Why Newspapers Are Dying
I read this piece in Wednesday’s L.A. Times and it went down like a 5 day old tuna sandwich. Now, mind you, I like Jim Rainey and think he’s a good reporter (though I will poke him one more time for not doing a story on the decline of L.A. Weekly).
But this is not one of his better pieces. It’s actually one of his worst. I’ve got no objection to his taking the piss out of the rather ridiculous and all-around-ass Joe the Plumber Journalist. But mocking Joe’s stance as a reporter is a little bit like tossing a pound of C4 into a goldfish bowl.
Flash! Joe the Plumber doesn’t know anything about journalism. Duh.
By now, everyone knows that Joe doesn’t know Shinola from Shanghai.
What was irksome, if not insidious, about Rainey’s piece was that he rather transparently used Joe as a cut-out for citizen journalists and that horrid species known as “bloggers” in general. He says:
[I]n today’s media environment — where a thousand thousand blogs bloom and teenagers post video commentary on famine in Sudan — anyone and everyone can play journalist.That’s just lovely in a democracy. But we’re also (nominally) a free-market economy, so nouveau reporters still have to win an audience if they want to pay the rent. And I’m guessing that most are going to find John McCain’s campaign trail pal — pardon me — all wet.
I don’t like that sneering phrase about anyone can “play” a journalist. The rest of his piece is loaded with the same rather arrogant sub-theme i.e. a place for everyone and everyone in his place. Journalism is for big boys only and you amateur citizens — all of you more or less like hapless Joe– should leave this dangerous work for us real adults.
Rainey also warns that “nouveau” reporters still have to “win” an audience. But here’s a couple of questions.
Just what size audience would an individual L.A. Times reporter, like Rainey, be able to “win” if he didn’t come bundled and wrapped with the horoscope, the crossword puzzle, car ads, and sports stats?
There are lot of “nouveau” and citizen journalists, pajama-clad bloggers and other uncertified folks out there who “play” journalist on the web and who actually have hundreds of thousands of daily readers that they have ably won. Would JIm Rainey like to set up a site and start matching traffic stats with, say, Markos Moulitzas, or Josh Marshall, or Jane Hamsher or a dozen other folks playing journalists? Would he, standing alone, rack up 300,000 or a half-million or more unique viewers per day as they do? And even bundled inside the Times, does his column have that sort of readership? Why doesn’t the Times publish the daily readership stats so we can see just what on their site gets 250,000 clicks per day and what gets a tenth or less of that?
I think we know the answers.
And my point is not to belittle Rainey or his usually fine, professional work. But in the year 2009 aren’t we a bit past the tired, boring, pointless, obsolete and demoralizing debate of bloggers versus journalists? Isn’t all this stuffiness about how plumbers should do plumbing and only reporters should do reporting but only card-carrying reporters should do it just a bit ridiculous at this point?
My point is that Rainey belittles hundreds of thousands of very engaged, often very smart often very skilled, and very talented “average” Americans who can now exercise their right to publish and who just as often publish content every bit as useful, intelligent and fact-filled as anything in the L.A. Times.
P.S. I have been consumed this week, as my readers know, launching the new online publication of the USC School of Journalism — Neon Tommy. I’ve had very little time to read any blogs or spend much time at all online. Most of my news this week, I have gotten from the MSM via radio and TV. And yet, I’ve been INNUNDATED by a spewing firehouse of trivial chatter about the deranged woman who had 8 children, questions about A-Rod at a presidential conference and on a night when the congress has agreed on the largest economic rescue plan in the history of the United States, I find at the top of the L.A. Times website a story titled “Is Joaquin Phoenix the New Andy Kaufman?” Good question. And one to which I don’t ever intend to find out the answer. Not getting a click from me on that one.
Most “bloggers” and other New Media mavens I know actually want newspapers to survive and thrive — in some form or another. It would be nice if newspaper media columnists returned the favor and didn’t imply that most online producers of content were jag-off Joe the Plumbers. It’s not true and it’s quite insulting. And it more importantly, it adds absolutely nothing to an honest and open search to how we can make journalism work in a radically shifting media environment.
