of a flush-and-fill machine that changes the transmission fluid.”). This isn’t about whether to cover the sheriff, but how.

I see no one has yet stepped up to defend “Ben Marter’s Home-Cooked Weekend” in Politico.

He also misses the point here:

Dean Starkman Dean Starkman runs The Audit, CJR's business section, and is the author of The Watchdog That Didn't Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism (Columbia University Press, January 2014).

Follow Dean on Twitter: @deanstarkman.