For the record I respect Bill Keller of the NYT’s, he’s a good editor who helped the paper recover from the Jason Blair affair, and mostly navigated the Judy Miller escapade without too many unforced errors. That said: he is also a sanctimonious ass.
Recently, he was quoted as saying:
Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.
Now of course that’s not exactly what he meant, and in fact he wrote an email to Michael Calderone to clarify his intent. Regardless, the Editor of the New York – fucking – Times, should not be shocked in any way to have his words pulled out of context. However he might have meant the comment, the fact that he made the comparison at all says something about the mindset in America’s Newsrooms.
Namely this: for all of their vaunted skills in uncovering and exposing the world’s problems, they are almost devoid of any real or innovative solutions. In fact, saving the NYT’s has at least one parallel to Darfur, neither will be solved as a result of high-minded anything.
And I admit it’s unfair to single out Keller, because like I said he’s better than he is bad. He is simply the most visible member of a news media culture.
For example, the Atlantic has a new poll of ‘industry insiders’ in which 65% said that the Internet has hurt media more than it has helped (granted that’s only 30 people). Yet, the rational that they offer shows their real concern isn’t for ‘Journalism as an ideal’, but rather a screed against the end of ‘Journalism as Practiced by Them’:
“The Internet has some plusses: It has widened the circle of those participating in the national debate. But it has mortally wounded the financial structure of the news business so that the cost of doing challenging, independent reporting has become all but prohibitive all over the world. It has blurred the line between opinion and fact and created a dynamic in which extreme thought flourishes while balanced judgment is imperiled.”
“A year ago, I would have given a different answer. The increases in audience reach and communication with the audience are incredibly gratifying. But the cost to the business model (R.I.P. Seattle P-I) and the inability of the business model to monetize the Internet means that there is a disturbing net cost to newsgathering. If you’re not covering your state delegation in D.C., or the state legislature back home, or the city council, bad things are going to happen, undiscovered.”
“News consumption depends on news production, and I don’t see anything on the Internet that produces news—that is, detailed responsible empirical journalism—the way newspapers do (or did). It is typical of Americans to get more excited about consumption than about production.”
Let’s take these as two main arguments, the business model, and the content quality.
This first point is a general trope used over and over again, and I hope to do a full post on this specifically. For now let me simply say: what the internet takes away, the internet also gives; meaning that even though the average-profit-per-impression is lower on the internet, the cost-per-impression is also extremely low. Paper, ink, printing, distribution and home delivery are damned expensive. That was THE barrier to entry for ages. Now you’ve eliminated that cost. So you don’t have to charge for papers, which only ever covered a small portion of the printing costs anyway. Rather it was the industry failure to better monetize their internet offerings that put them in this financial position (the 2nd person at least seems to recognize this failing as partly internal).
This focus on trying to get consumers to pay more for something, which they never really paid for in the first place, is stupid. This isn’t a consumer problem (the main beneficiary of the internet), it’s an advertiser problem. And that is the fault of management, period, full stop.
Yet, it’s this second point that actively pisses me off. This idealized ‘just the facts’ journalism is unique to post-WWII America. The early forefathers of Newspapers as we know them today were the Colonial pamphleteers. People like Thomas Pain, and the Federalist , wanted to make an argument, so they paid to have their essays printed and published for dispersion. In many ways they were like bloggers, they made no money off their pamphlets, but they did inform, and got the message across. But make no mistake, political parties were the 1st publishers, followed later by shipping companies, and later still by independent ‘publishing companies’. But all of them had a slant, and made no secret of it, imagine the British Press today, but 100 years ago.
The reason that this actively pisses me off is that I fail to see how the American way of Journalism is much better then the old way, or more appropriately the British Way. In the American tradition, reporters are supposed to ask tough questions of those in power. These select few are given the almighty ‘Access’ with which to uncover the ‘Truth’. But the reality is that ‘Access’, not information nor understanding, has become the measure of good Journalism. The efforts to protect that access, IMHO, is the underlying cause of our collective Journalistic failure over the past 20-30 some odd years. From the failure of CNBC to actually ask tough questions of over-paied/under-performing CEOs; to Judy Miller, Vaunted NYT’s reporter, who propagandized for an Administration, and even did their dirty bidding in silencing an Administration critic. This Idealized American Journalistic Standard has led to shoddy reporting, NO-analysis (God Forbid), and a stack of Newspapers that treat their readers like 5th grade children.
NO!
This is weak willed crap posing as mild-mannered reporting. It uncovers little, and is played by those whom would seek to sub-divert thinking with emotional drivel. We don’t want facts, jack. We want analysis, and as long as you are upfront about your leanings, what’s the problem? That’s how they do it in the world’s oldest democracy, and some of them even managed call-out the false conclusions made in the run up to the Iraq War.
This is all to say two things:
Number One: Publishing Management needs to take responsibility for their epic mismanagement of their enterprises. Technology changes in every industry, most people deal with it, many top reporters took advantage of it. Your failure to develope new revenue sources, is your fault, not nature’s, not the internet.
Number Two: The American Journalistic Model is not the final buttress on the cathedral of democracy, and in fact its mores have hurt the public’s understanding and knowledge of government’s inter-workings. It’s been those opinionated and targeted independent media sources that have proven to be the sustained voice of the people, and defenders of freedom. Not those with the access, but those with the unanswered question, it is those people whom need to be protected, defended, and brought safely into the new digital media.
