Investigative Journalism Done Better, Faster And Cheaper Without Newspapers
from the let's-get-real dept
There have been a series of ridiculous articles lately claiming that, with the collapse of some newspapers recently, somehow investigative reporting and local coverage won't work, meaning an era of corruption and the collapse of democracy. Fortunately, some are demonstrating the fallacies underlying these proclamations of doom.Jay Rosen has been running an interesting experiment trying to find out just how many truly local stories an average newspaper includes in its paper, between all the national wire service stories. A look through a recent Seattle Times issue showed a grand total of seven locally produced stories. And a look at an issue of the Chicago Tribune found a total of eight locally produced stories. We're not talking about huge numbers here.
And, in fact, the finding of eight stories in the Trib comes from Geoff Dougherty, a guy who created quite a stir in newspaper circles when he claimed he could provide the equivalent (or better) local coverage of the Chicago Tribune for just $2 million a year, and provided the spreadsheet to back it up. And he's not just talking in theory. He's doing it. Today. For much less than the Tribune (which is bankrupt).
He's not the only one either. Talking Points Memo has been quite successful with its investigative reporting, which does a lot to leverage its community to help out in the process, while still employing full time journalists who are doing tremendous investigative reporting -- which should only improve as better tools are created to enable more to be done. The first link in this paragraph also discusses another example, the Voice of San Diego, which does local investigative reporting, and was funded by a bunch of local businesses that felt there wasn't enough investigative reporting locally.
Those who say that this can't be done apparently aren't looking around. Sure, some of these experiments may fail, but it's about time we got rid of two myths:
- Myth 1: Newspapers put tons of money and resources into investigative journalism. They don't. And never have.
- Myth 2: Only newspapers can do investigative journalism.
I was on a panel recently for journalists and PR people, and someone raised their hand to ask how people could "put the genie back in the bottle and charge for information again." The problem is that the question itself is wrong. There's no genie and there never was a bottle. People have never paid for the news. Newspapers never spent that much on investigative reporting, and they rarely did a particularly good job of it, other than an occasional big story in an attempt to win a Pulitzer. People can pine about that mythical genie and bottle, or they can start focusing on all the opportunity out there that will be coming out of some of these (or other) experiments.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: investigative journalism, journalism, local news
Companies: chi town daily news, talking points memo, voice of san diego
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We aren't talking Watergate, more like leaky water main. But there is actual content out there that isn't 5 paragraph news.
That being said, I am sure that if you remove all over the overhead of operating a news room, all the built up union expense, the building, the staff, the editors, the proof readers, and all those other expenses, that yes, you could do more with the same money or the same with less money. That is obvious.
What isn't obvious is what journalistic standards would be applied. One of the keys in print media is that a certain amount of time is taken to check and re-check the articles, by an editor (city or section, depending on how it works at a given place), spelling and grammar checked with a proof reader, and so on. Reporters can't run a story without backup, quotes, checked sources, etc.
The internet is easy, because just like this site, you can express your opinion around the news and make the story anything you want it to be. Most of the internet is opinion, not pure fact and double checked sources. So investigative journalism might happen, but will there be anything to back it up, any way for the public to be confident that the material is a reflection of reality, and not a smear campaign? Matt Drudge is one of the pioneers of internet "news hording" and investigative journalism, but because he answers only to his conservative advertisers, his site is mostly packed with news and opinions slanted in one way only. Is it really news, is it really journalism, or just a nice way to couch opinion in a way that people think it's the truth?
The newspaper masthead actually counts for something, it's a question of trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
.
.
.
Heckle!
.
.
.
Shoot, I think I'm doing it wrong. Hey weird harold, what's the best way to heckle a putz?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As long as the trust isn't lost over time as it has been for a lot of news outlets.
A good commenting option on a news site would help with the trust since anyone could comment on an incorrect part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Investigative Journalists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is #1 serious?