I don’t think the hard-working reporters at the Times would very much enjoy being lumped together with, say, former and fully discredited New York Times reporter Judith Miler who acted as a reliable and direct transmission belt to help lie this country into a catastrophic war. Jim Rainey is no Judith Miller, fortunately. And most online web folks are NOT like Joe the Plumber.
If you’ve got, say, a half hour with nothing to do, you can hear the full talk I gave titled “The End of Journalism?” last week at the Los Angeles Institute for the Humanities. It gets good at the end when I start sniffling!
February 12th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Marc, most excellent. I’ll be succinct.
Familiar points, well illumed. Good show, well cohesed riposte. Agree fully.
regards and salutations,
-Omar
February 12th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Mea culpa, I didn’t read the piece, but I think there’s a fair point – that as you note also applies to “real” – i.e. paid and presumably trained in some fashion – journalists. There are many of them out there who “play” journalist (hint: turn on your cable news channels) and any enterprise that has some pretense of covering or commenting on current affairs is going to have to win an audience.
The fact is that, while most blogs obviously suck, so do most newspapers – even most major metro ones (I won’t mention any names – “Bay Area”…oooops) which is far more disgraceful than the fact that Joe the Plumber is an idiot or some LaLaland schmuck who apparently can’t get his screenplays produced anymore sent him to Israel to taunt Israeli reporters.
The truth is what Judith Miller did to the reputation of the New York Times is worse than anything anyone could do to the reputation of PJMania. And I’m a faithful reader of the Times, which is IMHO the only printed paper left in the US worth reading or that serves as a truly global information resource – although other “old media” resources such as the McClatchy Bureau (ironically a chain of small city papers whose reporting I’d take over the LA Times or Chicago Tribune in a minute) and the Christian Science Monitor – now web-based – provide some excellent journalism. WSJ is obviously a very mixed, erratic bag.
So yes, “nuevo” journalism has to prove itself. And at this point I’d consider Josh Marshall/TPM a pro operation, not an amateur blogger, precisely because they have proven themselves. It should also be noted that some of the best political and general commentary blogs are operations that have been adopted by “professional” journalistic enterprises like Washington Monthly, American Prospect, the Atlantic and Mother Jones. And the Washington Post snatched up some very good talent from TPM, while TPM hired a well-known professional journalist away from Time. So these are not totally seperate worlds anymore in the upper echelons. Also various web operations serve different purposes – Kos is an attempt to organize, energize a political network, while TPM is a news-investigative site with clear political leanings (although it’s sub-site TPM-Cafe is an effort to create an interactive blogging community.)
It’s an interesting world – one in which an upstart “blogger” (in fact, a paid reporter who files very respectable copy) for the crazy-quilt (and I mean that in a good way) Huffington Post asks an incisive, challenging question at the Obama press conference and some serious, schooled sage from the Washington Post grins and asks the President about A-Rod in the midst of the most serious economic crisis in decades and two wars. So, yeah, people have to earn respect in their chosen field, earn their audience, demonstrate their skill and evolve sustainable business models – some of which will be non-traditional in the evolving wired media world, such as non-profits – if they want to work full-time and be paid. Who knew ?
February 12th, 2009 at 6:59 am
If it is true that nature abhors a vacuum, then the demise of print media, the loss of broadcast viewers, and the rise of citizen journalists is easily understood. And, choice (that bedrock of the free-market to which Rainey alludes) is the motivator for the conditions he finds so threatening.
What I find so offensive in Rainey’s lament is his reference to the presumptive needs of a democracy. It’s hard for me to imagine a democracy that could be more poorly served than by the press that we have now.
I got directed to this piece by a commenter in a thread of a different blog yesterday. MJ Rosenberg was describing the interchange between Obama and Helen Thomas. Ms. Thomas had the audacity to ask, does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes? Obama didn’t answer with what every marginally intelligent blog reader knows; Israel. And, why not? Rosenberg asserts,
Our folly in the middle east is a critical issue for this democratic society in which we presume to participate. And, long before we were pouring dollars into the gaping maw of the banks, we were pouring dollars into the military adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, before that Israel. Dollars we can ill afford.
