5 ms·

As a journalist, I may be biased, but I disagree. There is a glut of low quality journalism, but high quality journalism is still expensive and time consuming

by benev 14y ago

As a journalist, I may be biased, but I disagree. There is a glut of low quality journalism, but high quality journalism is still expensive and time consuming to produce. Doing research, finding new angles, interviewing people -- these are what take time, not simply putting words on paper (though doing that well still takes time and more expertise than most people realize). This trend towards free journalism is driving down standards to the point where 'journalism' is often now just re-hashing work with little fact checking. This could lead to real problems as it's been the journalism industry that traditionally has been the watchdog for the people. They've investigated and exposed nefarious activity in just about every sphere. More and more, I see skilled journalists leaving the profession to work in PR. The people who were checking up on businesses and politicians are now being paid by them to stop new amateur journalists finding out what's going on.

warnhardcode 14y ago
In your opinion as a journalist, what do you consider to be sources for high quality journalism?
- benev 14y ago
  That's actually a really tough question. I think that there aren't any sources that I consider totally good. I generally read quite a few, and find one or two that cover each issue well. For example, I usually quite like the BBCs international reporting, but have felt a bit let down by their tech coverage recently. The Guardian (UK) can be good, but it can stray too far (for me) to left wing tub-thumbing at times. Places like The Atlantic and HuffPost have the occasional decent article, but I don't usually bother with them unless I know I can trust the author. I used to read the FT's (UK) general news and found it good, but it's been a while since I picked it up.
  - warnhardcode 14y ago
    Hmmm, so who do you consider to be high quality journalists? Is it time to chase names rather than institutions?
    - thattallguy 14y ago
      Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions. We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc) One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense. As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing. These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
    - thattallguy 14y ago
      Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions. We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc) One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense. As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing. These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
- kobrako 14y ago
  My startup Scoopinion does try to find the high quality journalism, this is how we do it: Take a set of sites that 1) Have an editor and or are established blogs. 2) Publish content that you can show to your mother 3) Then we have a community of readers with "Scrobbling" browser add-on that measures reading speed and read through percentage. Whenever they read, they implicitly rate the article with their behavior. Later the articles are recommended to people who read same sources, topics and journalists. This has worked pretty well, at least what we hear from our users. If someone has better definitions of quality journalism, would love to hear those.
  - msrpotus 14y ago
    I really like it! Definitely works out well although it seems British- and maybe Australian-centric. Is that just based on who is using the Scoopinion now?
edanm 14y ago
I'm not sure you actually disagreed with the parent. The parent said something like "there's not enough demand, and too much supply". You said something like "it's very expensive to produce good journalism". The two statements are not contradictory. I do agree with you that there is a definite problem with the current situation, by the way.
- benev 14y ago
  My point is that there's too much supply of low quality journalism. There's not much supply of high quality journalism. Perhaps there's very little demand for high quality journalism and I'm just being naive, but I hope not.
  - terhechte 14y ago
    I think our attention disorder deficit world (1) and the lack of transparency (2) lead to just that: Lack of demand for high quality journalism. (1) Quality journalism usually demands time and attention from the reader since it presents itself in multi-page articles that try to distill down to the important facts. Oftentimes reality is so complex, that even this distilled view is difficult to read and takes some time to understand. People who just want to read some news between checking facebook or tweeting are not interested in these long and elaborate articles. (2) Even for short articles, it is difficult to assess the quality of it since there's no way (or only a difficult way) of figuring out whether an article is high quality or low quality. In order to find out, you'd need to be an expert in the specific domain or re-do the work of the journalist (fact checking, etc). Since most readers neither can do the one or the other, for a normal reader this lack of transparency (or information asymmetry, as the economists say) means that he doesn't see the difference between high and low quality. So there's little demand, too. I do think that there'll be a future where high quality journalism is flourishing, but not with the current business models, and not with the current way of news publishing. My hope is that at some point a startup will figure out the correct ingredients (and I doubt social news, or anything in that domain is the answer)
  - jellicle 14y ago
    There's very little demand for high quality journalism. A high quality article might cost 100 times as much to create as a low-quality one, but the returns from it (ads, subscriptions, whatever) aren't anywhere near 100x as much. At this point, all magazines, newspapers and similar outlets have figured this out. There may be some sort of niche possible in ebooks aimed at relatively narrow niches - niches that aren't served by general interest publications. But for regular old publishing/"journamalism"/opinion pieces.... the outlook for making a living at those is not good.
tmoertel 14y ago
One of the reasons that "high-quality journalism" is in trouble is that it's no longer high-quality compared to the competing offerings now available to readers. In the past, readers had to rely upon journalists "doing research, finding new angles, interviewing people" to get expert knowledge. Now the experts are online and talking to readers directly, cutting out the middlemen. Take the recent US election, for example. Why would a reader expect to be better informed by reading traditional journalists, even those doing high-quality work, than by reading Nate Silver or Andrew Gelman? "High-quality journalism," to be blunt, is in trouble because it's not really that good. It's just that nobody had a better alternative until the Internet gave them one.
Bulkington 14y ago
As a journalist, I am biased, and I agree with the parent comment. But the more significant problem is the demise of journalistically savvy publishers. Content is not a priority, period. Unless, of course, you're talking about 'content marketing,' which is essentially advertising in disguise. Journos will have to ignore the traditional glass wall between editorial/advertising to make a living. And there's always been some push from the top in terms of promoting favored advertisers or even squelching a negative story. But of the last three publishing groups I've worked for, two were run by glorified ad execs who considered editorial staff as a cost drain, and who were constantly trying to find ways for the department to 'earn its keep.' The best was a newspaper group still managed by the founders, admittedly a labor of love but profitable, until health issues prompted the sale. Now the product is hardly recognizable. Remote bureaus were quickly closed, and the chain of "hometown" papers no longer have offices in the communities whose names are on the banners. Hyperlocal websites are trying to fill the void, and doing a reasonable job with no resources in many places. But it just ain't the same as developing local knowledge and journalistic skills over a career with the same publication.
sliverstorm 14y ago
This trend towards free journalism is driving down standards to the point where 'journalism' is often now just re-hashing work with little fact checking. This could lead to real problems as it's been the journalism industry that traditionally has been the watchdog for the people. I have just one thing echoing about in my head: "We get what we deserve"