Who is naive enough to believe newspapers are actually about the _truth_? They're about a convenient truth.
BTW is he REALLY that worried about the lack of copydesk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And newspapers aren't guilty of the same thing? Try reading the New York Times then tell me they don't spin opinion as factual news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a problem...
>It's simple. The new news organization doesn't have an advice columnist, a suburban bureau, an auto writer, or a fashion critic. It does one thing, and it does it better than anyone else: Provide Chicago residents with the information they need to make smart decisions about public affairs.
Where they are wrong is in thinking that the public actually CARES about the local criminal reports or board meetings. They don't. That stuff is boring to most people.
Most people read the advice columnist, suburban writer, auto writer, sports writer, fashion critic, movie reviews, comics, etc.
Sounds like they can have the boringest newspaper in Chicago for only $2 million per year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I see a problem...
something tech dirt should have checked on perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a problem...
Sounds like they can have the boringest newspaper in Chicago for only $2 million per year.
Why would I pay for opinions about live, suburban activities, cars, sports, fashion, movies, comics, books, or anything else? Everyone and their dog has an opinion, a blog, and the inclination to make the two combine in a way that's just as interesting as the paid version.
Seriously, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why would it be any different for electronic media? If they run trash and don't check their facts, you don't read them and they fail.
The Print media sphere is full of useless garbage as well, a la Weekly World News, National Enquirer, etc. Are you going to claim these publications have integrity because they put ink on paper?
No matter the delivery method, it's still up to the user to separate fact from fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalistic Standards
I say it isn't realy an issue at all. If I decide that techdirt is worthless then I know Mike Masnick is to blame and I'll avoid reading his work or listening to him speak. Same for actual news reporting sites. The authors are real people working a real job. Just because they don't print the article doesn't mean it isn't fact checked and peer reviewed. In fact if errors escape to the article published online, then commentors can point it out and the atricle can be fixed in minutes. Did the author overlook a significant fact? commentors point it out and the article is improved (by the comment alone or by a revision). Make a huge mistake? Print a retraction in hours, remove the offending article (or fix it) even faster.
And then you see things that can't be done in print. Write an article about a bank robbery and include security videos, audio from 911 calls, full transcripts of witness interviews, artistic renditions of the perps that update as more information is gathered. Write something later that references the robbery? Include a link to the previous article.
Only downsides that seems to stand up to scrutiny?
1) I'll need to find something else to pack by glassware in when I move
2) Paper and Ink is a little easier on the eyes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalistic Standards
One of the things if you watch Mike's posts here is that his supporting evidence is often other people's opinion columns and even his own posts. Now imagine 200 sites quoting techdirt, and 200 other sites quoting each of those sites, and so on. Mike's information is a mix of fact, opinion, and a chosen perspective on copyright. If that gets spread around enough, people may actually take it as fact rather than the personal point of view it really is.
Mike doesn't have to submit his posts to an editor, or a fact checker, or have someone make sure that the story is balanced or fair. Anyone who reads the blogs knows it. But there is strong chance he is quoted elsewhere, and that site may lead it's readers to think it is fact.
Repeat a lie often enough, and people will start thinking it is the truth. Repeat an opinion often enough, and people will start thinking it is reality.
Oh yeah, all those things about the robbery can already be done on broadcast video. Nothing new there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalistic Standards
Ahh, so that's what Weird Harold is up to. Makes sense now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myth 1 isn't completely true
Before that, reporters had to investigate news just to know what was going on. In doing that, they uncovered many things companies and politicians and others didn't want to be found out. However, once the press release was created, reporters found it was better to take that and modify it as an article than do their own digging.
