Blog Post

Why does the future of news have to be us versus them?

The future of news, and of journalism as a whole, isn’t something anyone has a really firm grasp on — as traditional players continue to be disrupted by the web and social tools like Twitter, and new entrants like The Huffington Post. Huge reports on the state of the industry written by journalistic institutions are filled with questions, but very few answers. Now a writer at the Columbia Journalism Review has taken aim at what he sees as the real culprit: “future of news” visionaries like Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis, who he says are hurting the industry more than they are helping. But is that really where the problem lies? I don’t think so.

The Columbia Journalism Review is published by the same institution that came out with that massive report on the future of the journalism business earlier this year, so writer Dean Starkman is well aware of the problems in the industry, and the lack of any simple (or even obvious) answers. And yet he criticizes Shirky and Jarvis — as well as Dan Gillmor and journalism professor Jay Rosen — for not only failing to provide any compelling solutions, but for making things worse by arguing that journalists should engage with their readers and make journalism more of a two-way street than a dead-end road. As he puts it:

FON’s practical prescriptions — what it calls engagement with readers — have in practice devolved into another excuse for news managers to ramp up productivity burdens, draining reporters of their most precious resource, the thing that makes them potent: time.

This criticism — that all of the blogging, responding to comments, posting to Twitter and other activities that modern journalists are expected to engage in as part of their jobs gets in the way of “real” journalism — is a common one, particularly with what Jay Rosen calls the curmudgeons of the craft. And in fact the Columbia Journalism Review had a long piece about the dangers of this approach last year, written by none other than Dean Starkman, which argued that this “hamster wheel” approach was killing journalism (this idea was picked up by the Federal Communications Commission in a report on the news industry, which referred to the “hamsterization” of the business).

For Starkman, institutions are all that matters

But Starkman’s real point is made obvious by the anecdote he uses to open his piece, a long tale of investigative reporter Ida Tarbell and her ground-breaking expose of the oil trusts and robber barons around the turn of the century, which she wrote for McClure’s magazine. It took months, he says, and involved trips to Switzerland to talk to the magazine’s publisher before it even got off the ground, not to mention months of research. Who is going to do this kind of public-interest journalism in the always-on, engaged and connected, hamsterized future of news, Starkman asks:

Remember when a single investigative reporter with the temerity to demand a decent living… could pull the curtain back on one of the most powerful and secretive organizations on the face of the earth?

For Starkman, the real problem with the new vision of journalism proposed by the “future of news” crowd — a world in which the news is “assembled, shared, and to an increasing degree, even gathered, by a sophisticated readership” — is that it is anti-institutional at heart. And the problem with that approach, he says, is that only large media institutions such as The Guardian or the New York Times can take on behemoths like News Corp. and have a hope of winning, just as Ida Tarbell needed McClure’s magazine to back her in her quest for the truth about robber barons like Nelson John D. Rockefeller.

I think Starkman’s piece has a number of flaws, including the fact that many of the things he criticizes the “future of news” gang for saying about journalism — that it is often stale and duplicative, that it is a commodity with less and less value all the time, and so on — are points that Jarvis and Shirky have made about daily news, not the kind of investigative public-service stories that Starkman sees as “real” journalism. And for what it’s worth, Starkman has no real solutions for how to save or support these other aspects of the journalism business either, as far as I can tell from his piece.

It doesn’t have to be a binary question

But the other problem with his criticism is that it sets up a false dichotomy, in which only large institutions do anything worthwhile about the issues that matter, and the kind of distributed or “crowd-powered” or engaged journalism that Jarvis and others are in favor of is pretty much just a giant waste of everyone’s time. Why does it have to be either/or? Why do institutions have to win, and control the journalistic enterprise from beginning to end, or be crushed by the anti-institutional fervor of the revolutionaries that Starkman seems to despise? Is there no middle ground?

I think there is. Smart institutions like The Guardian are making use of digital tools to open up their journalism, in an attempt to create what editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger calls a “mutualised newspaper.” They are thinking of themselves as a platform for others to build on, not an institution that delivers the news ready-made to a willing audience. And new institutions like ProPublica and the Texas Tribune are showing other ways of delivering hard-hitting and worthwhile public journalism. Where do they fit in Starkman’s binary model? The CJR writer has some nice things to say about what the Guardian has done, but he still seems to see these kinds of moves as an afterthought.

