I just wanted to follow-up on that swipe I took yesterday in this post praising Ezra. I think I probably could have thrown in some context that might clarify where I'm coming from.
The first thing that needs to be said is that I consider myself a print guy. I started in print, and should I be lucky, I'll die doing print. I wrote, almost exclusively in print, for over ten years before I started blogging. In that time I covered everything from community development to police brutality to local politics to Bill Cosby to M.F. Doom. At almost every stage I was aided in that pursuit by editors who were willing to make space for stories that pushed the limits of the average attention span. I don't dismiss criticism of bloggers by "traditional" journalists out of any questioning of the value of newspapers, books and magazines.
That said, I do find this sense that, say, people writing on the internet
don't report to be snobbish, ignorant, and ultimately unreflective. Journalism is riddled with problems. It's practitioners are fond of claiming "objectivity" while practicing weak-ass "on the other hand"-ism. It's often poorly written, and betrays a loyalty to getting a quote, but not necessarily to getting a quote that tells us something. (Less spokespeople, please.) It uses anonymous sources as a crutch, hence reducing whatever reserves of trust still remain in the reader. At the highest level, it's dominated by the Ivies to such an extent that you'd think no one at a state school ever had an original thought.
These are not the reasons why the business model is suffering--though they aren't helping. But I bring them out to counter this sense that great journalism requires a bank of seasoned editors, a hallowed masthead extending back through decades, and a bevy of bright young things who've mastered the art of contrarianism. ("Does Taco Bell help you lose weight?")
Incredible journalism is like incredible baby-making--it starts with passion. The guy combing through the city budgets because it's his job, isn't the same as the guy combing through them because it keeps him up at night, because he thinks about it when he shouldn't be. Institutions support that passion--but they don't create it. When my old Howard buddy was killed by the cops, it was all I could think about, and it was all I wanted to write about. And I did it almost for free, because it helped me sleep at night. I was burning to get it down. I deeply suspect that the bloggers you love, and the reporters you love, are similarly on fire inside.
I don't have a strict allegiance to "journalism," as much as I have one to the written word. Perhaps there's no difference. But my point is that to the extent blogging makes it possible for more people who are "on fire" to employ the written word, than it's good for the written word. It's true that it creates a situation in which anyone, for $15 a month, can say their piece. But I have more faith in the market of ideas, than in a brain-trust of editors, to separate the wheat from the chafe.
Moreover, while there are an incredible number of bloggers out there, with no institutional support, who suck. There are a truly shocking number of writers, who have all the institutional support in the world, and not only suck, but bring nothing save cynicism, incuriousity, and cold poisoned hearts. And the institutions enable them. To the extent that blogging exposes these frauds, I am all in.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Another passionate post, and one that illustrates its own point.
But I'd add a few cautionary notes. I agree that editors are inferior to the open marketplace of ideas as arbiters of content. But that's not their only role. They tend to be quite useful as shapers of content. The best editors push their writers to nail down their sources, to state their points as clearly as possible, to be concise, and to make their point in a powerful fashion. Unedited prose can match the passion of the refined product, but there's a marked difference. Editors also carry out the unpleasant-but-necessary task of assigning stories that are important to record, but about which no one feels passionately enough to write on their own accord. Local newspapers offer the best illustration of this phenomenon.
The other caveat is that some of the best journalism I've encountered is the result of a team effort. Perhaps a dedicated reporter who works for months, burning with passion. And several others who are assigned to the story later on, as it starts to break open, and becomes too much for any one of them to follow. A good graphics guy, to make it clear to the readers. Perhaps a database maven, to mine the sources for the evidence that they contain. It's the difference between a solo recital, and a soloist performing with a symphony. The recital may have an equal degree of passion, but the aggregate effect of all the parts working together harmoniously is overpowering, and only bolsters the impact of the moving solo.
There's no reason that the results have to be printed on paper - I think TPM Media is proving that every day. But if there's a role for the passionate single voice, there's also going to be a continued need for team-produced journalism, however it's delivered.
Yeah, I didn't mean to slam editors--especially since I've had some great ones over the years.
I have to chime in on the value of editors. One person writing alone can certainly have passion and a point of view, but they might miss the opportunity to communicate that passion to a larger audience because of a lack of accuracy (which builds credibility) or clarity (which makes for easier reading). Editors can bring that accuracy and clarity. As for whether or not that team approach appear on screen or on paper, I am slowly accepting that paper news is on its way out, but I will miss the idea of something being "fit to print" which used to mean that you had to make sure something was right before you published it, whereas on screen, you can just put one of those strike through lines on it a few minutes later, and it's all good.
Beautiful.
Passion in so many ways is what it's all about. On so many levels creative people do things because they have to.
Norman MacLean writes about this in A River Runs Through it which should be required reading for everyone.
Thanks for this. Seriously, in my expeience, writers write because they have too not because they want to. Bob Dylan said it best when he said
Anyway thanks a bunch Mr. C. as always.
Sorn -- Thanks for that Norman MacLean quote. It exactly describes the feeling I've had when a creative endeavor takes shape.
Actually, I think these *are* a major reason why the business model is suffering. It's the underlying reason why they've lost so much of the business of a news-seeking public to other sources like the internet. They were losing some already, although mostly to talk radio I guess. I mean before I started reading *most* my news online, I noticed that newspapers had these serious flaws that you describe. Basically, they had their own brand of "conventional wisdom", reflexive institutional boosterism, and government-spokesman-transcription-as-journalism which I found maddening, which seemed to prevent any alternative viewpoints to emerge on any major issue, much less any alternative to the red-blue paradigm, and often presented no real analysis at all. Yes, the internet hurts them in ways that are unrelated to these flaws, but they were already too entrenched and complacent in my view, and I hope that they'll be able to rise to the challenge (and also find a way to deliver content while raising livable revenue online).
Well, I hope they'll be able to rise to that challenge, sure, but I also hope that some real investigative journalism will remain. That's a slightly separate issue from the one where the print journalism industry got used to having no competition until the internet opened up as a competitor that offered, at times, much smarter and more open-minded commentary. It's not just the price difference. But still I worry about whether anyone will be making enough money to pay people to do real journalism. A lot of it is going through documents that can be done relatively cheaply, I guess, but you still have to pay for those man-hours if it is to be sustained as an industry, and of course you can't do the shoe-leather stuff that a lot of investigation will have to take without incurring costs like travel expenses.
One more thing that quality journalism requires: time.
The Reid healthcare proposal, which Ezra was commenting on in the post you praise, is a case in point. It will take time, arguably a week or more, for the details of the proposal to emerge (it is known in detail to a negotiating team of half a dozen or so senators and WH representatives, and soon to the CBO).
Who among journalists is willing to wait a week before writing their opinion of it? Who among consumers of journalism is willing to wait a week before reading about it?
Yet there is little to write about, and therefore little of value to read - even, I would argue, in the opinions of the indispensable Ezra.
Newsweeklies used to be so very prominent because journalists and consumers were willing to write, and read, on a relaxed schedule. Those days seem hopelessly gone.
Yes, passion is all fine and good, but inconstant since it comes and goes. Perfect for op-eds but in straight journalism professionalism is the key. By professionalism I mean mastery of craft wedded to discipline. To misquote you somewhat Mr Coates, I want a stone cold killer whose only allegiance is to professionalism rather than an impassioned advocate.
Quality journalism is typically complex with context and nuance woven throughout. To find that even comprehensible one has to be able to read at a fairly skilled (10th grade? maybe 11th grade) level. If one does have the requisite skill, to find it enjoyable enough to overcome the "worth the cost" barrier, it has to be written at a level that the reader finds meets THEIR enjoyment threshold. The overall business model fails for lack of readers and writers. This site in particular is so dearly held, explicitly BECAUSE it is one of the very few places where the few remaining higher order readers and writers can find one another. Sites that are even remotely comparable are few and far between, and I have seen none with the consistency. Perhaps the self selected community of subcribers (patrons?) will be the way going forward. As one who still subscribes to numerous print editions, I am saddened at its passing
Hello, author of the swipe here,
What you've written above is quite eloquent and I don't disagree with any of it. Rather, I took exception to this:
Gasbags who run off at the lip about how bloggers don't report, and how bloggers are ruining journalism, need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, read this dude and take notes on how to not suck at your job.
and this:
Oh teh intenetz are eating my jobzzz!!!" Please. Put the bottle down, and step slowly away from the weak-sauce.
because in the rather short, original post that I was criticizing, I felt they gave the strong suggestion that your opinion was something like "any 'traditional' print journalists who is taking a serious hit from the industry's struggles is either incompetent, lazy or both." I took offense because I have worked with many in the business who don't fit that description. The timing for all this was terrible for them. Many of these people are my freinds.
Anna Perez wrote this yesterday: "I may feel compassion for the blacksmiths, but I'm still going to buy a Model T."
All I was saying was, basically, I know the blacksmith. He's a good man with passion for his craft as well, so could you please not drive by his shop in the Model-T, beep your horn, point and laugh at the blacksmith on the way into town as the bank is foreclosing on his house.
I've had the great good fortune to know and work with many great print reporters over the years (just a few: Gwen Ifil, David Sanger, Michelle McQueen Martin, Kevin Merida, Evan Thomas.) The current state of the print news business has nothing to do with their expertise, dedication and passion for their work. Nope, I lay today's disrepair completely at the feet of the publishers and the others whose job was to handle the business side of their business.
What did these folks do with the decades upon decades of 30+% profits? Why, dispite years of storm warnings, did they ignore or mishandle the deluge? That said, as Tom Jones sang, "It's Not Unusual." Hell of a job, Brownie.
Also TNC,
the word "swipe" has a negative connotation for me but I can't tell for sure whether you took offense at what I wrote. I'm not sure. And if you did, I'm not sure whether that's because of what I wrote or because I posted it publicly.
So, if I did offend, then I apologise for the offense. That was not my intent. Just looking out for former colleagues. Perhaps you'd prefer to receive such criticisms as private emails, I don't know.
No, I was the one who took the swipe. In other words, I was saying I took at swipe at the press, not the people were taking swipes at me. I read your comments, and I was fine with them. I wasn't offended at all.
yeah, I actually just reread and realized what you meant by swipe.
peace.
MR COATES It's late & im tired but i would just like to say "Well said" to what you wrote.
Deleted.