Almost entirely OT: Brief NU mention in great article about media

[NUCat320]

This is a really important issue, and perhaps a lost cause. Close to the hearts of Medilldos (very few who are probably working journalists) and hopefully citizens.

The hope that all people could again start from some shared truth is probably lost forever, but trying to build some objectivity via public investment seems a good thing. The comparative numbers at the bottom of the article are staggering.

We Need A New Deal To Save Local Journalism | Defector

During the first week of the fires, I would go up to my building’s roof once a day. I’d look at the Los Angeles skyline at whatever shade of yellow-orange-brown muck the fires had delivered that day and take a photo, and then I’d scurry back inside. Against my better judgment, one time I took […]

defector.com

 

[techtim72]

Ms Moskovitz' appeal would be more impactful if it was less loaded with political asides - but I guess, don't know, that she is writing for her customer base. Reflective of how journalists need to pay the bills even when making pleas. Anyway, public funding of news of any sort is dead for the near term. NPR has completely worn out its welcome with a large swath of the public and I will be shocked if there isn't some attempt at cutting whatever Federal funding they receive in Trump's first days in office. Voice of America I believe is also under political pressure.

For what it's worth, I think local journalism is very, very important, far beyond covering emergencies. I don't know the magic formula, however, and neither does the industry apparently. The forces against the industry must be enormous when, for example. the paper I followed for most my adult life - WaPo - has declined so dramatically. That isn't a statement on its politics - although I believe their choices have been terrible - but more on its economics.

Thinking on it a bit, local news is most important IMO in speaking truth to power on a local basis. Certainly other aspects are also important but if local journalists don't cover local issues - governance, business, crime, etc - who will? That means it is inherently political and asking for it to be funded by taxes is a bridge too far and probably in some manner contrary to the Constitution. I don't know but going down the path of advocating for governmental support is likely a dead end unless the mission is limited to something comparable to an extension of "The Weather Channel".

 

[NUCat320]

@techtim72 the degree to which our newspapers were funded by display ads and, especially, g-d classifieds, is just shocking. The entire business model was rendered moot by Craigslist!

As you noticed, the publication itself is pretty lefty — thanks for reading past that.

The model would have to be a public utility model, right? No government accountability Blue Ribbon Committee has ever done a thing. The journalists would serve this role, one that’s not really happening nearly as much anymore.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Ms Moskovitz' appeal would be more impactful if it was less loaded with political asides - but I guess, don't know, that she is writing for her customer base. Reflective of how journalists need to pay the bills even when making pleas. Anyway, public funding of news of any sort is dead for the near term. NPR has completely worn out its welcome with a large swath of the public and I will be shocked if there isn't some attempt at cutting whatever Federal funding they receive in Trump's first days in office. Voice of America I believe is also under political pressure.

For what it's worth, I think local journalism is very, very important, far beyond covering emergencies. I don't know the magic formula, however, and neither does the industry apparently. The forces against the industry must be enormous when, for example. the paper I followed for most my adult life - WaPo - has declined so dramatically. That isn't a statement on its politics - although I believe their choices have been terrible - but more on its economics.

Thinking on it a bit, local news is most important IMO in speaking truth to power on a local basis. Certainly other aspects are also important but if local journalists don't cover local issues - governance, business, crime, etc - who will? That means it is inherently political and asking for it to be funded by taxes is a bridge too far and probably in some manner contrary to the Constitution. I don't know but going down the path of advocating for governmental support is likely a dead end unless the mission is limited to something comparable to an extension of "The Weather Channel".

Given that virtually everyone has a smart phone nowadays, the whole "access" argument has pretty much gone out the window. The monopoly of print and broadcast journalism has been dead for a long time now. With these realities, it is hard to make a strong case for public funding based on "equitable access" arguments. It just doesn't hold water.

The fallback argument is support of "quality" journalism. but, as you note, that has become far too politicized to garner widespread support. Thankfully, the "Ministry of Information" or whatever that thing was called died a quick death.

 

[techtim72]

Hungry Jack, although I agree with you, it is just that the decline of local journalism and, more specifically, local journalism that isn't completely absorbed by national politics, is a real problem. No one is home watching whether the local rep is getting kickbacks from the trash collector sort of thing. Or even more mundane things such as highlighting good citizens, stories on the local scouts, etc. The same/similar economics that has wiped out large media has wiped out small media as well. Like you, however, I doubt government funding is the answer.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Hungry Jack, although I agree with you, it is just that the decline of local journalism and, more specifically, local journalism that isn't completely absorbed by national politics, is a real problem. No one is home watching whether the local rep is getting kickbacks from the trash collector sort of thing. Or even more mundane things such as highlighting good citizens, stories on the local scouts, etc. The same/similar economics that has wiped out large media has wiped out small media as well. Like you, however, I doubt government funding is the answer.

I don’t disagree at all. We have some decent publications that are very locally focused: Urbanize, Block Club, Crains are just a few that stand out. We also have local rags that survive on print ads, and have some reporting and opeds. It’s a mosaic of niche-oriented publications, but on the whole gives good coverage. You just have to work to get the information.

But I doubt smaller markets have what we have here, to your point.

 

[NUCat320]

Hungry Jack, although I agree with you, it is just that the decline of local journalism and, more specifically, local journalism that isn't completely absorbed by national politics, is a real problem. No one is home watching whether the local rep is getting kickbacks from the trash collector sort of thing. Or even more mundane things such as highlighting good citizens, stories on the local scouts, etc. The same/similar economics that has wiped out large media has wiped out small media as well. Like you, however, I doubt government funding is the answer.

Dumbass community news — a list of honor roll students, the chamber’s local business of the month, a feature on a woman who crochets stuff — matters in that it builds community.