The bottom line is that no one knows what the future of news looks like in a connected world driven by the “democracy of distribution” that social tools allow, and the fact that anyone can become a journalist with the click of a button on a smartphone or by posting to Twitter as a helicopter targets Osama bin Laden’s compound. Shirky and Jarvis and Rosen may not have any answers either, but at least they are thinking about potential solutions — Starkman seems to just want to return to some mythical golden age when institutions ruled the industry and readers knew their place.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Mark Strozier and Petteri Sulonen

10 Responses to “Why does the future of news have to be us versus them?”

  1. david_glance

    I think this piece is spot on and felt likewise when I read the Starkman article. Talk about ad hominem arguments! The most damning aspect of the article was as you said, that after all the criticism there was a somewhat sad attempt to offer a solution, almost as an afterthought. Clay Shirky, to take one of those pilloried in this article, is the first to admit that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is also somewhat sad that he has to go all the way back to 1901 to find an example of the superiority of institutional-based investigative journalism. There was so much wrong with that article but it just reeked of someone desperately clinging to a past that probably never existed.

  2. Evgeny Morozov


    With all due respect, don’t you think you end up oversimplifying things much more than Starkman when you talk about “the problem” that is lying somewhere and that he is missing? Clearly, there are many layers to this mess: one is the absence of clear, sharp, self-reflexive and humble thinking on the future of news; another one is the presence of certain FON narratives that, in addition to being shallow and ahistorical (for my taste), may also have unintended consequences that would make the lives of journalists much harder, etc (I’m sure there are many more layers on top of those two). All that Starkman has done is to demand that we pay more critical attention to the kind of things that FON guys say, scrutinize their motivation, and don’t lose sight of the great imbalance that exists between churning out such theories from the comfort of a university and the messy realities of acting out on them from within the newsroom. To fault Starkman for not having “solutions” to some “problem” is to miss the point of his essay, which is precisely to argue that so many people don’t see the FON forest for the FON trees.


    • Thanks for the comment, Evgeny. I agree there are many layers to the problems that exist — which is why I’ve been writing about it so much :-) But what bothered me about Starkman’s post was that he dismisses so much of what Jarvis and Shirky et al. have to offer, but his only recommendations are that we preserve our journalistic institutions. For a 7,000-word essay, I think that’s pretty weak.

  3. I think Social platforms like Twitter and FaceBook are rocking. We have seen Egypt, Europe and other parts of the world where simple journalism is not doing enough as social platforms.

    Plain Journalism is like way way channel but when we talk about Social it’s what people really think and react. Rupert Murdoch has already showed the world how news can be manipulated by big players.. isn’t it?

  4. Jessica Binsch

    … because ProPublica does such a horrible job of investigative reporting by wasting their time on all those silly engagement things? Their editors have pointed out publicly how their reader engagement helps them improve their stories, as have editors at the Guardian, which you cite. However, I think behind the criticism lies the very real issue that many newsrooms and reporters are expected to do more with less, and that those engagement duties are piled onto them on top of their already full work schedule. That makes it easy to see the newest task as yet another time suck. The underlying problem is that unless news organizations figure out how to make money off digital content, resources will continue to be spread so thin that the apetite for trying out new things is low (and before you ask, I don’t have the solution either).

    • Thanks for the comment, Jessica — but I have little sympathy for the complaints about how long engagement takes. The nature of the job has changed, as many other jobs have changed — we can’t expect to simply do the same things journalists did 20 years ago and retire early. The job is different now, and in many ways it is better — and media outlets that don’t realize it will never solve their monetization problems.

  5. changingnewsroom

    I read the piece differently – I actually thought he did an excellent job of NOT making this black and white. I am, generally speaking, firmly in the “news as conversation,” involve the readers, embrace digital world etc. Jarvis/Rosen/Shirky camp, but it does make me nervous when I see new orthodoxy arising to take the place of the old that is similarly rigid and not open to critique. We always have to be open to questioning our assumptions, and I think he does a reasonable job of doing that.

    He makes a number of fair points I think about the challenges we face in getting meaningful contributions from unpaid contributors, which Rosen has actually acknowledged intelligently; that institutions, for all their flaws, DO play an important role in quality journalism; that overworked reporters may in some ways be disempowered “by writing more often, under more pressure, with less autonomy, than under the previous monopolistic regime.” I don’t think this amounts to a curmudgeonly call for us to retreat behind the barricades, but it does raise some issues to think about.

    • Thanks, Brizzy — I guess I read it as more of an attack than it needed to be. Why not spend more time on how these two types of journalism can work together instead of spending the whole piece tearing down Jarvis and Shirky’s views? It seemed unnecessarily antagonistic to me. Thanks for the comment though.

  6. Boy Mathew, he sure got you worked up :-)

    I read the article and didn’t think it was quite as black/white as you seemed to have taken it.

    I tend to agree with him on some things like it takes bigger institutions with funding to fight big institutions like wall street or government in a substantial, large scale way. Just can’t see things like Watergate or the British phone hacking being exposed in a meaningful way without a reporter being funded. Don’t see an individual (or a crowd) pulling it off.