That also began the era of PR officers within companies trained to spin. They handled the questions from reporters and gave them answers that would suffice, relieving the reporter from digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Myth 1 isn't completely true
In the pre-PR-age, did reporters mostly talk to company officers (board members, executives)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding the Jay Rosen Tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding the Jay Rosen Tweet
Actually, skimming the stories at
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/feb/23/local
I find even fewer than 8 truly local Chicago stories there. Oh sure, there are more than 8 stories there, but most of them aren't actually "local", unless you consider places like Florida to be "local" to Chicago. Talk about misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regarding the Jay Rosen Tweet
Here's the list from the link I provided, culled down to only stories written by Tribune staff that day. Take away the columns and the stories about the Oscars that day, and you still have a lot more than eight stories about Chicago. And yes, I do count sports, because well, this is just a hunch, but stories about Bears, Cubs, and White Sox probably do count as news that Chicagoans care about. Is sports as important as investigative reporting? Of course not. But look at Chi-Town Daily News' content, and you'll see that not all their stuff is investigative reporting either. And look at the site's Chicago News section and note the dates on the stories, http://tinyurl.com/cy45qa. I went back as far as 10 days, and none of the days had eight stories. Most ranged anywhere from two to six or seven.
The other point about this is that even Geoff Dougherty specified that his count of eight were "local news stories". Somehow that has been turned into "locally produced stories", which is not the same thing. The former refers to a specific category of stories, while the latter makes it sound like the entire Tribune staff only produced eight stories that day. This matters if we are measuring the production capacity and budget of the two enterprises. The latter statement implies that the two organizations are producing the same number of stories with vastly differently budgets, when in reality the Tribune is producing a lot more stories with its bigger budget. We can argue that the Tribune should shift more of its resources toward a particular category of stories, and that's fine, but we can't distort the statement to say that the Tribune is producing less or no more than a competitor w/ a much smaller budget. I'm not trying to put down Chi-Town Daily News' work. I'm just pointing out that while we can debate what kind of stories the Tribune should do, what's not up for debate is that its bigger budget does result in more stories.
* Shirley Mottl, 1927-2009: Sang in clubs as Sheryl Lea in the 1960s and ’70s By Jeff Long | Story
* New research offers hope for finding pancreatic cancer early By Robert Mitchum | Story
* Shaping Chicago: U. of C. medical school official mentors minority students By Lolly Bowean | Story
* On different pages when it comes to race By Dawn Turner Trice | Column
* Whispers not rattling Bears’ Nathan Vasher By Vaughn Mcclure | Story
* Phoenix rises with defense By Bob Sakamoto | Story
* Brent Lillibridge hopes speed fills need on White Sox By Mark Gonzales | Story
* Ready or not, here comes Tiger Woods By Rick Morrissey | Column
* Bears’ search for safety likely bypasses Lawyer Milloy By Vaughn Mcclure | Story
* Baseball scouts’ honor under fire in kickback scheme in Dominican Republic By Oscar Avila and Todd Lighty | Story
* Illinois defensive tackle suspended indefinitely By Terry Bannon | Story
* Fighting Illini shoot their way past Ohio State By Terry Bannon | Story
* Former White Sox executive David Wilder has seen a big change in fortunes By Oscar Avila and Todd Lighty | Story
* Peaceful, easy training for Cubs this year By Paul Sullivan | Story
* U.S.’ success in winter sports bubbling over By Philip Hersh | Column
* Ex-Sox official Wilder suffers major change of fortune By Oscar Avila and Todd Lighty | Story
Rant raises profile of CNBC on-air personality Rick Santelli By Phil Rosenthal and Tribune Media Columnist | February 23, 2009 | Story
* Chicago law firm to cut partner, associate pay by 10% By Ameet Sachdev | Story
* Losses pull curtain back on illusory gains By Greg Burns | Column
* Pop Rocks seller in a fizzy over alleged imitator By Steve Schmadeke | Story
* Trade shows turning to the Web By Eric Benderoff | Story
* Daughter frets over Mom’s toxic marriage By Amy Dickinson | Column
* Jackman brings the pizazz By Maureen Ryan | Story
* New format, host are unable to rescue a plodding telecast By Maureen Ryan | Story
* Mickey Rourke wins Independent Spirit award for ‘Wrestler’ By Mark Caro | Story
* Behind the scenes with Oscar By Mark Caro | Story
* James Earl Jones narrates a fervent ‘Lincoln Portrait’ with CSO By John Von Rhein | Story
* Robots to take over by 2045? Sorry, that does not compute By John Keilman | Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regarding the Jay Rosen Tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What people care about
As someone who works at a local newspaper, I can tell you that crime news and board meetings are almost always the most-read stories in our paper. Though, that's probably only because we don't track the Obituaries on the website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
It seems like most of the people bitching here don't a) read newspapers or b) understand how journalism works.
