6 ms·

> In reality, the effort for producing a deep investigative story can be equivalent to an a mid-size software engineering project in terms of person hours and e

> In reality, the effort for producing a deep investigative story can be equivalent to an a mid-size software engineering project in terms of person hours and expertise. Investigative journalism is 1 or 2% of the budget of most media companies. Saying that running a media company is expensive because of investigative journalism is like saying that running a tech company is expensive because of the free snacks.

whatshisface 6y ago
>is like saying that running a tech company is expensive because of the free snacks. A more apt analogy would be that it was like saying Google was expensive to run because of theoretical CS basic research.
nr2x 6y ago
From a business perspective, perhaps. From a social benefit perspective, getting rid of corrupt politicians, exposing pollution, and giving citizens the ability to understand what the powerful are doing has massive benefit. Think of all the fraud and waste that has been uncovered over the years, recouping that money doesn't go to the newspaper, but it may benefit society more broadly. Simple fact is places with less free media have more corruption and misuse of public funds.
- merb 6y ago
  most articles are bought, so...
  - nr2x 6y ago
    A shockingly high number of people who would have been journalists 20 years ago now work in Public Relations. Many journalism school graduates try to find work in the trade and end up as corporate mouthpieces.
    - merb 6y ago
      well I wouldn't say corporate mouthpieces, but journalism is mostly rewriting news from bigger agencies (like the dpa from germany) or from freelancers. I mean it's basically impossible to fill a daily newspaper with just own articles/personal. so newspaper call agencies to fill a lot of stuff. and they bring mostly a few original stories.
      - nr2x 6y ago
        I mean literally people who are trained journalists, and sometimes even experienced ones, going to work for a company or agency and writing press releases.
rndgermandude 6y ago
Sadly this. A lot of the "old" media companies saw the "success" of free online content, be it digital-only-ad-based publishers, be it social media, and started to mimic that, and in the process not only desperately pivoted into a market that in fact isn't as successful as they thought but also burnt a lot of their reputation in the process. Right now it seems back to paid models for a lot, but I wonder if it's too late now with all the damaged reputation and the shift in consumer expectation (that they help create) that news and journalism should be free. I'd guess for a lot of those newspapers and magazines it will be too late, while a few will survive the onslaught and be able to concentrate the willing-to-pay consumers.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > the shift in consumer expectation (that they help create) that news and journalism should be free OK but they created that expectation in the 1890s. The Internet isn't the cause of the media companies' problems, it's just beating them at their own game.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    Not really. There has been a long tradition of mostly shit quality journalism available for "free", along with some refurbished agency reporting, true. However, the quality journalism for the most part was still paid, as in buy a paper or magazine or a subscription, if you want reliable and regular in depth journalistic reporting and/or investigation (with some exceptions, of course). That really only shifted when publishers en masse put stuff on the web for "free", financed by ads.
- busterarm 6y ago
  It doesn't matter what they do. Youtube personalities are aggregating and editorializing their content and making millions to pay for a staff of 1. Others are just going and doing the reporting themselves and doing similarly -- paying for the camera crew and legal defense out of their own pockets. Those youtube personalities dwarf the reach and viewership that all but the clickbaitiest media companies are getting. That's what's satisfying the market need right now. That's what media companies have to compete against. They'll never get back the dominant position that they once had and ads will never work for their business again. Why would I pay for a display ad on your site when I can pay for a video ad that has much better targeting? This is the issue that most people have missed. Advertising dollars flow to where they are most efficient. News site display ads are a shotgun whereas youtube channel, facebook page, news aggregator ads are a sniper. If any periodical is going to succeed, they're going to need to cater to a hyper specific niche that has cash.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Citation needed. Perhaps equipment, running presses and website, etc. are large expenses too, but humans tend to cost a lot of money.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Do you have a link to that percentage of the budget? And also what comprises the investigative journalism budget - if it is primarily for the wages of employees doing the investigating part it seems not that bad in salaries are generally not the largest part of most companies' operating costs (although generally significant) I would suppose the offices, computers, health benefits for family etc. might not count as part of the investigative journalism budget as well. Or they might, accountants of respective media companies would know I guess.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dash2 6y ago
A more interesting number would be the proportion of the budget that goes on journalism full stop. "Investigative journalism" can't be cleanly separated from other kinds. It also costs money to give an informed take on a bill going through Congress, the latest iPhone, or the Covid stats.
mtnGoat 6y ago
Snack expenses are no joke, I've seen them as high as $1k/month per person.

