Blog Post

When sources can go direct, do we need journalism less or do we need it more than ever?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

One of the effects of the “democratization of distribution” that has been created by the web and social media is that anyone can become a publisher and an information source in their own right — and that means advertisers, governments and even armies. In the same way, politicians can now reach out to their supporters much more effectively by detouring around the traditional media, as columnist Frank Bruni described in a recent piece in the New York Times. Does that mean we need journalists less than we used to, or more than we used to?

Bruni’s column, entitled “Who Needs Reporters?,” describes a series of recent events in which public figures did an end run around the mainstream media: in one case, former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann announced via a video message that she wouldn’t seek a fifth term in Congress, and in the second case former Congressman Anthony Weiner announced that he was going to make a bid to become mayor of New York City. A third incident involved Senator Hilary Clinton, who announced her views on gay marriage.

The YouTube ID of 6RP9pbKMJ7c?rel=0 is invalid.

Has the fourth estate become less relevant?

The NYT columnist argues that this kind of end-run around the traditional media potentially does far more harm to the fourth estate than the much more controversial attacks on whistleblowers and journalists who have received government leaks:

“Our role and relevance are arguably even more imperiled by politicians’ ability, in this newly wired world of ours, to go around us and present themselves in packages that we can’t simultaneously unwrap. To get a message out, they don’t have to beseech a network’s indulgence. They don’t have to rely on a newspaper’s attention.”

Bruni goes on to say the videos made by Clinton and Bachmann are “harbingers of an era in which YouTube is the public square, and the fourth estate is a borderline obsolescent one.” And he admits some may see the decline of the journalistic sector as a good thing, given the level of mistrust many have in the media — which he blames on “our cynicism, superficiality… and tendency to see all politics in terms of the contest rather than the content.”

In the end, the Times columnist argues that journalists are needed more than ever because the ability to reach an audience directly makes it easier for politicians to “construct a Potemkin identity, a facade at odds with anything behind it,” and therefore journalistic skills are required to get behind that facade and reveal the truth — or to “poke and meddle,” as he puts it.

Move up the journalism value chain

In a way, I would argue that the phenomenon of “sources going direct” (as blogging pioneer Dave Winer has described it in the past) has the potential to make journalists — or at least journalism of a certain kind — both less necessary and more necessary at the same time.


What it makes less necessary is the kind of stenographic journalism that consists of simply showing up to a news conference and writing down what a politician says, or rewriting a press release that has been handed out. As Brian Stelter noted during a social-media weekend last year, if your job is just to get Rupert Murdoch to say things, having the News Corp. chairman saying things on Twitter to some extent makes your job a lot harder.

Looked at another way, however, this allows journalists of all kinds — both professional and amateur or “citizen” journalists — to move up the value chain, as disruption expert Clay Christensen has described in his recent paper on the evolution of media. If we see the media as providing a service (or “jobs to be done,” as Christensen calls it) then part of that service used to be telling people what politicians said, or what the government wanted them to hear.

Now that this can be accomplished largely (or increasingly) without journalists, it should free up a whole class of reporters to do more value-added journalism that explains what things mean, or questions the statements of politicians. All they have to do, as Om has explained, is choose what to amplify and what not to amplify. And won’t we all be better off if that happens?

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Jan Arief Purwanto and Shutterstock / wellphoto

6 Responses to “When sources can go direct, do we need journalism less or do we need it more than ever?”

  1. Stavros Rougas

    “Move up the journalism value chain” will require content producers with subject matter expertise ideally with journalism training. The former is required the latter not. The traditional system requires the reverse.

    Since few companies/industries have ever made a successful 180 it’s not looking good for the majority of traditional content producers.

  2. “Now that this can be accomplished largely (or increasingly) without journalists, it should free up a whole class of reporters to do more value-added journalism” –
    As you can see in the real world, it doesn’t. It just means these jobs are gone and these people will no longer be reporters. The amount of money dedicated to more value-added journalism is diminishing, not growing. Alas.

  3. Lloyd Trufelman

    Let’s not confuse distribution with credibility. The Bachmann, Weiner and Clinton announcements were basically nothing more than high-tech handouts. Politicians trying to avoid media scrutiny used to issue written press releases and statements. Remember fax attacks? Now they distribute statements via digital video or Twitter. However, far more people learn about these announcements from reporters filing news stories and providing analysis on mainstream and digital media channels than consume – and believe – the politicians’ own messages directly…

    • “Let’s not confuse distribution with credibility”

      Your average “reporter” is about as trustworthy as your average politician.

  4. “it should free up a whole class of reporters to do more value-added journalism that explains what things mean, or questions the statements of politicians.”

    Oh but that would require more journalists to actually confront powerful people instead of parrotting their sales pitches.

    How many will be up to the new task?

  5. George Nimeh

    In a world where the Bachmanns and Wieners and Clintons can sidestep the media, the people are fcuked. “Going direct” to the people with slick produced edited packaged productions does not help the dialogue or democracy. It creates an invisible layer. An invisible and incredibly dangerous layer.

    Side note: I missed Frank Bruni’s piece “Who Needs Reporters?” published on 1 June (thanks for the link), but then I saw/read Michael Rosenblum’s “Who Needs Journalism?” published 4 June on HuffPo. Same article. No links. No credit. No nada. This is equally damaging to the people. Why? Because (and sorry for digging up and using your recent analogy here) as far as I know, Tesla produces new cars with new designs.