The NYT describes a nonprofit called the Voice of San Diego whose main output is original facts — the core product of traditional journalism. “Here it is VoiceofSanDiego.org, offering a brand of serious, original reporting by professional journalists — the province of the traditional media, but at a much lower cost of doing business. Since it began in 2005, similar operations have cropped up in New Haven, the Twin Cities, Seattle, St. Louis and Chicago. More are on the way. Their news coverage and hard-digging investigative reporting stand out in an Internet landscape long dominated by partisan commentary, gossip, vitriol and citizen journalism posted by unpaid amateurs.”
There are a number of experiments trying to develop new economic models for newsgathering. Some approaches rely on volunteers while others rely on donations and foundation funding. In my own view, the key challenge to creating an alternative newsgathering model is to create a market for challengeable and verifiable facts where contributors can be remunerated with a minimum of friction.
This is one of the key areas of the information industry. If the only viable alternative or supplement to traditional newsgathering is foundation funding the market for original facts will continue to be dominated by ideological groups.
PJM Home
9 Comments
1. starling:Wretchard,
I have read with great interest over the last few years your many posts about the decline of the news industry and about the prospects for its reformation. As a strategy professor, I have had the opportunity to teach several cases and enjoin students in many discussions about the many failings of this most important industry. This spring I will be teaching a course on globalization based, in large part, on the Four I’s framework: Issues, Interests, Institutions, and Information.
The course will involve me selecting the major “issues” and the students identifying the relevant interest groups, institutions, and most importantly, the information that is required in order for the issues to be resolved. This last point is where we will spend a lot of our time- locating the sources of “original facts” (some of which are used by media organizations and turned into news) and importance of those facts for the conduct and performance of firms.
But one thing that we will surely not overlook is the encroachment by “ideological groups” into the newsgathering and reporting process. As has been well documented here and elsewhere, the news industry has lost a great deal of its independence and integrity by not doing enough original reporting and instead relying on said groups for information. This has had detrimental effects not only for the news industry itself, but also for the broader polity.
The link you provided to the “Voice of San Diego” will certainly find its way into my syllabus.
Thoughtfully
Nov 19, 2008 - 10:18 pm 2. Doug Loss:Starling
It’s somewhat ironic to see the New York Times saying “Their news coverage and hard-digging investigative reporting stand out in an Internet landscape long dominated by partisan commentary, gossip, vitriol and citizen journalism posted by unpaid amateurs,” considering that the Times is a premier exponent of just the sort of partisan commentary, gossip, and vitriol they condescendingly claim is coming from “unpaid amateurs.” If the paid professionals actually did the work of journalists rather than ideological flacks the amateurs wouldn’t have had the need to do so or the success in doing so that is self-evident. I applaud any attempt to actually discover and publish facts. I just don’t think the Times or pretty much any other major media source is interested in doing so these days.
Nov 19, 2008 - 11:31 pm 3. johnclubvec:I looked in vain for any news at VoiceofSanDiego.org, and didn’t find any. You know, news like: who now runs San Diego are developers, corrupt pols, the one local paper, and government unions; that the Mayor, and the entire City Council are bought and paid for by developers and the unions; that in the last election developers managed to oust the City Attorney, the only remaining voice of independence or rectitude in either the political or local judiciary; that, yes, the local judiciary (except for the former City Attorney) is also in the tank; that the unfunded local Pension Plan entitlements alone (leave aside all other unfunded obligations) threaten to bankrupt the eighth-largest city in the United States within a year, two tops. You know: news.
If you want some, you know, news, about San Diego, you have to rely on the blog of the long-retired/pushed-out business editor of the local paper, not inappropriately named Scam Diego.
Hey everybody! Let’s be all “nonprofit” and “independent” and “professional”!!! Let’s be a “Voice”! Yeah, that’ll do it.
The “market for facts” and the “market for ‘news’” may not be coterminous. And one market may be a whole heckuva lot smaller than the other.
Nov 20, 2008 - 7:12 am 4. johnclubvec:VoiceofSanDiego.org prints lots and lots of facts. Here’s some more facts from another facts source. No news there, either:
Ben Affleck visits refugee camps in eastern Congo
Travis Accident Triggers Blink-182 Reunion…Offstage
Taylor Swift Aces Archuleta, Trumps Twilight
This reminds me, a little, of the “fact-collection” in the early days of the Royal Society. Just about anything that was a fact could qualify. Most of the facts reported might even have been true, I suppose.
What kind of organization, and what kind of polity, must be in good order for ‘facts’ to become news?
In science, facts become news only rarely, and not at anybody’s whim. One hopes, with only historical support and without proof, that in science, the efforts of things like Climate Councils or journals editors do not tell in the end, and that the news will out, not in contradiction of the facts, but in finally honoring them.
Even facts are hard enough to come by, as any decent researcher will tell you. But news is the product of the rare genius working within a field in good order: that is, within a specific ongoing inquiry in which there are many who are moral and therefore open to news.
Nov 20, 2008 - 8:08 am 5. Roderick Reilly:I think the concept is a wonderful idea. I was thinking along the same lines for some time (therefore, if I thunked it, it MUST be a good idea!).
Of course, comprehensively objective news reporting — especially by people familiar with the subject matters, or with a genuinely thorough liberal arts education or equivalent life experience — would be best.
Nov 20, 2008 - 11:02 am 6. Evil Pundit:The fact that this news outlet is endorsed by The New York Times makes me suspicious.
I would want to see the opinions of some local bloggers with a track record before I’d trust anything recommended by the NYT.
Nov 20, 2008 - 3:05 pm 7. exDemocrat:IF the NYT is feting it, something has got to be wrong with it.
Nov 20, 2008 - 9:25 pm 8. John Moore:O’Sullivan’s Law, “any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.” (Will) has proven accurate through the years.
These sorts of community efforts will be taken over by the same lefties who infest the MSM.
O’Sullivan’s Law has proven remarkably accurate in America.
Nov 20, 2008 - 9:40 pm 9. peterike:The Revolution will not be televised.
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:05 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.