In this new information market, news organization must stop acting like a monopoly and instead adopt and amplify a more powerful editorial voice.
Without one, a news organization cannot stand out. It can’t inspire the public with leadership that it does not provide. Nor can it protect the public with clear direction that it refuses to offer. What’s the point of reading then? None. So angry, frustrated readers have turned to other news voices. Bored, indifferent readers have turned to other sources of engagement.
The market has turned, and the current way of doing business won’t keep many of us in business much longer. But that doesn’t mean news organizations must abandon journalistic principles. They simply need to refocus on principles we should have been aspiring to all along — such as accuracy, truth and justice.
Our reports must be factually accurate. Those facts must point to a larger, enduring truth. And, most importantly, we must accept the responsibility to demand action upon that truth, in the pursuit of justice.
In short, the news industry must become far more active, learning from online colleagues like Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas, who are not afraid to make the connection between news reporting and civic activism.
So when a writer likes the L.A. Times’ George Skelton makes the case that California’s requirement that two-thirds of its Legislature vote to pass a budget is the culprit killing the state’s finances, don’t just leave his reporting at that. Or wait around for someone else to do something about it. The Times should take the leadership in agitating to get rid of that requirement. Start a Facebook group: “One Million Californians for Majority Rule” or something like that. Assign a reporter to cover Skelton’s work and the online response. Create an echo chamber for this point of view; get the public riled up.
That’s what makes a publication vital. That’s what draws public attention. That’s what engages readers and builds circulation.
But it all must flow from solid reporting. That is what will distinguish valuable news organizations of today and tomorrow from hacks and propaganda outlets like Fox News, which base their activism upon ideology, not evidence.
A more activist approach toward the news would set a much-needed example for the folks in the management suite, as well. Vital newsrooms will need more active management, leaders who can foresee and adjust to changes in the market.
Don’t take my words today as a suggestion. Or as a prediction how things might turn out to be. This is the future of the news industry. Let there be no doubt. Activist news organizations, ones that engage, inspire and mobilize their readership, will be the ones that survive this downturn. Passive newsrooms will die. Prepare for this future, or prepare for your exit from this industry.
Jeff, nicely said.
The are several keys to me from the Niles piece:
-it all starts with solid reporting. i think we all know what that means, but maybe not.
-engage readers.
-demand action.
It’s great to read writers with passion, like Robert Niles. They are a breath of fresh air after the staleness of the old-school newspaper protocol. But impassioned writers have some drawbacks, too.
Whether one agrees with Niles or not, the dynamics of the Internet strongly suggest that we’ve moved back into a kind of historic "multi-outlet" market, like we had in the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when many newspapers served each city. In those days daily papers had clear positions, and reported with passion; and we’re not talking about TWO sides to a question, but many sides.
But Niles makes it sound like all those reporters, editors and publishers naturally brought us fairness, truth, justice. Naw. They argued, with lots of bias, sometimes with conflicts of interest, sometimes with corruption. Niles’ glosses this part, and that worries me.
Nevertheless, bloggers are reviving the tradition of reporting with passion. And when they cover stuff in that way, they bring a dogged persistence that showcases and emphasizes their conclusions and all but screams their calls to action (even if these are only implied). These voices demand the reader take a side; they say it matters where you stand; they confirm that our opinions matter and that there’s meaning in all this. Meaning? Passion?
Bring it on.
… as long as we can retain empathy and tolerance. Then we’ll be fine and democracy will flourish. However, without empathy and tolerance, beware the mob.
And as human societies get more complex in their interactions, democracy is the only system with a complex (distributed) enough feedback system to maintain stability.
I do think that Niles glosses over the problems of propagandists, who appeal to the lizard-brain in each and everyone of us, which can whip us into a mild-meld in a flash and result in dark, unconscious madness. The openness of the Internet, and the predisposition of human nature will likely mean that the Internet will have a surfeit of propagandists, making the net very noisy and confusing indeed. Perhaps we’ll ultimately wind up back at a situation where a few gatekeepers control the larger public opinion, as people beg for someone to make order out of the cacophony.
That said, I’m a firm believer in the crucible of LOCAL FOCUS (in contrast to the mind-numbing media-obsession that’s pompously presented as national and international coverage). It’s at the local level that people really learn who is speaking; where the actors are more than stereotypes; where ideology pales in the face of real-world complexities. At the micro-local level, whether Niles is right or wrong (or whatever mix of the two), we locals will find our way.
Out of that local crucible, I’m hoping, larger networks will grow, but always rooted in and nourished by the local experience. We may eventually be able to come together in a stable global system, but not without frequent, impassioned, daily local debates, dances and struggles.
And that’s my unbalanced, impassioned opinion. (I could be wrong lots of times here.)