Ask HN: Good idea to save journalism?
But there are lots of valuable answers to questions that aren't asked by the masses. For example, I want to know everything there is about a particular competitor or business leader. A journalist could go do the research and compile an article that answers my question.
Would this end-to-end journalism, where individuals or companies have questions they are willing to pay to be answered help journalists provide their information in a more valuable way?
Is this being done already? I know you can pay for reports from companies like Gartner, Forrester, etc. Perhaps bringing that business model to the individual journalist could help...
I don't know if this is even the right forum for figuring this sort of thing out, but I know the topic of saving journalism has been in the air around here. Thoughts?
25 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadBut there IS still a market for in depth quality journalism, you just have to pay for it. The atlantic, new yorker are examples. People will pay for high quality journalism. The problem is that most journalism is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To give an example of high quality journalism Here's what I subscribe to: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/
- Laphams quarterly. Quarterly journal that covers a topic through essays/letters/speeches of those from the past. The war issue has churchill, patton, george orwell, sun tzu, etc. The money issue henry ford, aristophanes, jane austin. The insight is excellent.
http://www.economist.com
- The economist. A classic that covers business and the world in a no bullshit way. They. Don't. Do. Gimmicks.
http://www.monocle.com
- Monocle a briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design. This magazine has me addicted and paying $150/Yr. Why? The first issue had an interview with the ceo of lego on innovation. Every single issue there's thoughtful intelligent reportage on some interesting but non-obvious subject. (Like Lego, or japanese retail, or the falkland islands). There's something intangible about the magazine, it deserves a look.
In summary, is journalism dead? No. Most are just incompetent at it. Become competent at creating a quality product and you can make money.
I have to say, the podcast "Global Forecast from the Economist Intelligence Unit" is insightful, dares to make predictions, and seems to know what the heck they are talking about.
(BTW: "speeches" - no 'a')
I think the position you're looking for is "librarian"
Journalism isn't about finding answers it's about finding truth. Despite what people think of him now Richard Nixon was a tremendously popular President (the electoral vote count in '72 was 570 to 17) so most were not asking for him to be exposed. But Journalists did and it was exactly what they should have been doing.
The problem with Journalism now is it's been corrupted. Now we have Liberal MSNBC and Conservative Fox News and they both are just spin machines for their side's agenda. That's where tech comes in because people simply don't trust Journalists anymore so they are looking more and more to other sources.
As for saving journalism I don't think true journalism needs it. My favorite modern example of true journalism is Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack". During the 2004 election it was recommeneded by both the Bush and Kerry camps and it was a best seller because of it.
Because truth appeals to everyone.
Here's some perspective on the topic of research for hire in the stock market: http://www.sism.com/independentresearchagrowingindustry.htm?...
That said, before I developed a relationship with the guy I use I generally had good luck with Guru.com
I think it's marketable. The only problem with it is that the powers that be will bury it with noise, as described in _Manufacturing Consent_. People eat up the spin because people like their own ideas confirmed.
But that just isn't what people do. Most liberals read the NYT and NPR while conservatives watch Fox and listen to Rush. I think most people just want their viewpoints confirmed.
As a matter of fact, if you got the Fox News viewership together I think you’d find most would say they seek out FN because they feel the regular media is biased and want to hear the other side of things (they might subconciously be seeking out like minded news but at least their concious mind is looking for unbiased news). The fact that they need to seek out another biased source to get information indicates to me that they’re seeking truth and just can’t find it.
I'm not an expert on journalism, but I think this is happening to some degree already. Major TV stations have industry analysts covering their industries. I suspect that any more drilling down would result in journalists not having enough 'good' stories to be economical for them. Journalism works for the journalists because they can gravitate towards the stories wherever they are happening. Journalism for hire is probably closer to private investigators, corporate spies, or market research firms.
The community who wants the answer could evaluate the truthiness of the article/research and the article writer could gain credibility. Perhaps they could even leave the article up and people in the future could pay to see what was written.
It's not unlike the situation now with custom web development. Hackers are paid to write code. These journalists would be paid to write articles. Similarly, lots of problems the Hacker will solve require research and analysis becore the problem can be solved effectively.
Seems like a marketplace problem.
I think the value of traditional journalism is declining. What we traditionally label journalism is actually just entertainment these days. Their goal is lots of eyeballs, not truth or any of that.
But there are people who do need truth or answers and would be willing to pay someone to help them find it. I saw a "Market Research" category at elance, that might be the ticket...
I recommend www.buzzmachine.com for discussion on this topic.
BTW - Journalism isn't suffering from a shortage of ideas. It's suffering from a shortage of folks willing to actually do. (Part of the problem is that many of the powers that be "paid their dues" during a golden age as far as money and power goes.)
In essence it's not what was not in the paper at all but what was in the 2" article on D4 that makes the strongest statement about journalistic values. We know what's on page A1 -- it's the big story that everyone would hear about even w/o journalists. But the stuff that is buried is where the paper pats us on the head and says "let someone else worry about that little detail".
I'm thinking of trying to figure out a way to make some sort of tag cloud view based on the above -- maybe showing "important" stuff on the left and "unimportant" stuff on the right. Both statements are equally significant and subject to the same editorial discretion.