Where Has Good Reporting Gone?
Okay, so first off, this is not about politics, but rather about media. However, I need to use a political example to get the ball rolling. So, for those of you sick of this stuff, I’ll be quick.
—— BEGIN POLITICAL TRANSMISSION ——
Throughout the run up to the election I had lots of conversations/arguments with lots of folks about things like polls. My argument tended to be something along the lines of, “sure, that poll is probably wrong in that way, but it’s also probably wrong in 200 other ways and until you show me the data I don’t believe any of it.” (Again, not those exact words, but close.)
I had the same arguments around people talking about Palin supporters, especially those who lectured New Yorkers that they didn’t understand. Now I happen to agree that most New Yorkers have no sense of what it’s like to live somewhere else and do suffer from a bit of NASCAR blindness as Alan likes to call it, however, I also think most of what I read or heard about Palin supporters from those same people was equally reductionist but in a different direction.
—— END POLITICAL TRANSMISSION ——
What I’ve come to realize is that what I was hungering for was journalism/reporting. Not just calling up experts and getting their opinions on things, but actually going out and talking to real folks in real places or digging in some real research and sharing some hard numbers. The best article I read over the last few months was a New Yorker piece by George Packer about his time in Ohio speaking to undecided voters.
Unfortunately this kind of reporting comes few and far-between, with journalists instead opting to the regulars. In thinking about it the other day, I started to feel like maybe this was a reaction to bloggers. Clearly blogs play a big role in the mind of journalists (even though they likely play a smaller role in the life of most Americans). Blogs (including this one) are almost all conjecture. Few bloggers conduct original interviews, research or reporting. Mostly they just write about things they find interesting. Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but I personally often find myself wanting more (which I think is probably part of why FiveThirtyEight was so popular).
So I guess my question is two-fold: A) Am I just missing something, or does it really seem like there’s less good reporting/research coming out of the media these days? B) If not, why? Is it just because that stuff is more expensive than just calling an expert?
At the end of the day, I still very much appreciate what’s out there and think there are some outlets doing a fine job delivering interesting stories with in-depth reporting frequently (the New Yorker comes to mind first). But what’s up with the rest? How did this happen?
Oh, and this is all conjecture without any research or data to back it up. So (like you should with everything else you read) take it with a grain of salt.
Hi, I'm 
I was blown away by that George Packer article, too. It was so rich and nuanced; gave me a completely new appreciation for voters in Ohio.
I’ve only read the beginning of it, but I think that this behind-the-scenes series from Newsweek looks pretty good, too.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
I think that the compressed time-frame of new media has something to do with this shift. It takes time (and money) to do good reporting. It doesn’t really lend itself to the fast pace of the web.
Sadly, the answer to “where” and “why” is a simple one.
The rise of blogging and free online content means that newspapers are shutting down left and right. Which means that the ones that hang on rarely have enough money to pay good people– or any people for that matter.
There are fewer actual reporters out there, the sort of people who get paid to come up with a story like Packer’s which requires a decent amount of field research.
It’s something I worry about a great deal, since a free press is vital for a democratic society. And as trite as that sounds, if all our actual reporting is done by a handful of people, we’re just going to wind up spinning the spin and not having actual information. To wit: a blogger can attend a local Palin rally and report of what he sees there. But without funding, he’s unlikely to attend several dozen Palin rallies in several dozen states and write a broader piece.
There’s a reason we need professional journalists to supplement the citizen ones.
@Mike: I’ve gotta read that Newsweek piece. Have heard so many good things.
@Alan: I guess it’s just funny that in trying to figure out how to fix their business newspapers and the media industry as a whole are moving away from that which they’re best at. (Also, and this is neither here nor there, I don’t really think it’s blogs that are responsible for the industry’s downturn as much as the rise of the web as a whole.)
Thanks for the comments guys.
Noah:
To your point about “calling up experts” rather than speaking to others, I’d love to see an infographic on how many times Thomas Friedman has quoted Michael Mandelbaum in his New York times column. Heh.
On a more serious note, I think there is some good investigative reporting out there. Paul Steiger, formerly of WSJ, has an interesting site called ProPublica that does strong, in-depth investigative reporting.
Their problem, however, is cutting through the sugary pop bias and sensationalism that has always existed in media — but has been exacerbated by the proliferation of outlets.
One issue of concern for me is the degradation of journalistic principles at mainstream news outlets as they move online.
Since traffic is the new currency, many will be tempted to assign stories based on their buzzworthiness and ability to be Dugg, rather than for their substance or service to the public. I already see this happening and it is quite a slippery slope.
Colin