Sunday Big Think — The Media
Here’s a couple of long(ish) articles for a leisurely Sunday read that are loosely based on a larger topic. This topic is The Media (my fav):
The Oxymoronic Citizen Journalism — This is an insightful case for the continued professionalism of the news by a guy who is a tech fan (and a former editor of French Liberation). It is utterly without the rueful naval gazing of days gone by — it is a straightforward argument for professional news people and professional news venues going quite against the grain of the triumphalism of citizen journalism. This part spoke to me:
In this context, Blogs range from the best to the worst. Professional blogs – either independent or hosted by traditional medias – can be the most advanced form of written journalism. Quite often, blogs produced by good journalists are as insightful as standard stories, but way more fun to read. (In France, I do know editors who wish their writers were as witty in the paper as they are on their blogs). Good bloggers sometimes border on columnists. Their work is solid, precise and, sometimes, edited; they take time to write their pieces and it shows.
At the other end of the spectrum, blogs can be utterly superficial, lacking precise facts, or agenda-driven and written with a shovel. Unfortunately, both kinds of blogs are sometimes found under the same roof. In many news organizations, big and small, instead of being considered as a more modern form of journalism, the “blog” name tag is a synonym for lower expectations.The same kind of carelessness goes for comments. I do believe that opening news content to public feedback is a good thing. At its very core, journalism begs for argument; pundits need detractors. But most online editors satisfy themselves by opening the floodgate of comments, without a strategy, or even the slightest attention to content. As a result, everybody loses: the writer who sees painstaking work defaced by shouts; and the publication for allowing substandard, unmoderated feedback. Participation without relevancy is pointless. [emphasis mine] Unfortunately, in most news sites – including big ones, very little thought seems to have been given to raising the level of public contributions.
Look At Me — This is the lead piece in this month’s Columbia Journalism Review and is a maddening, sometimes fascinating, and occasionally insightful piece on being a journalist in the alternative media. I wondered if Woodward and Bernstein would recognize this young woman’s career or even if they would see the mythologizing of their signature piece f reporting ad perhaps where the importance of journalistic “brand” began. Here is an interesting bit (although I think she’s not exactly above this vapid culture she disses here):
So I wrote what I know, or rather what I’ve learned, which could be summed up this way: when the Internet forced journalism to compete economically after years of monopoly, journalism panicked and adopted some of the worst examples of the nothing-based economy, in which success depends on the continued infantilization of both supply and demand. At the same time, journalism clung to its myths of objectivity and detachment, using them to dismiss the emerging blogger threat as something unserious and fundamentally parasitic, even as it produced a steady stream of obsessive but sneering trend stories on the blogosphere.
It’s Not the Economist, Stupid — Marion Maneker takes a look at the death of Newsweek. The Economist as a model doesn’t seem that far-fetched, especially in dealing with large issues or news of the week. From where I sit, Newsweek stopped taking itself seriously as a news organization and turned itself into Personalities Writing Sometimes Twee Stuff while quite missing the events or the issues of a week. If they couldn’t keep up, why read them? And all too often these personalities were just caught up in the CW, which everyone else is writing too. As much news as I consume, it has been a very long time since any of the US weeklies have crossed my threshold.
And here is an amazing bit of crazy — a repub Senate legislator in Michigan wants to officially register Michigan journalists. And it gets stranger — to be a journalist, you need to register and document certain credentials and experience and have the state OK that. Call yourself a reporter and you are not subject to any of that. Another repub looking for a few good brain cells, I think.
Anything here strike a chord for you?
Tags: Journalism, News
Really interesting post from DemFromCT about blogging and pseudonymity.
In his book, “Free Prize Inside” Seth Godin makes the case that to compete in the age of “free” companies need to turn away from traditional marketing and focus money and creativity on “the product.” When the product is compelling you turn users into peer-to-peer salespeople and open up non-traditional revenue streams.
Newspapers have gone in the opposite direction. Ron Williams is evidence of the fact that for Gannett, the product comes last. But even the New York Times is going in the wrong direction. If they had embraced the roll of being the best, most accurate (eg. get rid of the he said/she said sham objectivity), most essential news operation in the country – think of where it would be now.