by benev 14y ago

warnhardcode 14y ago

In your opinion as a journalist, what do you consider to be sources for high quality journalism?

benev 14y ago
That's actually a really tough question. I think that there aren't any sources that I consider totally good. I generally read quite a few, and find one or two that cover each issue well. For example, I usually quite like the BBCs international reporting, but have felt a bit let down by their tech coverage recently. The Guardian (UK) can be good, but it can stray too far (for me) to left wing tub-thumbing at times. Places like The Atlantic and HuffPost have the occasional decent article, but I don't usually bother with them unless I know I can trust the author. I used to read the FT's (UK) general news and found it good, but it's been a while since I picked it up.
- warnhardcode 14y ago
  Hmmm, so who do you consider to be high quality journalists? Is it time to chase names rather than institutions?
  - thattallguy 14y ago
    Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions. We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc) One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense. As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing. These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
  - thattallguy 14y ago
    Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions. We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc) One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense. As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing. These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
kobrako 14y ago
My startup Scoopinion does try to find the high quality journalism, this is how we do it: Take a set of sites that 1) Have an editor and or are established blogs. 2) Publish content that you can show to your mother 3) Then we have a community of readers with "Scrobbling" browser add-on that measures reading speed and read through percentage. Whenever they read, they implicitly rate the article with their behavior. Later the articles are recommended to people who read same sources, topics and journalists. This has worked pretty well, at least what we hear from our users. If someone has better definitions of quality journalism, would love to hear those.
- msrpotus 14y ago
  I really like it! Definitely works out well although it seems British- and maybe Australian-centric. Is that just based on who is using the Scoopinion now?