Matt Drudge didn't break anything, he just went with a story without getting additional corroboration. It's a choice, but also one that could have backfired and been wrong. But then again, if he had been wrong, "Hey, I'm just a Web site ...
As for people fleeing places with wrong information -- nope, they stay if they like their slant. Hence people reading Masick's stuff. I mean, he really hates the MSM. Why? Heck if I know. Maybe the j-school kids wouldn't let him play their reindeer games.
But there are at least 13 or so people who agree that the MSM is evil, biased, elitist and anything else that sounds interesting.
Yes, "news" will become more opinion masquerading as fact because that's easy to do. Spending all day calling, digging, reading through SEC filings, takes time and effort, it's not easy to post more than once a day. (And to not be paid for it except by 5 cent clicks? Not a lot of takers.) As a full-time journalist I could do once a day, twice a day on light days -- but it definitely takes up time.
Then the fact-checking, the constant calls to make sure everything's correct before it goes live ... it's not for everyone. Everyone who has a blog cannot do it. Some may be able to, those that are well-funded or have a sugarmama/daddy....but we'll see.
The only good thing I see out of this, once journalism goes down to BlogTown, is that eventually there will be a desire for real journalism again and $$$ for it.
It's all evolution, Weird Harold. Plus, hard times are innovative times.
Anyway, mediawhore that I am, I now work at a bloggityblogblog -- which, I can honestly say, is way less work for the money -- but I'm riding this gravy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
You mean, how it used to work? Back in the day?
As for people fleeing places with wrong information -- nope, they stay if they like their slant. Hence people reading Masick's stuff.
Like yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
Huh? I don't hate the mainstream media at all. What gives you that idea? I have nothing against them at all, and want them to thrive. That's why I keep pointing out examples of how they can create better business models, while steering them away from bad business models.
I think many of the big media publications do quality reporting work, and that's great. A lot of what we write here is built on their reporting.
I'm confused, as a supposedly "recovering journalist" how you could possibly read what I write and claim I "hate the MSM." Yikes.
But there are at least 13 or so people who agree that the MSM is evil, biased, elitist and anything else that sounds interesting.
I actually don't think that at all either. I think people who scream about media bias are being silly.
Why are you projecting on me false statements?
Then the fact-checking, the constant calls to make sure everything's correct before it goes live ... it's not for everyone. Everyone who has a blog cannot do it. Some may be able to, those that are well-funded or have a sugarmama/daddy....but we'll see.
Again, did anyone say otherwise? But did you not notice that all of the sites I'm talking about do real reporting, with fact-checking and real editors? Or did you not even read at all (quite a journalist you must have been!) and simply assume what was written? No one's talking about some random blogger replacing newspapers.
So why build the strawman?
Anyway, mediawhore that I am, I now work at a bloggityblogblog -- which, I can honestly say, is way less work for the money -- but I'm riding this gravy train.
Huh. So you're basically admitting what a bad journalist you are. Fantastic. Why should the platform matter? If you were a real journalist it doesn't make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
The reason journalism is in such a state today, and most businesses, is because it's now mostly owned by highly leveraged corporations.