The NYT seems to be burdened by being *the paper of record*. I do still read it and there are plenty of good reasons to (Krugman, Leonhardt, Rich, some of the long form mag writers). But I still think that he say/she say journalism is not just a sham, but leaves the people you are trying to inform completely helpless. Most people aren’t going to go figure out who is dealing in fact and who is dealing in spin and the context for both — you you are left to trust the people speaking who may be on your team. Which just ups the polarization cycle and decreases the information. It’s really a mess. I really wonder if there isn’t some market for dropping the sham objectivity and just calling balls and strikes. I’d think that journalists could take back some of their 4th Estate power by doing that and reducing the size of the box in which alot of the bullshit lives.
The AP may be going in the “fact check” direction. In an interview this week, Ron Fournier said that the most popular articles they’ve done recently have been the fact-checking ones.
Even “fact checking” type stories get the bullshity , “well both sides are kinda wrong” treatment. The truth has a liberal bias and news operations have been scared shitless by a 30 year GOP program of foot stomping.
I’ve always liked The New Yorker, but it has been a while since I’ve subscribed or even read the magazine. I’m with you Cassandra on the Weekly’s… It’s tough to read them even though I get them for free 🙂 They sit at the bottom of my to read pile and usually end up in the recycle bin.
Usually, just for a goof (or for the Sport’s sections) I’ll read both the NY Daily News and a New York Post on some random Sunday. Talk about differing realities. 🙂
I still like the occasional politics story in The Rolling Stone, but they seem to me to be a bit one-sided.
I still like the occasional politics story in The Rolling Stone, but they seem to me to be a bit one-sided.
Every publication and every story doesn’t have to be balanced. Those that try it end up putting their thumb on the scale to make balance where none exists.
“turn away from traditional marketing and focus money and creativity on “the product.””
Jason, BAEN publishing (mostly SCI-FI stuff) has done something interesting in the e-reader era by offering around 400 titles in their catalogue for FREE. They’re thinking that once they get you hooked on a particular author or series, you may pay for later installments. Amazon’s Kindle does the same thing as there are usually around 50 or so free books available at any given time
Mark, I think that the New Yorker is good — with really fine reporters working at some exceptional journalism. People like Sy Hersh, Steve Coll, Jane Mayer, and others take a good hard look at some real issues (not just horserace) in a place that values excellent writing and values information. Mostly. And the do a great job at covering culture and art — including the incomparable Paul Goldberg still thinking about architecture.
I still read the New Yorker, but I buy magazines as topics show up that interest me. And that would be from The New Yorker, the Rolling Stone, The Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s. Somehow that seems enough for the news magazine front.
Every publication and every story doesn’t have to be balanced. Those that try it end up putting their thumb on the scale to make balance where none exists.
This is otherwise known as the “both sides do it” gambit. Another bit of sham objectivity which always means that the person declaring that had to squint a little to get there. I mean, why would you just let something like They are pulling the plug on Grandma go so completely unchallenged for so long? It’s the sham objectivity that is killing the News — because it makes the news an accomplice to the talking points of the day.
Cassandra, one of the things I really liked (and also hated a bit) about the New Yorker is that when they cover a story…They REALLY cover a story :). When a topic is covered as the main story in the New Yorker, you’ll find out all there is to know (and maybe more than you wanted) on that particular topic. Works if you are interested in the topic. Not so much if you aren’t 🙂
Time and Newsweek used to do the same thing — big and wide coverage of an event or an issue of the week. It was why so many people read them (in addition to a good summary of the national and world news of the week). Neither one of them really get to the big stuff any more and the big stuff that they do seems to be these crazily twee think pieces — one of them had a big one proclaiming that America is Back a few weeks ago. And even though I didn’t read it, the whole premise seemed to be premature triumphalism and why in heaven’s name would that be interesting?
Observation: Only the traditional print media would have the initial ability and continued resources to pursue a story like Maureen Milford’s today in TNJ about the fallout from the grossly incompetent Minner administration. A $84,000 lease for $1,500? Really?
anon, although you may be right, I think Milford’s article was a by-product of the Tabini trial that is going on right now.
I think that the key is *resources*, not that it is print. Places like Pro Publica are doing really good investigative reporting and they are entirely online. Josh Marshall at TPM is also doing a pretty good job at taking a hard look at politics, breaking stories and turning up good stuff in data dumps.
Mark H – I’m sure you’re right, and that proves my point. What electronic media outlet would have had the ability to sit through days of boring sh*t at what’s basically a high-falutin’ family feud and catch the little nugget of info that led to Milford’s story? That comes only via the daily slogging-through of the morass that is courts, crime, local politics and all the other stuff that specialized media don’t do.