Investigative Journalism Being Reborn Through the Web? 265
Combating the stigma that investigative journalism is dead or dying, the Huffington Post has just launched a new venture to bankroll a group of investigative journalists to take a look into stories about the nation's economy. "The popular Web site is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to launch the Huffington Post Investigative Fund with an initial budget of $1.75 million. That should be enough for 10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers, said Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post. Work that the journalists produce will be available for any publication or Web site to use at the same time it is posted on The Huffington Post, she said. The Huffington Post Web site is a collection of opinionated blog entries and breaking news. It has seven staff reporters. Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists for the venture."
Journalists protection (Score:5, Insightful)
the more the merrier (Score:2, Insightful)
Err when did it die? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean apart from in the US where the media appears to have become scared of actually questioning politicians or holding them to account. Journalism in the UK still seems to find the dirt on politicians and companies and deep investigative exercises are still carried out in lots of different areas.
The basic issue in the US is the partisan nature of both politics and the media, why bother to investigate when its all basically just monkeys throwing shit at a wall. Blogs and the internet are unlikely to change that as its just going to be the same partisan stuff with slightly different shit.
When the likes of Jon Stewart are the finest investigative political journalists that your country has then you know you are in trouble.
disconnect. reconnect. abort, retry, ignore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Disconnect. Bad plan, darlings. Journalism is undergoing a paradigm shift right now in the same way graphics design underwent it. Before the 1990s, we had separate jobs for typesetting, graphic artist, layout, etc. All that went out the window when the PC came along and suddenly anyone could make a newsletter using PageMaker. The demand for all that graphic design footwork -- needing to hire a team of people to design it, imploded. What came out of it was the versatile graphic designer -- a jack of all trades. Journalism until recently had many different career paths. With the collapse of the printed media and an entire generation growing up used to the idea of instant access to everything, cross-referenced and streaming on demand -- deadlines have gone from a day to a few minutes. How long does it take to get indexed into google so people can search for your article? That time difference is the new deadline. And audiences aren't local anymore -- they are global.
Reconnect. Our collective knowledge is also heavily slanted to the global and national level now. For example, up here in Minnesota, a recent "local" story has been the flooding near Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN along the Red river. When I asked my friends who would be willing to car pool up with me to help sandbagging efforts last friday (the story had been out for a good week) -- only one of my friends had any knowledge of the event, out of about 15 people I asked. Local news doesn't exist anymore for our generation. Strange, but true. Of course, they ALL knew about major national and global events. Our communities really are losing their geographical ties.
I see the future of journalism being somewhat akin to blogging. Journalists simply pick their own interest and self-direct their energies towards it. Interested parties will, via word of mouth and advertisement, come to know that particular journalist. A one-to-many relationship. The sources for these stories will be the readers of those stories. Slashdot is a decent example of what journalism will come to resemble -- open, online forums that are dedicated to particular communities. But I highly doubt that in the journalism to come that people will simply visit one website for their needs. It'll probably look more like Google news -- RSS feeds that we select and create lists of journalists who are involved in fields we have a mutual interest in.
Journalism will become, much like graphic design, at least half or more self-employed or contract/temp work in the next ten years. And we'll come to know journalists by name, instead of by what network or paper they represent.
Re:Journalists protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err when did it die? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between an investigative journalist and a talking head.
There are lots of good journalists in the US... they just don't get TV time. And since Americans can't be bothered to digest any news not provided to them in an ADD-friendly 2 minute TV blurb (or a scrolling text bar at the bottom of their TV screen), the good journalists are ignored by the public. Since they're mostly ignored, those journalists aren't paying the bills at their place of employment, so they get laid off.
Seriously... VERY few investigative journalists are recognized by name in the US, Seymour Hirsch being probably the only prominent counter-example. Since the US culture is largely dominated by celebrity, having no reporters who are celebrities means that no one cares about investigative journalism.
I think it's great the the HuffPo will be employing some of these reporters... I just hope that the editorialization at HuffPo doesn't get in the way of good journalism.
Re:Investigative? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.
Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.
Re:The Huffington Post? (Score:3, Insightful)
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Re:Journalists protection (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to agree with you but given the populace's ignorance about journalism(see the idiotic replies to the original post that ignore it and instead choose it as a stepping off point for rants of the left and right political persuasion) it's hard to believe that anyone will understand the importance of what you say.
We now seem to have a generation of people who believe that only the web produces anything of importance, that anything of importance can be completely comprehended in the 30 seconds that it takes to read the lengthiest web post, that all information wants to be free, and that this 'free-ness' has no cost to anyone. You're talking about cost and it sure seems to me that the vast majority of people who comment on the press (whether print, broadcast, or web) don't have the slightest idea about COST. It's a nasty little detail that they'd prefer to ignore.
