Schneider will reincarnate his Secret Ingredients health blog at www.andrewschneiderinvestigates.com. Paulson, who was unique in his bloglessness at the P-I, said he is unsure what he will do next, but will continue to promote science journalism as a board member of the National Association of Science Writers and president of the Northwest Science Writers Association. And Eric Nalder, the P-I’s chief investigative reporter, whom the others credited with doing excellent science and environment work, has taken a job as Hearst newspapers’ “senior enterprise reporter.”
As for what will become at the SeattlePI.com, nobody is sure. Managing editor Michelle Nicolosi and Hearst executives did not return calls or e-mails asking why no members of the science-environment-health team were asked to stay on, and what the outlook is for such reporting there without them.
It can’t be good. Though all the P-I’s former reporters wished the online version well, they doubt the same kind of incisive journalism that existed in the past will be possible with such a reduced staff. And while it’s some consolation that most of them remain committed to science journalism, they said their coverage will likely have an increasingly national and international focus. Indeed, independent blogs and Web sites still do not have the same impact as well-funded reporting distributed by a large newspaper with some institutional clout.
“We have an independent bookstore in town here called Elliott Bay, and they make these little pins,” Schneider told me, a bit wistfully. “One of them says, ‘So many stories, so little time.’ I had no idea how true that was going to be until they closed the paper.”
While PI did have a niche I did read a lot of articles that were less than investigative on the Obama campaign which was a chronic condition of the entire MSM. One egregious article on William Ayers stands out in my mind trying to portray this associate of Obama as some type of hero and regular guy as opposed to the criminal and domestic terrorist he was and is (idealogically). After reading that article that was it for me - almost glad they went belly up. Newspapers shuld report the news and not spin it.
I believe this is one reason many papers are failing. Not only do they have the internet as a formidable competitor but now the split electorate views the traditional newspaper industry as being biased and a failure of the fourth estate.
I would look to see the more biased papers, such as the New York Times to continue to see tougher times. It is tough enough to remain profitable running the presses these days without alienating half the country.
#1 Posted by Robert NYC, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 01:08 PM
addendum to an earlier comment - the Ayers piece was written by Joel Connelly I believe - who is referenced in this story.
#2 Posted by Robert NYC, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 01:10 PM
Wow, Robert. How can you look at the work Ayers has done in the past 10 years and call him a terrorist rather than a regular, somewhat stupid, guy?
#3 Posted by Shii, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 03:18 PM
Since the previous comments here are so thoroughly on-topic, let me add mine:
Who is the Carl Bernstein of investigative science journalism?
(It would have to be someone not under the thumb of a timid editor)
#4 Posted by Anna, CJR on Tue 31 Mar 2009 at 01:44 PM
p.s. just to clarify, when I made the above "editor" caveat I was thinking of a certain large newspaper.
#5 Posted by Anna, CJR on Tue 31 Mar 2009 at 02:20 PM
...and I ask for a reason - when your investigation indicates the fossil fuel industry hijacked the CIA to spread climate confusion by way of the New York Times, it would *really* help to get a reality check.
I'm just sayin'.
#6 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 31 Mar 2009 at 08:14 PM