Strange Bedfellows

Paging Sy Hersh, Arianna Huffington has an offer for you. Well, not exactly, but close.

It seems the Huffington Post is taking to heart the criticism that it's profitting from the journalism world without giving back. The publication plans to work in tandem with donors to fund the work of about 10 investigative journalists who will focus on economic reporting. You'll be able to see the work on HuffPo's Web site as well as on other sites.

From the AP story:

Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at
newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's
institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of
laid-off journalists for the venture.

"All of us increasingly have to look at different ways to save
investigative journalism," she said.

Editor as Aggregator

A speech given at the SXSW festival in Austin about the future of the news biz has attracted lots of attention. The speaker, online media maven Steven Johnson, also appeared last week on one of my favorite radio shows, On Point with Tom Ashbrook.

Johnson (in the festival speech) echoed what other media analysts are starting to say about how newspaper Web sites can stay relevant in a link-happy world:

Let’s say it’s just too overwhelming for the average consumer to sort through all the new voices available online, to separate fact from fiction,
reporting from rumor-mongering. Let’s say they need some kind of
authoritative guide, to help them find all the useful information that’s
proliferating out there in the wild.

If only there were some institution that had a reputation for journalistic integrity that had a staff of trained editors and a growing audience arriving at its web site every day seeking quality information. If only…

Of course, we have thousands of these institutions. They’re called
newspapers.

In other words, as Johnson says, "old media" can be the authoritative guide to the vast ecosystem of news. Or in the catchy phrasing of Jeff Jarvis, "Cover what you do best. Link to the rest."

Thus, some reporters keep their beats. Editors, for the most part, become aggregators. To some extent, they are already. They have the last say on what news stories are covered by their trustworthy (we assume) reporters. In this brave new world, an editor's job would be not only to set an internal budget but seek out trustworthy and talented outside voices in the community who could fill the holes that a much smaller staff misses.

Besides becoming best friends with Google News, The Editor 2.0 would need to think a little differently about how to use his resources. At a publication like the Seattle P-I, which is basically becoming a start-up media company, it will be an interesting experiment to see how editors' traditional training prepares them to become master of their online domain.

When Congress Gets Involved...

...You know your industry is in some trouble. (Not that we haven't already noticed.)

This article from Congressional Quarterly lays out the ways in which lawmakers are throwing a lifeline to struggling newspapers. Side note: It's a little odd to see politicians earnestly praising the press as an essential institution; I hope to see the day when it's back to bickering and about quotes taken out of context.

But back to the news -- some of it old, some of it new. Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers have suggested recently that antitrust regulations should be loosened, which could allow publications to join forces or at least pool resources. Then there's the idea of allowing the media organizations to become nonprofits, public radio style.

I'll save my two cents on these proposals for another day. But it's worth addressing the common concern when it comes to congressional action on issues involving the press. That is, how can media organizations keep their independence when the politicians they cover are lobbying for them?

Let's keep one thing in mind here: We aren't talking about a financial-style bailout. These proposals are about making changes to the ways publications can operate. Big difference. The slipperly slope argument is in play as usual, but these days should we be afraid of a frank discussion about how lawmakers could help newspapers on the edge?

The Death of P-I (Part II)

Well, my hometown is now down to one daily newspaper. Not that the shuttering of the Seattle P-I print edition comes as much of a surprise. This would fall into the category of a fairly slow (by today's media terms) death. Once it was announced that the paper would be put up for sale, rumors swirled about an online-only product with a skeleton staff.

That's just what's happening. Here's hoping the Seattle Times, the other partner in the longstanding JOA, can somehow benefit and become stronger.

The only question is whether the iconic P-I globe will keep spinning.

Covering the Recession

Have to admit, I was drawn in by the Jon Stewart v. Jim Cramer cable host "war of words" -- and disappointed when Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show ended up being more Congressional hearing (as one New York Times reporter put it) than 8 Mile battle.

But, OK, I can forgive Stewart for trying to be serious. He's probably doing the right thing given the gravity of the economic situation. And if you go back to the very start of the controversy, before Stewart hit his typical comedic stride by warning NBC hosts who came to Cramer's defense that "Viacom in the house!," the Comedy Central host made a claim that's worthy of attention.

In an unusually heavy segment, Stewart more or less argued that CNBC, the station of Jim Cramer, had been such a cheerleader for Wall Street and the economic boom that they'd lost sight of their mission of reporting financial news. When the recession came, he said, they had blood on their hands.

Perhaps. But for the sake of this site, I'm more interested in coverage since the economic collapse began. Specifically, are journalists guilty of playing up the recession to an extreme and stoking so much fear about doom-and-gloom scenarios that we're just making things worse? Is it our job to even think about how our coverage may or may not affect the country's economic health?

The first issue is how people consume news. If anyone watched 10 straight hours of financial news on cable television these days they'd probably want to jump out of a building -- to no fault of the stations programmers. Similarly, if readers just read business section headlines and nothing else for a week they'd also feel like hiding under a blanket. The grim facts speak for themselves. You can't avoid reporting on the stock market, bailouts, the car sale crisis, etc.

It's when journalists get beyond the "straight news" reporting that this question of oversaturation becomes more interesting. Every publication has -- for good reason -- done articles about how the economy affects parents' school choices, grocery shopping and vacation planning. It's possible to go overboard writing about cutbacks in yoga classes and how people are buying Snuggies rather than paying their heating bills. (Ok, made up that last one).

Point is, like lots of other things in journalism, it's about a healthy balance. We have a responsibility to report the economic news and take note when lifestyles are seriously affected by the recession. We also have an obligation to avoid fear mongering.