I’d be most pleased if I could find a decent discussion of our middle east policies in Rainey’s newspaper. Maybe he could step up and see if he could discuss Israel within the context of nuclear proliferation the next time someone decides it’s time to get hysterical over Iran.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Why Newspapers Are Dying
Because they earned it and deserve it.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:18 am
What Newspapers Could Do
Be more entertaining and be real…like these news guys.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I think of Timothy Crouse’s quote in The Boys on the Bus that if David Broder, who was then a journalist and not the pale shadow of a journalist he has since become, quit The Washington Post and put out a political tip sheet on a mimeograph machine, everyone would read it. That, to some degree, has come to pass, via the internet, that it makes it possible for someone to be a journalist without the good restrictions of careful editing–which doesn’t seem to exist in most of today’s dailies anyway–and the bad restrictions that daily newspapers put on their reporters. The sneering at bloggers is deserved when the bloggers are being stupid or just fulminating without knowing the facts (for example, some of the stuff on Fire Dog Lake). But that makes them no different than serial propagandists like George Will and accessories to murder like William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, whom the mainstream media continue to lionize. That helps explain, too, why newspapers are dying: their hubris and disdain for the truth.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am
“accessories to murder like William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer”
The world would be a better place – and the world of journalism would be raising its standards – if Michael Green, of whom the only thing I know is that he shows up periodically to comment at Marc’s blog, was put in charge of the Washington Post editorial page.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Why Newspaper are Dying — great column Marc (and excellent points Listener & reg, too).
This recession thingy has hit our household, in re news and media. In the past month my girlfriend and I decided that some things had to go. Cable subcription — nixed. Hello Hulu Free TV. 75 cents for the LA Times — don’t they realize that that’s a serious problem with one’s ability to horde away laundry quarters. Reading it on line without the burden of recycling.
Not having the quick access of the remote to dial in cable news had created some withdrawal cravings, but those passed within a few days. On the other hand, our Bookmark Menus have gotten very, very long. There’s piles of good stuff out there. We’ve got our favorites well honed.
Imo, a few of the newspapers have actually gotten better by adding the on line component, even as they financially suffer at the news racks. The Detroit Free Press is a good example (although to be honest, having a huge target like the human crime wave that was Mayor Kilpatrick probably made it easier.) Meanwhile the venerable Cleveland Plain Dealer seems to have slipped quite a bit.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Rob G–one way to at least delay the day when you stop spending 75 cents for the LAT is to find a machine that takes nickels, dimes, even pennies. This is a good way to drain the change jar (or sock, or…) My machine takes “any coin combination,” One problem with the resort to the on-line medium is that I don’t think you get Sudoku or crossword that way.
As for Mr. Rainey, he is no doubt conscious that today’s “real” journalist is tomorrow’s “citizen” journalist. Even as he waves the flag for the former, he is one bad corporate quarter from the latter. I’m sure he has been in touch with his former colleagues who have been crushed under the weight of the free market economy. That said, he seems to be fending off “survivor’s guilt” rather successfully.
Myself, I preserve my amateur status zealously.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Michael — you might have a good hunch about Mr. Rainey’s survival guilt.
http://games.latimes.com/
Unfortunately the LAT racks only take quarters. Wish it weren’t so.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
The newspaper business can still be lucrative, if one is bold and creative.
http://www.inyork.com/state/ci_11582202
February 12th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Rob G – if you’ve quit watching cable TV I guarantee your IQ will go up at least 7-8 points – maybe as much as 15.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
But, Reg…Rachel Maddow makes me think!
