Here's a stimulating commentary by the ex-editor of the Los Angeles Times. This is a short excerpt--to read the entire article, click here.
Of course we'll have newspapers. But will there be any news in them?
James O’Shea, ex-editor of the LA Times, sees pandering to readers as a current danger and says newspapers aren’t going to solve their problems by lay-offs or closing bureaus. Journalists need to persuade people that we “once again are a public trust,” he writes.
By James O’Shea
With all the reports about huge layoffs and financial troubles in the news business, it’s no wonder that many journalists and caring Americans question whether we will continue to have newspapers.
But those concerned about the fate of these fabled institutions are asking the wrong question. Of course we will have newspapers. Communist China has newspapers; Russia under the Soviets had newspapers. Serbia had newspapers under dictator Slobadan Milosevic.
The real question is what kind of journalism will we have in the newspapers that manage to survive the current wave of circulation and advertising declines plaguing the industry.
Will we have the rich, hard-hitting storytelling that gives the news its infrastructure of shoe-leather journalism from courthouses, police stations, legislatures and war zones, the kind of reporting that gives bloggers, broadcasters and others something to write and talk about?
Or will the surviving newspapers become vessels for “panderism” instead of journalism, flimsy content organized around the age-old principle of luring dog owners to stories in the paper so you can sell them some dog food?
I’ve been wondering about this question ever since I left the newsroom of the Los Angeles Times earlier this year over what has come to be commonly known as “a disagreement over the future direction of the paper.”
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment