Reporters, Not Writers
Journalism That MattersWashington Post
"Which leads to a wrenching dilemma: News organizations clearly need to build up their online offerings, big-time. But if they bleed the old-school core product in the process, that can cause problems both editorial and economic."
Umm, no. If a news company looks at itself as a newspaper as opposed to a deliverer of news to its given audience, then it sees things exactly backwards, just as presented above. It is 100% true that the money derived from the print version of a story far exceeds that from its online component, but so what? The reporting is the reporting, the medium in which it is delivered, print, online or some currently unknown future version, is completely immaterial.
Reporting takes time and money, but you know what, the reporting that an online media enterprise would undertake is literally no different from that a print reporter would. Do you think Bob Woodward would refuse to do an email interview with Vladimir Putin if that was the only way he could get him on the record in detail on a subject on deadline? Do you think if he happened to get him on the phone, still on the record, he wouldn't hesitate to put dear old Vladimir's translator's voice attached to his story if he could?
Reporting is reporting, delivery of the results is a completely separate enterprise. You allocate your delivery and sales resources according to where it makes sense, and invest in reporters, let your readers/audience decide which medium that reporting is best delivered in.
Would the Walter Reed article be more hard-hitting with some actual amateur video footage taken from inside Building 18 to rebut the inevitable counter-attack to come from the Department of Defense, which as expected was not of the accuracy of the piece but of the "fairness" of them, as if it were more fair to not discuss the conditions experienced by whatever percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families were represented by the examples in the article than it would be to remind us that despite official proclamations of appreciation for the contributions of members of our armed forces, the real sentiment from on high becomes self-evident when the budgetary push-comes-to-shove happens resulting in not enough resources being allocated to make sure that whatever number Building 18-style experiences there are is more than what is acceptable in a country as powerful and capable as ours is.
There are certain things for which the term zero tolerance was invented, and shabby treatment of those who have given of themselves for the rest of us is one of them.
Words to such effect may move some, but imagine what pictures of the molding walls would do. Video is a powerful medium, all too often cheaply used in the news media for shock and titillation, but there are situations where only it can drive home the stark presentation of a simple truth like the reality of Building 18, and isn't that truth ultimately the objective of all good reporters?
"Which leads to a wrenching dilemma: News organizations clearly need to build up their online offerings, big-time. But if they bleed the old-school core product in the process, that can cause problems both editorial and economic."
Umm, no. If a news company looks at itself as a newspaper as opposed to a deliverer of news to its given audience, then it sees things exactly backwards, just as presented above. It is 100% true that the money derived from the print version of a story far exceeds that from its online component, but so what? The reporting is the reporting, the medium in which it is delivered, print, online or some currently unknown future version, is completely immaterial.
Reporting takes time and money, but you know what, the reporting that an online media enterprise would undertake is literally no different from that a print reporter would. Do you think Bob Woodward would refuse to do an email interview with Vladimir Putin if that was the only way he could get him on the record in detail on a subject on deadline? Do you think if he happened to get him on the phone, still on the record, he wouldn't hesitate to put dear old Vladimir's translator's voice attached to his story if he could?
Reporting is reporting, delivery of the results is a completely separate enterprise. You allocate your delivery and sales resources according to where it makes sense, and invest in reporters, let your readers/audience decide which medium that reporting is best delivered in.
Would the Walter Reed article be more hard-hitting with some actual amateur video footage taken from inside Building 18 to rebut the inevitable counter-attack to come from the Department of Defense, which as expected was not of the accuracy of the piece but of the "fairness" of them, as if it were more fair to not discuss the conditions experienced by whatever percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families were represented by the examples in the article than it would be to remind us that despite official proclamations of appreciation for the contributions of members of our armed forces, the real sentiment from on high becomes self-evident when the budgetary push-comes-to-shove happens resulting in not enough resources being allocated to make sure that whatever number Building 18-style experiences there are is more than what is acceptable in a country as powerful and capable as ours is.
There are certain things for which the term zero tolerance was invented, and shabby treatment of those who have given of themselves for the rest of us is one of them.
Words to such effect may move some, but imagine what pictures of the molding walls would do. Video is a powerful medium, all too often cheaply used in the news media for shock and titillation, but there are situations where only it can drive home the stark presentation of a simple truth like the reality of Building 18, and isn't that truth ultimately the objective of all good reporters?
Labels: media
posted by Brad Paton at 9:39 PM
0 comments