Re:Investigative? (Score:5, Insightful)
HuffPo is an extreme left-wing wannabe news outlet. By investigate, what they really mean is "smear machine."
I think that whether you like the Huffington Post is beside the point: they're going to pay investigative reporters. For a little while now, lots of people have been concerned about the fact that newspapers are dying off and have asked the question, "How will get get our news now?"
The reason lots of people have said that sites like the Huffington Post can't be considered "replacements" for newspapers is that they don't have investigative reporters that actually find and generate news stories. What they do is more like aggregate news and op-ed pieces, so if newspapers die, they'll have nothing to aggregate. And that's a valid complaint.
However, if these sites start getting big enough to employ their own reporters and they start actually doing their own investigations, then the death of newspapers becomes less of a scary prospect. Right now, the Huffington Post is just one example of people trying to find a business model that allows for real journalism without the need of an actual printed newspaper. If some successful business models are found, then we might just be ok.
But you're pointing out that the Huffington Post has a slant, and that's a fair thing to note. However, print newspapers also each have their own slant, so it's not really anything new.
Re:Investigative? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).
3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.
So take a serious look at the mirror and consider the possibility that Touvan is actually correct--reality really does, in fact, have a left-wing bias (at least in terms of economic policy). The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).
Re:The Huffington Post? (Score:2, Insightful)
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Actually, the left does have their investigative journalists. They work for every other outlet other than Fox News (and CNN to a much lesser extent).
Re:The Huffington Post? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fox news has investigative journalists."
Well, they do if "investigative journalists" means "people who make stuff up".
Re:disconnect. reconnect. abort, retry, ignore. (Score:3, Insightful)
only one of my friends had any knowledge of the [flooding in ND/MN], out of about 15 people I asked.
That's just weird, since the flooding has made national news so even if that was their only source they should have heard about it. Are these major national and global events mostly political in nature? If they get their news from politically-focused sources, that might explain it.
Slashdot is a decent example of what journalism will come to resemble
Ugh that made my eyes tear up and some vomit come up my throat.
Journalism will become, much like graphic design, at least half or more self-employed or contract/temp work in the next ten years. And we'll come to know journalists by name, instead of by what network or paper they represent.
Yeah I think that's generally a good prediction. In the meantime, I noticed that your list omitted the "fail" option. That was always my favorite to pick, and honestly the one I think most news outlets and journalists formerly employed by them will end up following. :P
Re:Journalists protection (Score:3, Insightful)
...the backing of a major media conglomerate with deep pockets to go to bat for you when you are sued in indispensible. You may want to say something publicly against corporate America but the fear of repercussions is usually what limits individuals from doing so.
What makes you think being the backing of a major media conglomerate makes you more safe when saying something publicly against corporate America? I mean, when you consider the overlap of major media conglomerates and corporate America, it seems like backing real whistleblowers could just as easily be against the media conglomerate's interests.
I think I'd rather have a whole ton of smaller independent operations than a couple humungous umbrella companies that run the whole show.
Newspapers might be dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Newspapers (as in "news" printed on paper) may be dead, or dying due to the medium switching to electronic distribution of information, but Journalism is far from dead.
Far from it, in this age when every prepubescent teen with an agenda can slap an opinion blog and consider it news, it is more important than ever to have professionals discovering, editing and presenting information.
Re:Investigative? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, if you think that the economic "disaster" can be attributed to a specific political party, then you a playing the part written for you quite nicely.
Second, true free markets are not guaranteed to be always upward moving; failures and downturns are part of the natural process. And there is really nothing wrong with that. When a government gets in the way of the natural progression, it is no longer a free market.
Third, the die was cast for the downturn to become a disaster when big business realized that the Federal government considered them "too big to fail". At that point, they had no reason NOT to take huge risks because they knew that they could socialize the risks and privatize the rewards.
Currently, the disaster is well on its way to a depression, mainly because this country did not use the "good" times to prepare adequately for the bad (thanks President Bush) and are taking steps that, in the long run, will have a negative impact on our economy (thanks President Obama).
I call your O'Neill and Lindsey and raise you a Richardson and Gregg. At least O'Neill and Lindsey almost made it to President Bush's third year in office (roughly half-way through his first term, which is a little more than "shortly"); President Obama's choices barely made it three weeks, if that.
Re:Journalists protection (Score:3, Insightful)
You're talking about cost and it sure seems to me that the vast majority of people who comment on the press (whether print, broadcast, or web) don't have the slightest idea about COST. It's a nasty little detail that they'd prefer to ignore.
No. Not all all.
Economic theory states that when goods and services are indistinguishable between competitors, that the consumer will always choose the cheapest one.
