4 ms·

A quick question to everyone who is asserting that aggregation, social media, and citizen journalism makes traditional, for-pay news outmoded: What if Watergat

A quick question to everyone who is asserting that aggregation, social media, and citizen journalism makes traditional, for-pay news outmoded: What if Watergate happened today? Who would break that story? Who would follow the leads? Who would protect the informants? Before you answer "Wikileaks", keep in mind that one of their top informants is currently being held in military prison under borderline inhumane conditions, and their leader is currently being extradited to face trumped up charges of sexual assault. Meanwhile Bob Woodward has a book deal and is spending his retirement on the sunday morning talk circuit...

ekidd 14y ago
I hate to be so cynical on Hacker News, but I think it has some bearing on the business opportunities, so here goes. If Watergate happened today, (1) the New York Times would assign a reporter like Judith Miller to present the administration's viewpoint almost verbatim, (2) the Economist would rehash conventional DC wisdom from across the Atlantic while largely misunderstanding the context, (3) Stratfor would hyperventilate and try to panic us into buying expensive whitepapers full of worst-case geopolitical scenarios, (4) Mother Jones would write an amazingly depressing exposé that nobody can bear to read, (5) the Christian Science Monitor would try to do the right thing, but find itself hamstrung by limited personnel, and (6) two thousand local papers would plagiarize the same wildly inaccurate article off the AP wire. Oh, and for every reporter who tried to discover the truth, 10 would take a statement from each side and imply that the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Seriously, I would pay real money for accurate news and competent analysis. I've tried, I really have. But the available options are just awful. Editors want to move product, reporters want to finish 500 words by 5pm, and readers want to confirm their worldviews.
- nodata 14y ago
  > the Christian Science Monitor would try to do the right thing As a non-American, I was a bit taken aback to see the Christian Science Monitor mentioned. Are they a news source? Do they have a history of "trying to do the right thing", as you put it?
  - dagw 14y ago
    The Christian Science Monitor is a pretty high quality and reasonably unbiased newspaper greatly held back by a rather unfortunate name and association. Certainly on topics of US Politics they are the among most most unbiased, and have a stated policy of never endorsing any candidate or party. While being owned by the Christian Science church they do a good job of being independent and avoiding any mention of doctrine. I truly believe that if the same newspaper was published without any connections to any church it would rank much higher in world opinion, but most people tend to dismiss it due to the name. (full disclosure: Grew up christian scientist, long since lapsed, but still have friends who believe, and I hold no animosity towards the church).
  - ern 14y ago
    I used to read its international coverage online, and never detected much bias. When I started reading it, I was also taken aback by the name, but it doesn't appear to be heavily influenced by its parent organization.

ekidd 14y ago

I hate to be so cynical on Hacker News, but I think it has some bearing on the business opportunities, so here goes. If Watergate happened today, (1) the New York Times would assign a reporter like Judith Miller to present the administration's viewpoint almost verbatim, (2) the Economist would rehash conventional DC wisdom from across the Atlantic while largely misunderstanding the context, (3) Stratfor would hyperventilate and try to panic us into buying expensive whitepapers full of worst-case geopolitical scenarios, (4) Mother Jones would write an amazingly depressing exposé that nobody can bear to read, (5) the Christian Science Monitor would try to do the right thing, but find itself hamstrung by limited personnel, and (6) two thousand local papers would plagiarize the same wildly inaccurate article off the AP wire. Oh, and for every reporter who tried to discover the truth, 10 would take a statement from each side and imply that the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Seriously, I would pay real money for accurate news and competent analysis. I've tried, I really have. But the available options are just awful. Editors want to move product, reporters want to finish 500 words by 5pm, and readers want to confirm their worldviews.

nodata 14y ago
> the Christian Science Monitor would try to do the right thing As a non-American, I was a bit taken aback to see the Christian Science Monitor mentioned. Are they a news source? Do they have a history of "trying to do the right thing", as you put it?
- dagw 14y ago
  The Christian Science Monitor is a pretty high quality and reasonably unbiased newspaper greatly held back by a rather unfortunate name and association. Certainly on topics of US Politics they are the among most most unbiased, and have a stated policy of never endorsing any candidate or party. While being owned by the Christian Science church they do a good job of being independent and avoiding any mention of doctrine. I truly believe that if the same newspaper was published without any connections to any church it would rank much higher in world opinion, but most people tend to dismiss it due to the name. (full disclosure: Grew up christian scientist, long since lapsed, but still have friends who believe, and I hold no animosity towards the church).
- ern 14y ago
  I used to read its international coverage online, and never detected much bias. When I started reading it, I was also taken aback by the name, but it doesn't appear to be heavily influenced by its parent organization.