4 ms·

Seems like it's ripe for an overhaul of journalism based on more scientific principles. Seriously, a business model where everything is vigorously fact-checked,

Seems like it's ripe for an overhaul of journalism based on more scientific principles. Seriously, a business model where everything is vigorously fact-checked, sources cited, and reason applied. This form of news will be slower to print than the "shoot now, ask questions later" form of journalism we see today, but I think there is a real thirst for it in the market place. I don't have the time or energy to sift through 10 metric tons of bullshit or spend three hours in my day doing my own investigation. I would prefer to hear the news a day late, but know it is well-researched and factual. Make all of this super transparent and apparent. Make it very well known that your site will be slower, but more accurate, and that you rely on donations/subscriptions. Make it very well known that by supporting you, the readers are undermining the awful state the media is in and usurping the corporate/governmental tentacles in other forms of media.

untog 12y ago
This form of news will be slower to print than the "shoot now, ask questions later" form of journalism we see today, but I think there is a real thirst for it in the market place. Unfortunately, I suspect you are wrong.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  He's probably a bit optimistic if he means that there's a huge, mass-media-proportioned market for it. But he's not wrong if he means a small publication (or more likely, an individual journalist) can make a successful go of it. Consider the "1000 true fans" business model. It is entirely possible to earn a respectable, six-figure income doing independent journalism for a small, but loyal base of subscribers. It's extremely hard work. The payoff/effort ratio is probably lower than the ratio on the kind of corporate job that someone smart and hard-working enough to pull it off can take instead. (And this is probably why you don't see legions of smart, hard-working people trying to do it.) But it's doable, and some people are doing it. They're doing it on a small scale, to a loyal niche. I have my doubts as to the scalability of the model, i.e., building it out to support a multi-million-dollar business. Plenty of well-connected and well-funded people have tried. Some of the best journalists in the business have tried. A few of these people have very publicly failed. But I am inclined to think that there's a decent sweet spot out there. It's not big, but it exists. Stranger things have happened, though. This is a crude analogy, but consider the success of a show like The Walking Dead. Ten years ago, if I'd have told you that a show about zombies on basic cable was going to be one of the most watched shows on all of television, you'd have told me I was insane. And all available data at the time would have supported your position. The truth is, TWD could not have been a hit 10 years ago, much less on AMC. Various supporting technologies make its success possible: Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, VOD, and so forth. (Even DVR was in its early-adopter phase a decade ago.) Game-changers happen when the supporting infrastructure is in place to enable bright, risk-taking people to put the pieces together. For all I know, the conditions are in place to let someone find, address, and serve millions of people who are ready for "slow" journalism. It's an uphill battle, but I sincerely hope more people will strap on their climbing gear.
  - untog 12y ago
    The problem is things like worldwide coverage, though - an individual journalist cannot provide great coverage everywhere.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      Nor should he or she. The future of journalism may well belong to a lot of small, targeted publications (combined with some very productive individuals) serving effectively small paying audiences, but incidentally reaching a lot of other people through social distribution. In such a scenario, global coverage would be provided by specialists in the global news beat -- be they publications, or individuals choosing to specialize in that area. No one journalist or publication will cover everything. The economics of trying to do that just don't work anymore.
gaius 12y ago
Seems like it's ripe for an overhaul of journalism based on more scientific principles. Seriously, a business model where everything is vigorously fact-checked, sources cited, and reason applied Like say the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
superuser2 12y ago
What you are describing used to be the goal at respectable institutions. At some, it was even the norm. My dad was a copy editor for 25 years - this is what they do. Ask any of the thousands of professional copy editors laid off by city papers in the last 10 years; they would all be elated to do real work again. The market has become to efficient to allow for a large staff of professionals who do slow, technically unnecessary work and don't contribute to revenue growth. If you can find a way to pay for it, you win. But traditional newspapers have tried - their business depended on it - and none of them cracked it. So everybody laid off most of their staff and became a thinly veiled BuzzFeed. I can tell you that there are hundreds to thousands of disgruntled idealistic professionals collecting unemployment/"freelancing" and if you offered them a decent middle-class salary to do their jobs again, they'd flock to you instantly.
zevyoura 12y ago
Sounds like The New Yorker's model (along with Harper's, etc. though the NYer is probably most known for its rigorous fact checking department[0]). [0] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/09/checkpoints http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/09/checkpoints

untog 12y ago

This form of news will be slower to print than the "shoot now, ask questions later" form of journalism we see today, but I think there is a real thirst for it in the market place. Unfortunately, I suspect you are wrong.

jonnathanson 12y ago
He's probably a bit optimistic if he means that there's a huge, mass-media-proportioned market for it. But he's not wrong if he means a small publication (or more likely, an individual journalist) can make a successful go of it. Consider the "1000 true fans" business model. It is entirely possible to earn a respectable, six-figure income doing independent journalism for a small, but loyal base of subscribers. It's extremely hard work. The payoff/effort ratio is probably lower than the ratio on the kind of corporate job that someone smart and hard-working enough to pull it off can take instead. (And this is probably why you don't see legions of smart, hard-working people trying to do it.) But it's doable, and some people are doing it. They're doing it on a small scale, to a loyal niche. I have my doubts as to the scalability of the model, i.e., building it out to support a multi-million-dollar business. Plenty of well-connected and well-funded people have tried. Some of the best journalists in the business have tried. A few of these people have very publicly failed. But I am inclined to think that there's a decent sweet spot out there. It's not big, but it exists. Stranger things have happened, though. This is a crude analogy, but consider the success of a show like The Walking Dead. Ten years ago, if I'd have told you that a show about zombies on basic cable was going to be one of the most watched shows on all of television, you'd have told me I was insane. And all available data at the time would have supported your position. The truth is, TWD could not have been a hit 10 years ago, much less on AMC. Various supporting technologies make its success possible: Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, VOD, and so forth. (Even DVR was in its early-adopter phase a decade ago.) Game-changers happen when the supporting infrastructure is in place to enable bright, risk-taking people to put the pieces together. For all I know, the conditions are in place to let someone find, address, and serve millions of people who are ready for "slow" journalism. It's an uphill battle, but I sincerely hope more people will strap on their climbing gear.
- untog 12y ago
  The problem is things like worldwide coverage, though - an individual journalist cannot provide great coverage everywhere.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Nor should he or she. The future of journalism may well belong to a lot of small, targeted publications (combined with some very productive individuals) serving effectively small paying audiences, but incidentally reaching a lot of other people through social distribution. In such a scenario, global coverage would be provided by specialists in the global news beat -- be they publications, or individuals choosing to specialize in that area. No one journalist or publication will cover everything. The economics of trying to do that just don't work anymore.

gaius 12y ago

superuser2 12y ago

What you are describing used to be the goal at respectable institutions. At some, it was even the norm. My dad was a copy editor for 25 years - this is what they do. Ask any of the thousands of professional copy editors laid off by city papers in the last 10 years; they would all be elated to do real work again. The market has become to efficient to allow for a large staff of professionals who do slow, technically unnecessary work and don't contribute to revenue growth. If you can find a way to pay for it, you win. But traditional newspapers have tried - their business depended on it - and none of them cracked it. So everybody laid off most of their staff and became a thinly veiled BuzzFeed. I can tell you that there are hundreds to thousands of disgruntled idealistic professionals collecting unemployment/"freelancing" and if you offered them a decent middle-class salary to do their jobs again, they'd flock to you instantly.

zevyoura 12y ago

Sounds like The New Yorker's model (along with Harper's, etc. though the NYer is probably most known for its rigorous fact checking department[0]). [0] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/09/checkpoints http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/09/checkpoints