Of course it isn't so simple, so that's why it is specified "indistinguishable" because an inferior product can be made to look the same or even better through marketing ;)
That said, if people feel that a newspaper and an online news website provide the same value of goods and services, they will always go with the cheaper one (the online).
In the olden days, price was affected by supply and demand, but if your product is virtualized the only limitation is artificial scarcity if you so choose to have one.
My point is that the consumer decides which product lives and which dies. They don't care about how much it really costs you to bring the news to them. If you cannot satisfy the consumer by either providing a lower price, then you must have something in the way of providing a better good or service.
As it is now, in the eyes of the consumer, newspapers provide neither so their business model will eventually fail.
You can yell at the consumers all you want (buy American! buy companies that don't use sweat shops!) but in the end they'll usually go with what is the cheapest. Its a hard cold economic reality.
Re:disconnect. reconnect. abort, retry, ignore. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry I've been "paradigmed-shifted" to death. Paradigm shifts are recognized long after the fact. Contemporaneous paradigm-shifts are not paradigm-shifts at all: they're someone trying to further their own objectives coupled with wishful thinking about the future.
I don't know how many times I've read this identical analysis about the future of journalism: all successful journalists will be BRANDS. We'll see. My guess is that in 5 years any journalists that are still around will look back at the self-promotional branding of the last few years they same way that older journalists look back at photos of themselves wearing flower-patterned bell-bottoms....... Did I really look like that? Did I really do that?
Re:The Huffington Post? (Score:5, Insightful)
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Thank you. The idea of journalistic neutrality is bullshit. Go back 100 years, when each city had a dozen newspapers. All of them were wildly biased and when you picked up a newspaper, you knew what you were getting - heck, it often stated its bias or philosophy in the mast head! Go look in Europe in the pre-War years - many of the newspapers were organs of the political parties.
Pretending to be unbiased is nonsense - I'd rather have a couple papers that report ferociously with an in-the-open bias then the subtle, stupid bias (towards sensationalism) that we have in the modern, neutered American press.
We're all biased. It's about reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
We are all biased - I'm biased, you are biased, he's biased. In and of itself, that doesn't have to be a bad thing - bias can be a hell of a motivator.
If $Journalist investigates $Politician because $Politician is a member of $Party and $Journalist thinks $Party are a bunch of crooks, and $Journalist's bias makes him keep digging until he finds something out and reports it, that is GOOD.
However, it is a question of reputation: If I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party, I can weight what $Journalist write accordingly. If I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party and lets that bias color his reporting, I can take that into account. If, on the other hand, I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party, and as a result is especially scrupulous on his checking of his facts, I can take that into account as well.
If $Biased_as_Hell_website hires investigative reporters, but is careful not to spike stories from them just because it goes against their bias, then I might read them even if their bias goes against my own. But $Biased_as_Hell_website is going to have to PROVE to me, every day, that they are trying to keep their facts separate from their opinions. And if I get a whiff that they aren't, then I will ignore them from that moment onward.
And if $Journalist gets a reputation for ignoring "inconvenient facts", for going soft on his friends and hard on his foes, then I will blow him off as well.
And THAT is what is important - that these "New Media" types establish reputations I can use to judge their reporting. Be up-front with your bias - at least with DailyKos and Rush I know their biases, and can at least begin to apply a correction factor. But when somebody tries to pretend "Oh, me? I'm not biased, trust me" - I know they are lying to me, I just don't know in which direction to correct for it.
Re:Investigative? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah, had to be 10 months after the Democrats took control...that makes MUCH more sense.
(Here's the answer to your question: Anyone who doesn't blame the Republicans and Bush's leash on Congress from 2001-2007 is full of shit. The Democrats get some blame, but I reduce it some by considering the Rove-ian campaign that was led from 9/11 and on to make every Democrat look unpatriotic for questioning Bush's policies. Between that and Bush's grip on Congress, they had little effect on changing the money spending, tax cutting policies. After 2007, the Dems have no excuse and get the full blame for helping run it all into the ground by failing to change what the previous 6 years massively fucked.)
Re:Mod parent up! Unfair, opinion moderation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Huffington Post? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to YOUR favorite political news blog,
Nope, actually, when I go to a political blog, I expect it to be shilling for whatever it is they shill for. But they are still shills....
Re:Investigative? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting a healthcare system based on the individual charity of doctors? An open source healthcare system, perhaps, where you get your chemotherapy from a sourceforge? Don't get me wrong, many of them are wonderful people -- I'm married to one and she's a wonderful, charitable person -- but they also leave medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and even if they were willing to work for free, I doubt Pfizer is going to send you your free chemo drugs.