February 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
i can relate to rainey’s frustration, but kicking dirt at bloggers misses the point, as you point out. most news-related blogs are solo or small group efforts, and provide the response part in a call-and-response with news as it’s reported around the world. most offer opinion about facts that a blogger has collected from original reporting. a few – like huffington post (at the obama press conference, for instance) – do original reporting; perhaps the seeds of some new paradigm can be found there.
but as paper after paper close out-of-town (or local, for that matter) bureaus, there is less original reporting happening – with no end in sight as the bleeding continues. for instance today i read at laobserved.com that the chicago trib is shutting its jerusalem bureau. while citizen journalists in israel can (and will) provide text and video reporting in the future, this is rarely a substitute for journalists employed by a news organization – especially at news-worthy moments when emotions are running high. it doesn’t mean that citizen j’s are bad – they add an amazing new element to how we can understand events in the world. but they shouldn’t be depended upon to substitute for what we’ve had in the past – especially if they want to be.
the problem is two-fold: there’s a question of training – the quality of the reporting. and there’s money, because it takes $$ to underwrite investigation, to sustain a reporter, etc.
the staff of an endeavor like neon-tommy – j-students, i think – can fill some holes in l.a., because it’s got a staff whose business it is to stay on top of things. but on larger, far-flung issues and events, we – readers or all kinds, bloggers, you, and me – depend on news organizations that sponsor, screen, and distribute content.
i attended the november conference at usc – slow food or slow journalism, or whatever it was called. and it was hopeful as far as promoting a focused, diy approach to the future of journalism. but i felt it still left a lot of questions unanswered when it comes to floating important ventures, no matter how sharp the insights or how strong the will of any individual.
February 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Listened to your talk, good job Marc.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Rob G–thanks, I think, for the link to Sudoku. Now I have access to another distraction here at work.
At least some of our LAT machines take all coins.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
jim h – Rachel panders to a better class of viewers. I like her earnestness, but the more I watch her show the more I feel like I can predict every angle. Even her quips. And I can’t stand watching Olberman, except when I’m in the mood for humor (sometimes unintentional) and Stewart isn’t on. I’m not saying absolutely all TV opining is utterly stupid, but Rob can get Bill Moyers – who actually does engage in provocative discussions – with rabbit ears.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
reg Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Rob G – if you’ve quit watching cable TV I guarantee your IQ will go up at least 7-8 points – maybe as much as 15.
(nicked from Frank Rich NYT 2/15/08…talking to Axelrod in re Obama getting the Stimulus passed)
“It’s why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago,” he said. “We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer of ’07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star; his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the national polls.” But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, “everyone in D.C. thought we were committing suicide.”
The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he says. Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”
For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”
Doggone it, I feel smarter already.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
[...] political-strategist/mid-east-tell-it-like-it-is-ist/reporter. (Blogfather, Marc Cooper has already ripped Rainey’s column to shreds quite [...]
July 4th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’m in the advertising end of the “dying newspapers”. I have was laid off 3 times last year and I have finally hung up my shingles from the print media and internet news advertising business. I found a pretty good job outside of it and yes there is life outside of it. I have found in the advertising side of it that businessmen and private party people are less interested in the news then they are in the
affectiveness or the results end of advertising their products. “That is will it sell my products and create a profit for me”. Used to be a time when people bought newspapers only for the advertisements and coupons but they have stopped doing that too. I think the newspapers have outpriced themselves in the cost of classified and display so much that businesses and private party can’t afford the ads. As far the news end of it, people have stopped reading papers because newspaper are only interested in pleasing their investors instead of the consumers. They are much too afraid of making their stockholders angry! So, that takes care of the free speech end of it cause it doesn’t exist anymore. The LA Times and The New York Times as well as other papers have become little kingdoms, The Chicago Tribune is one of them and they own Newsday and The LA Times as well as other newspapers and media groups. These newspapers can’t even control what is happening in their own localities so how can they control what is happening in another part of the country. In my opinion, it wasn’t only the internet that caused their downfall, it was more their arrogants in thinking that they could become giant corporations to solve all their problems. In reality that is why they couldn’t even watch their journalists because the CEOs were too busy making statistical charts instead of watching the real meat and potatoes of reporting the news and creating more cost effective advertsing.