3 ms·

The problem is that there is not enough financial benefit to being first to a story, or getting a story right, or having the best article. Websites who report t

The problem is that there is not enough financial benefit to being first to a story, or getting a story right, or having the best article. Websites who report the news but never leave their office desk all day (ie, reposting AP stories and re-blogging, Mashable and Techcrunch for instance) make as much money as those that do real "in field" news work. And that brings down the value of real "in field" news work. Back 10-15 years ago, a newspaper could break a story, and no other newspaper would be able to cover it til the next day! There was financial benefit to breaking news stories. Now, with the Internet and 24 hour news on every channel, when a newspaper breaks a story, it's posted in 10,000 other places within 10 minutes.

carolus4 14y ago
You're absolutely right about the benefits of being first to a story. I'd add that the benefit from publishing overall is smaller because online ad revenue doesn't make up for lost off-line print revenue. As consumers switch away from one and into the other, which is the other the pie has shrink over the last 10-15 years. I'd argue there is still benefit to getting the story right: outlets like the economist and the FT that do focus on quality content / being right are actually still successful today, and are able to capture some of that added value because some segments are still willing to pay to have access to that content, which complements their ad revenues. (economist group annual report, http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/annual_report_2012_final_for_web.pdf http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/annual_report_2012_final_...)
Wonderdonkey 14y ago
The issue isn't what hoops you should jump through before you publish a story. It's what you as a reporter need to do to serve your reader best — period. You have to distinguish between reporters who should be out in the field — political and crime beat reporters, for example — and those whose field actually is their desk. There's no reason for many of the reporters at Mashable and TechCrunch to leave their desks. They're writing about hardware and software. They need to be there to test and use the tools in order to write about them. How is visiting a grieving mother going to help with that? There's something else about technology reporting that people should keep in mind before they criticize: The industry is secretive. Except when you have access to inside, quasi-legal/ethical/reliable information sources, you as a reporter have no way of knowing the news until the company or researcher is ready to reveal it to you. That usually coincides with a press release, but that doesn't mean the work is merely regurgitating a press release. Every story means learning the tool; having the ability to learn quickly is not a negative. It's the result of an inquisitive, focused, interested mind capable of grasping the arcane and translating that into something meaningful for people who are counting on you to help them get their work done. I'm a tech reporter and a subject matter expert in a few specialized areas. I would put my expertise against anybody in my field, and I'm certainly more knowledgeable than the PR people who put out corporate releases rife with technical inaccuracies. I didn't get this way by chatting up CEOs or interviewing the man on the street. I got this way by setting up my autism station and plugging away at it day and night, weekday and weekend, holiday or no holiday, asking questions of engineers when I stumble, then writing about what I learned in a way that people can understand. My readers benefit from that. That's what matters.

carolus4 14y ago

You're absolutely right about the benefits of being first to a story. I'd add that the benefit from publishing overall is smaller because online ad revenue doesn't make up for lost off-line print revenue. As consumers switch away from one and into the other, which is the other the pie has shrink over the last 10-15 years. I'd argue there is still benefit to getting the story right: outlets like the economist and the FT that do focus on quality content / being right are actually still successful today, and are able to capture some of that added value because some segments are still willing to pay to have access to that content, which complements their ad revenues. (economist group annual report, http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/annual_report_2012_final_for_web.pdf http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/annual_report_2012_final_...)

Wonderdonkey 14y ago

The issue isn't what hoops you should jump through before you publish a story. It's what you as a reporter need to do to serve your reader best — period. You have to distinguish between reporters who should be out in the field — political and crime beat reporters, for example — and those whose field actually is their desk. There's no reason for many of the reporters at Mashable and TechCrunch to leave their desks. They're writing about hardware and software. They need to be there to test and use the tools in order to write about them. How is visiting a grieving mother going to help with that? There's something else about technology reporting that people should keep in mind before they criticize: The industry is secretive. Except when you have access to inside, quasi-legal/ethical/reliable information sources, you as a reporter have no way of knowing the news until the company or researcher is ready to reveal it to you. That usually coincides with a press release, but that doesn't mean the work is merely regurgitating a press release. Every story means learning the tool; having the ability to learn quickly is not a negative. It's the result of an inquisitive, focused, interested mind capable of grasping the arcane and translating that into something meaningful for people who are counting on you to help them get their work done. I'm a tech reporter and a subject matter expert in a few specialized areas. I would put my expertise against anybody in my field, and I'm certainly more knowledgeable than the PR people who put out corporate releases rife with technical inaccuracies. I didn't get this way by chatting up CEOs or interviewing the man on the street. I got this way by setting up my autism station and plugging away at it day and night, weekday and weekend, holiday or no holiday, asking questions of engineers when I stumble, then writing about what I learned in a way that people can understand. My readers benefit from that. That's what matters.