edanm 14y ago

I'm not sure you actually disagreed with the parent. The parent said something like "there's not enough demand, and too much supply". You said something like "it's very expensive to produce good journalism". The two statements are not contradictory. I do agree with you that there is a definite problem with the current situation, by the way.

benev 14y ago
My point is that there's too much supply of low quality journalism. There's not much supply of high quality journalism. Perhaps there's very little demand for high quality journalism and I'm just being naive, but I hope not.
- terhechte 14y ago
  I think our attention disorder deficit world (1) and the lack of transparency (2) lead to just that: Lack of demand for high quality journalism. (1) Quality journalism usually demands time and attention from the reader since it presents itself in multi-page articles that try to distill down to the important facts. Oftentimes reality is so complex, that even this distilled view is difficult to read and takes some time to understand. People who just want to read some news between checking facebook or tweeting are not interested in these long and elaborate articles. (2) Even for short articles, it is difficult to assess the quality of it since there's no way (or only a difficult way) of figuring out whether an article is high quality or low quality. In order to find out, you'd need to be an expert in the specific domain or re-do the work of the journalist (fact checking, etc). Since most readers neither can do the one or the other, for a normal reader this lack of transparency (or information asymmetry, as the economists say) means that he doesn't see the difference between high and low quality. So there's little demand, too. I do think that there'll be a future where high quality journalism is flourishing, but not with the current business models, and not with the current way of news publishing. My hope is that at some point a startup will figure out the correct ingredients (and I doubt social news, or anything in that domain is the answer)
- jellicle 14y ago
  There's very little demand for high quality journalism. A high quality article might cost 100 times as much to create as a low-quality one, but the returns from it (ads, subscriptions, whatever) aren't anywhere near 100x as much. At this point, all magazines, newspapers and similar outlets have figured this out. There may be some sort of niche possible in ebooks aimed at relatively narrow niches - niches that aren't served by general interest publications. But for regular old publishing/"journamalism"/opinion pieces.... the outlook for making a living at those is not good.

tmoertel 14y ago

One of the reasons that "high-quality journalism" is in trouble is that it's no longer high-quality compared to the competing offerings now available to readers. In the past, readers had to rely upon journalists "doing research, finding new angles, interviewing people" to get expert knowledge. Now the experts are online and talking to readers directly, cutting out the middlemen. Take the recent US election, for example. Why would a reader expect to be better informed by reading traditional journalists, even those doing high-quality work, than by reading Nate Silver or Andrew Gelman? "High-quality journalism," to be blunt, is in trouble because it's not really that good. It's just that nobody had a better alternative until the Internet gave them one.

Bulkington 14y ago

As a journalist, I am biased, and I agree with the parent comment. But the more significant problem is the demise of journalistically savvy publishers. Content is not a priority, period. Unless, of course, you're talking about 'content marketing,' which is essentially advertising in disguise. Journos will have to ignore the traditional glass wall between editorial/advertising to make a living. And there's always been some push from the top in terms of promoting favored advertisers or even squelching a negative story. But of the last three publishing groups I've worked for, two were run by glorified ad execs who considered editorial staff as a cost drain, and who were constantly trying to find ways for the department to 'earn its keep.' The best was a newspaper group still managed by the founders, admittedly a labor of love but profitable, until health issues prompted the sale. Now the product is hardly recognizable. Remote bureaus were quickly closed, and the chain of "hometown" papers no longer have offices in the communities whose names are on the banners. Hyperlocal websites are trying to fill the void, and doing a reasonable job with no resources in many places. But it just ain't the same as developing local knowledge and journalistic skills over a career with the same publication.

sliverstorm 14y ago

This trend towards free journalism is driving down standards to the point where 'journalism' is often now just re-hashing work with little fact checking. This could lead to real problems as it's been the journalism industry that traditionally has been the watchdog for the people. I have just one thing echoing about in my head: "We get what we deserve"