Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DAVID SIMON AND THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM PANEL.
The future of journalism panel was a frustrating affair. John Kerry, who chaired the hearings, was apparently unaware of how Web sites like Google and Yahoo aggregate news and so was ill prepared to ask informed questions about how newspapers might make more money off their content. The question of content and fair use was a primary focus -- and I'm not sure that was for the best. The decline of newspapers' profitability likely has far more to do with the loss of direct revenue sources such as classified ads -- which one can now post free on any number of Web sites. The solutions suggested by David Simon (of The Wire fame) and James Moroney of the Dallas Morning News seemed to veer between two opposites -- either the newspapers would get together as an industry and decide to charge for content, or they would move toward a nonprofit model.
Simon was particularly pessimistic about the future of journalism, while Arianna Huffington seemed to be particularly optimistic. They talked past each other -- when Simon expressed concern about the future of investigative journalism, Huffington cited her Web site's investigative fund or Josh Marshall's TPM. The only problem is Simon wasn't talking about covering Washington: He was talking about the local reporters who troll city halls and state capitols, local hospitals and police stations looking for stories, developing the kind of relationships that expose webs of influence, patronage, and corruption. "The day I run into a Huffington Post reporter at a Baltimore zoning board hearing is the day I will no longer be worried about journalism," Simon said.
Of course, there's nothing about blogging, or the delivery of content online that precludes bloggers from doing the kinds of things Simon is talking about. The problem is how to get the money to support that kind of journalism, online or otherwise. Simon pointed out that even before the rise of the Internet, newspapers, as public companies, were letting good reporters go and important coverage vanish simply to meet a bottom line. Simon didn't take a side in the "Web vs. print wars"; he argued that the problem, at its core, was a "disastrous free-market logic" that put a public trust at the mercy of profit-seeking shareholders.
That, to me, is the most worrying prospect: Even if newspapers were to be profitable again, there's no indication they'd invest in the kind of journalism they're now using to convince everyone how valuable they are, and it isn't the choice of the dedicated reporters and editors who staff them. It's up to the people who own the paper, and they're worried about the bottom line.
UPDATE: I appear to have mangled the second part of Simon's quote. According to Dana Milbank, the full quote is "The day I run into a Huffington Post reporter at a Baltimore zoning board hearing is the day that I will be confident that we have actually reached some sort of balance."
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (2)
the kind of relationships that expose webs of influence, patronage, and corruption
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. People get hung up on the notion that this kind of journalism and the model TPM et al are building are somehow mutually exclusive.
I think what Simon's trying to get across is not so much the "investigative" aspect, but the idea of being "plugged in" to the system at the grunt level. It isn't just a matter of picking up good leads; it's developing a deep understanding of how all the gears mesh and knowing intuitively when something's awry.
And you put your finger on it: embedding a reporter in that offine network is very resource intensive. It requires an editorial infrastructure that frees reporters to roam the beat, and also an understanding that time spent "surfing" the offline web is productive.
Posted by: gnarlytrombone | May 7, 2009 12:00 PM
To be honest, and I'm a big fan of David Simon, but he's working for a really false premise. Does Time magazine send reporters to the Baltimore zoning board meeting? No? Then don't expect the Huffington Post to do that. It doesn't fill the same niche or serve the same audience. On the flipside, I'm pretty sure he can find a local blogger who does indeed go to the zoning board meeting and report the response. I feel comfortable saying that because in my neighborhood in New York, we do have local bloggers who do that. And they don't do it because they're getting paid, but because they care about zoning. It's remarkably old school to think that someone will cover those issues only if you pay them. One of the beauties and strengths of the internet is that it empowers the dedicated amateur. The idea that someone needs to be paid for doing something they care about it is one of the blocks in the way of creating new models.
Posted by: J. | May 7, 2009 4:04 PM