whatshisface 6y ago

>is like saying that running a tech company is expensive because of the free snacks. A more apt analogy would be that it was like saying Google was expensive to run because of theoretical CS basic research.

nr2x 6y ago

From a business perspective, perhaps. From a social benefit perspective, getting rid of corrupt politicians, exposing pollution, and giving citizens the ability to understand what the powerful are doing has massive benefit. Think of all the fraud and waste that has been uncovered over the years, recouping that money doesn't go to the newspaper, but it may benefit society more broadly. Simple fact is places with less free media have more corruption and misuse of public funds.

merb 6y ago
most articles are bought, so...
- nr2x 6y ago
  A shockingly high number of people who would have been journalists 20 years ago now work in Public Relations. Many journalism school graduates try to find work in the trade and end up as corporate mouthpieces.
  - merb 6y ago
    well I wouldn't say corporate mouthpieces, but journalism is mostly rewriting news from bigger agencies (like the dpa from germany) or from freelancers. I mean it's basically impossible to fill a daily newspaper with just own articles/personal. so newspaper call agencies to fill a lot of stuff. and they bring mostly a few original stories.
    - nr2x 6y ago
      I mean literally people who are trained journalists, and sometimes even experienced ones, going to work for a company or agency and writing press releases.

rndgermandude 6y ago

Sadly this. A lot of the "old" media companies saw the "success" of free online content, be it digital-only-ad-based publishers, be it social media, and started to mimic that, and in the process not only desperately pivoted into a market that in fact isn't as successful as they thought but also burnt a lot of their reputation in the process. Right now it seems back to paid models for a lot, but I wonder if it's too late now with all the damaged reputation and the shift in consumer expectation (that they help create) that news and journalism should be free. I'd guess for a lot of those newspapers and magazines it will be too late, while a few will survive the onslaught and be able to concentrate the willing-to-pay consumers.

Alex3917 6y ago
> the shift in consumer expectation (that they help create) that news and journalism should be free OK but they created that expectation in the 1890s. The Internet isn't the cause of the media companies' problems, it's just beating them at their own game.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  Not really. There has been a long tradition of mostly shit quality journalism available for "free", along with some refurbished agency reporting, true. However, the quality journalism for the most part was still paid, as in buy a paper or magazine or a subscription, if you want reliable and regular in depth journalistic reporting and/or investigation (with some exceptions, of course). That really only shifted when publishers en masse put stuff on the web for "free", financed by ads.
busterarm 6y ago
It doesn't matter what they do. Youtube personalities are aggregating and editorializing their content and making millions to pay for a staff of 1. Others are just going and doing the reporting themselves and doing similarly -- paying for the camera crew and legal defense out of their own pockets. Those youtube personalities dwarf the reach and viewership that all but the clickbaitiest media companies are getting. That's what's satisfying the market need right now. That's what media companies have to compete against. They'll never get back the dominant position that they once had and ads will never work for their business again. Why would I pay for a display ad on your site when I can pay for a video ad that has much better targeting? This is the issue that most people have missed. Advertising dollars flow to where they are most efficient. News site display ads are a shotgun whereas youtube channel, facebook page, news aggregator ads are a sniper. If any periodical is going to succeed, they're going to need to cater to a hyper specific niche that has cash.

unethical_ban 6y ago

Citation needed. Perhaps equipment, running presses and website, etc. are large expenses too, but humans tend to cost a lot of money.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

Do you have a link to that percentage of the budget? And also what comprises the investigative journalism budget - if it is primarily for the wages of employees doing the investigating part it seems not that bad in salaries are generally not the largest part of most companies' operating costs (although generally significant) I would suppose the offices, computers, health benefits for family etc. might not count as part of the investigative journalism budget as well. Or they might, accountants of respective media companies would know I guess.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dash2 6y ago

A more interesting number would be the proportion of the budget that goes on journalism full stop. "Investigative journalism" can't be cleanly separated from other kinds. It also costs money to give an informed take on a bill going through Congress, the latest iPhone, or the Covid stats.

mtnGoat 6y ago

Snack expenses are no joke, I've seen them as high as $1k/month per person.