James Fallows has been to the Google Chocolate Factory, has spoken to the Oompa Loompas and believes help is on the way for journalism.
How to Save the NewsUnlike the rest of us, it is apparently axiomatic within Google that people will pay for stuff. Not even a matter worth discussing, really. The sharper debate is centered around what the press will have to do to re-engage its readership.
By James Fallows
...
That goal is a reinvented business model to sustain professional news-gathering. This is essential if the “crowd sourcing” and citizen journalism that have already transformed news coverage—for instance, the videos from inside the Iranian protests last summer—are not to be the world’s only source of information. Accounts like those are certainly valuable, but they will be all the more significant if they are buttressed by reports from people who are paid to keep track of government agencies, go into danger zones, investigate and analyze public and private abuse, and generally serve as systematic rather than ad hoc observers. (I am talking about what journalism should do, not what it often does.)
Google’s likely route toward this destination, however, differs in crucial and sometimes uncomfortable ways from the one the existing news business would probably choose on its own. The differences are natural, given the cultural chasm that separates a wildly successful, collectively cocky, engineer-dominated, very internationally staffed West Coast tech start-up from a national news establishment that is its opposite in all ways: East Coast–centric, liberal arts–heavy, less international in staff and leadership (more Brits and Australians than in the tech industry, fewer Indians, Chinese, and Russians), dominated by organizations founded in the distant past, and at the moment strikingly downcast and even panicked.
...
...What is of more personal and immediate interest to me is one of the "three pillars" of this Newfangled News:
One Google employee who asked not to be named mentioned another report on journalism’s future and pointed out a section called “Focus on the User.” “They just mean, ‘Get money out of the user,’” he said. “Nowhere do they talk about how to create something people actually want to read and engage with and use.” On the topic of engaging modern users, Google feels very confident right now, and the news business feels very nervous. Apart from anything else, that certainty gap makes Google important to the future of the news.
...
...
The three pillars of the new online business model, as I heard them invariably described, are distribution, engagement, and monetization. That is: getting news to more people, and more people to news-oriented sites; making the presentation of news more interesting, varied, and involving; and converting these larger and more strongly committed audiences into revenue, through both subscription fees and ads.
...
Sounds like somebody, somewhere is thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to pay the effing writer.
It's a long article, but well worth your time.
Go get it while it's still free.
4 comments:
So, as long as the journalist in-breeders stop doing what they've been doing for the last almost 30 years (beginning with their on-the-Raygun bus routines), and actually begin to practice journalism again . . . .
Fat chance.
I hear that Murdoch is only tightening the screws right now in preparation for the new "War Against the Nuclear Threat" of Iran.
WMD anyone?
S
Accounts like those are certainly valuable, but they will be all the more significant if they are buttressed by reports from people who are paid to keep track of government agencies, go into danger zones, investigate and analyze public and private abuse, and generally serve as systematic rather than ad hoc observers.
__________
The only way we can "save the news" is to cultivate interest in the world around us. Sadly, it seems that more people are concerned with fleeting fads, religious fundamentalism of all denominations and finding a job; the last being one being important.
Although, if a story was to break that was true and had collective appeal, it may help redeem some of journalism's past "work".
Here's another pillar:
TELL THE TRUTH.
This includes stuff like asking questions, knowing history, calling out BS, and so forth, as ably demonstrated by our host.
I am completely willing to pay for reportage by Carlotta Gall, Seymour Hersh, Kristian Amanpour, Peter Arnett, Walter Pincus, or Helen Thomas.
I am completely unwilling to pay for the drivel produced by the likes of Shailagh Murray, Nedra Pickler, Judith source-fucking Miller, Dana Milbank, Mike Allen, Chuck Todd, Brit Hume, David Gregory, and their ilk.
Post a Comment