New Media

I know this is probably a violation of blogging etiquette, or at least bad form, but I am going to elevate what is probably a comment discussion to post status. Yesterday I wrote a piece about the 'new media' and the Tribune's attempts to move into it. I received two thoughtful posts, and would like to respond to each.

First, Wolfpack posted here.

Wolfpack's main point is that many blogs have posters or commenters with specialized knowledge beyond that of the 'typical' Tribune reporter. He states: "A Tribune reporter at best is a journalism major who may or may not have even talked to an expert and may be reporting on topics that they don’t fully understand. This is why many readers find inaccuracies when reading stories about issues they have a high degree of knowledge in." (Although I am sure Tribune reporters would never end their sentences with prepositions.)

I think Wolfpack's point is mostly valid. Nothing against journalism majors, but is it really fair to expect them to write intelligently about subjects that others spend years studying? Beyond the most cursory analysis of some complicated issues, I think they are necessarily reliant upon others for much substantive knowledge. (Interestingly, one can contrast this thought with their own self-image. I am reminded of the editorials that appear with some regularity explaining why the Editorial Board chooses to make political endorsements. Invariably they refer to the fact that they are involved in the news business as giving them greater knowledge about such things. The perceiver and the perceived, and all that.)

Can we expect a reporter to know and understand the law relating to covenants not to compete? Can we expect a reporter to even know what questions to ask?

This is not intended as a put down of reporters generally. Many do an excellent job, and I believe it is probably extremely difficult to acquire information from divergent sources and distill it into something that is readable and contains a reasonable level of completeness.

Then, Rooster posted here.

Rooster made a few points. First, he disagreed with what he thought to be my premise that that newspapers in general, and specifically the Tribune, will fail in the long run. That was not what I intended, but I will discuss the future below. He likes newspapers (and so do I).

Second, Rooster's main argument holds against what he considers inaccurate press. He points out that blogging is all well and good, and is a good backstop for the 'mainstream media,' but asserts that journalists are paid to get the story right.

I agree with Rooster too. I am uncertain why a few local bloggers can dig deeper into the coal plant story on their spare time than the Tribune does. In other words, bloggers stories seem based not just on the interviews that the Tribune so thoughtfully conducts for them, but also on digging up the references to the actual materials, the contracts, the meeting minutes, etc. Then the bloggers seem to be asking the harder questions while the real reporters' stories seem based more on conversations with parties.

A clear example can be found in a coal plant story. Ms. Balzarini and Mr. Lawton were asked about the City's plans to sell power to the residents. They have repeatedly stated that they would like to offer power to the residents as an alternative. Ms. Balzarini wrote in the Tribune that "the City has not made a final decision" on the issue. Yet, a local legislator sponsored a bill that would require local residents to buy their power from Electric City Power. Why did the Tribune's reporter not press local officials on that point during his interview?

But enough of all that. The real point of the post yesterday was to try and prompt discussion about where it is all going. I do not believe that newspapers will vanish anytime soon.

Let's turn the discussion on its head for a moment. Instead of thinking about the online future of print journalism, what about the print future of online journalism?

Consider the business model. From the Tribune's perspective, it has a large base of paying customers and advertisers. Due to market demand, it has moved into the online field. At this point, it acquires some new customers who largely receive Tribune services for free. It offers new services to existing customers without additional revenue, and gains some advertising income, although my guess is that this revenue pales with its print advertising revenue.

How about the blogger, though? He or she has a relatively small base of customers (readers) who receive the blogger's 'services' for free. He or she may have some relatively small stream of advertising revenue. If the blogger takes his or her act into the print realm, though, there is a huge market of potential customers who might pay for the product as well as improved opportunities to gain advertising revenue.

If you were looking into the future, what business model would you choose?

And let's take the idea a step further. What if, as Wolfpack points out, the 'reporters' for the print version of the blog are essentially the participants (or at least experts) in the stories? Would such stories not be at least as credible as what we are buying today?

And, perhaps, the 'print blogger' might even be able to convince the participants to write by offering them anonymity. For example, what if you could buy a printed version of a blog with an emphasis on the Benefis/Clinic dispute. What if, in addition to the blogger's story, there was a story from an individual identified only as a manager at Benefis, and another from a person identified only as a Clinic physician. Would you, the reader, be able to sort out the biases of the various writers and reach your own conclusions? Would you be receiving information that is better than what you are receiving now?

If you think about it, this is really not all that different from what is being done currently, except that we are removing one possible source of bias: the intermediary. Reporters get their stories from sources, anonymous or not, and then cull them down to a final product. Why not eliminate the culling and let the readers decide the credibility?

I used to sit on the Tribune's Readers' Panel. At one point I asked why the reporters did not use the internet more for background or information on which to base skepticism. The response was that, on the internet, you're never really sure about the quality of the information you are receiving. Well, frankly, I am long past the day when I would consider the AP as an ironclad source about anything.

Isn't disclosure better? Provide the information and let the reader 'consider the source.' That is, essentially, what we are all doing already on the internet.

Maybe that is the new media: we are all the journalists.

Someone please explain to me why I am full of it.