If government funding isn’t the answer, what is? We’ve seen the benefactor model … and we’ve seen significant incursions on editorial independence in the last three months as a result of it (WaPo and LA Times).

 

[CatManTrue]

Dumbass community news — a list of honor roll students, the chamber’s local business of the month, a feature on a woman who crochets stuff — matters in that it builds community.

If government funding isn’t the answer, what is? We’ve seen the benefactor model … and we’ve seen significant incursions on editorial independence in the last three months as a result of it (WaPo and LA Times).

Community news like Bezos buying the Washington Post?

As long as my Akron Beacon Journal stays in print, then you can have Twitter X & whatever news y’all pretend to read up there in Michigan

 

[loyolacat]

article in Sun Times on prominent sports media people mentioned that they had better name the new press box after Dave Eanet....totally agree.

 

[Hungry Jack]

The NYT very willingly tore down its wall between reporting and oped years ago. It was a business decision. Then they fired the chief editor who had the temerity to—gasp—publish an oped piece from Tom Cotton (that editor is now doing good work at The Economist.

People on the Left bemoan the politicization of news reporting when their standard bearers went all in for it in search of profit.

 

[techtim72]

Dumbass community news — a list of honor roll students, the chamber’s local business of the month, a feature on a woman who crochets stuff — matters in that it builds community.

If government funding isn’t the answer, what is? We’ve seen the benefactor model … and we’ve seen significant incursions on editorial independence in the last three months as a result of it (WaPo and LA Times).

For me the issues of the disappearance of local media versus the editorial policies of media are separate issues. For example, I held my nose on the reporting biases and editorial choices of WaPo in the past (Not sure where they are headed going forward.) but I appreciated very much their national and local reporting and, in particular, their ability to do deep investigative reporting. So net-net as a consumer from my perspective you take the good with the bad - I have been a 50 year subscriber - and in the end they are free to make their choices.

What I see now on the phone is mostly a media with rare exception that doesn't do in-depth journalism at all. 90% of it is issuing opinions on the national/click worthy events of the day. No investigative staff, no editors, no original insight other than reactive observations to events and the observations of others. Something more meaningful than that costs money.

Now I see value in all that stuff and I am willing to pay for it, but a whole lot of people don't - and that is the fundamental problem. I am of an age when if the paper wasn't on the front lawn in the morning when you had your coffee that was a problem. When you went downtown to the office you paid for a paper at the stand before you opened the door or went home at night. If the paper was crap in your opinion you bought the other paper, or perhaps you bought both if a story was interesting. The key word here is "paid". Now you kind of get what you don't pay for on the phone. Crap.

Anyway, just venting. No answer.

 

[techtim72]

The NYT very willingly tore down its wall between reporting and oped years ago. It was a business decision. Then they fired the chief editor who had the temerity to—gasp—publish an oped piece from Tom Cotton (that editor is now doing good work at The Economist.

People on the Left bemoan the politicization of news reporting when their standard bearers went all in for it in search of profit.

HJ, although I recognize the blurring (kind descriptor) of reporting and oped that has occurred, I didn't know that NYT did it openly? Don't they still profess to a firewall?

 

[NUCat320]

For me the issues of the disappearance of local media versus the editorial policies of media are separate issues. For example, I held my nose on the reporting biases and editorial choices of WaPo in the past (Not sure where they are headed going forward.) but I appreciated very much their national and local reporting and, in particular, their ability to do deep investigative reporting. So net-net as a consumer from my perspective you take the good with the bad - I have been a 50 year subscriber - and in the end they are free to make their choices.

What I see now on the phone is mostly a media with rare exception that doesn't do in-depth journalism at all. 90% of it is issuing opinions on the national/click worthy events of the day. No investigative staff, no editors, no original insight other than reactive observations to events and the observations of others. Something more meaningful than that costs money.

Now I see value in all that stuff and I am willing to pay for it, but a whole lot of people don't - and that is the fundamental problem. I am of an age when if the paper wasn't on the front lawn in the morning when you had your coffee that was a problem. When you went downtown to the office you paid for a paper at the stand before you opened the door or went home at night. If the paper was crap in your opinion you bought the other paper, or perhaps you bought both if a story was interesting. The key word here is "paid". Now you kind of get what you don't pay for on the phone. Crap.

Anyway, just venting. No answer.

Different world, right? Journalism itself was never profitable. Selling classified ads in something that nobody in town went without was profitable. Woodward and Bernstein were the loss leader.

And that’s in many ways the crux of the situation. The absence of revenue has forced layoffs, which has reduced quality, which has reduced revenue, until they just die or syndicate USA Today,

And if quality reporting improves society, but cannot on itself be self-sustaining, that’s the type of public good that makes sense for investment.

Where we are now is that there is no truth, and the opinions you read are contributing to your algorithm, and you see more and more of what you want to read, and poof, we live in a world of different truths.

An important issue, but also one that will never be solved. Wear a helmet.

 

[techtim72]

There's a market and delivery mechanisms out there somewhere that makes sense financially for broad based quality reporting but it hasn't been put together yet. Substack is an example of a new delivery tool but it is geared to individual journalists and specialists vs teams and that isn't totally satisfactory. Taibbi thru Substack has been successful even in the investigation space and he is trying to leverage out a little with more reporters. I suppose aggregators such as Drudge (free) is an approach. My gut tells me that the successful approach will be more interactive where the "reader" can interact with the reporting directly for nuance and discussion. Perhaps AI will allow for questions to be asked directly when reading an article so that stories come alive for the reader. Imagine if you can query an article for alternative reporting or to bring in other relevant subjects that help your understanding.

Peace.