Corporations a) aren't known for their innovation, but instead have layers of management who are not creatives (hence why most laid off employees are not in management but grunt workers who don't make that much) b) are interested in creating a higher profit margin year after year for investors, come hell or high water even if it makes no long-term sense, c) journalism execs, as a whole, fail to understand the Internet, web publishing and taking the steps to create the most cost-effective means to achieve reasonable goals. (I mean, if they even knew what their goals were, which they don't.)
Add the immense debt that most corporations are under, there's no room to even be creative with money like they could before. No credit, no loans -- desperate times. Hoard your gold!
Anyway, love that some journalists are still out there sparring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
You're quite the journalist. I point out how you're 100% wrong in your claim (i.e. "Mike hates MSM journalists!") and you don't bother responding at all. You ignore that you were wrong and jump on something totally different. Beautiful.
And what better business models are those, Masinick?
Apparently you don't read this site very much. If you're lazy, I'm not here to do work for you.
The reason journalism is in such a state today, and most businesses, is because it's now mostly owned by highly leveraged corporations.
I don't disagree with that being a part of it, but that's hardly the only reason.
Anyway, love that some journalists are still out there sparring.
Sparring? Geeze...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
I mean, you're kind of tech, but you're really more of a marketing guy. Those aren't the guys with the real ideas, they're more just the evangelists of the real ideas made up by some other guys.
Secondly, you have to be of some interest for me to cover you as a journalist. Thirdly, simply because I ignore you doesn't mean I agree or disagree, I'm just ignoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
Some of us are doing just fine. You're not? Well... perhaps that's your fault.
Yes, like every other "business consultant" you can claim to have a "better business model," or "system that works," or whatever spin you want on it.
I'm not a business consultant. Never have been. A real journalist might have checked that, wouldn't he?
I mean, you're kind of tech, but you're really more of a marketing guy.
Huh? What does that mean? And what does that have to do with anything?
Secondly, you have to be of some interest for me to cover you as a journalist.
Again, huh?!? Trust me, I don't want you to cover me.
Thirdly, simply because I ignore you doesn't mean I agree or disagree, I'm just ignoring.
But, you're not. What you "ignored" was me proving you totally wrong. Ignoring that isn't about "agreeing or disagreeing." It's about your credibility. Of which you apparently have none.
No wonder you're a failed journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
People who dismiss or are just ignorant of the time, effort and overhead needed to do quality journalism also probably think the FDA wastes way too much time verifying if food and drugs are safe for us, or don't see why it takes years for solid academic research to be defended and published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good God, you guys are worse than Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
Ah, I love it. So no one can comment on the *economics* of journalism unless they're a journalist?
Let me ask you, has the author of the comment (since you seemed unwilling to call me out by name, I'll do the same for you) about business model journalism ever run a publication company? Does he have a degree in business or economics? If so, provide us some examples.
See how dumb that is? To say that those who understand economics and business can't comment on the *business* of investigative journalism unless we've done investigative journalism seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
So... now... did you have any response to the *actual* points raised in the post? Or do you want to deny that those other publications are doing investigative journalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigative reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real journalists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the truth
The feds, prosecutors, and judge finally admit and conclude amid all set forth charges that Petru Cladovan is and was innocent AND ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED today 3/30/2010. Petru Cladovan was found that he never had intent and/or knowledge of any bribes and all accusation were misinterpretation of twisted perfected lies by so called "expeditor", who was forced to start operating, as a mole with the feds, and with whom orchestrated this entrapment only to reduce her possible charges sentence of 130yrs if convicted. This same "expeditor" ironically under oath admitted and testified that Petru Cladovan had no implication nor knowledge of her illegal business transactions and that all business between her and Petru Cladovan were 100% LEGAL and legit!!! It is only fair to say that after two long years of false accusations, wrongfully indicted, and defamation not limited to by the government and by media to Petru Cladovan and his family, the truth and innocent prevails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a line between creative writing and investigative journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]