Reducing headache by making assumptions explicit
Journalism is a multi-faceted field: people come from disparate backgrounds. Consequently, when talking about the future of journalism, these camps of people hold drastically different sacred cows. My single largest frustration with reading their ideas is that they don’t seem to realize this. Everyone seems to think what is obvious to them is obvious to everyone else.
I created a list of frustrating sacred-cow assumptions that I have encountered most often.
Accountability journalism as a public good will be under-provided in a competitive market.
To resolve:
- What level of accountability journalism is necessary for a democracy to continue functioning effectively?
- What level of accountability journalism will be provided by a market with no government/foundation intervention?
- In such a market, how much of the supply of accountability journalism is due to market demand and how much is subsidized by goodwill?
- How does one measure the level of accountability journalism? Is this measurement possible?
- If it is not possible to measure the level of accountability journalism (which seems most likely), what arguments become more or less credible?
Arguments influenced:
- If the answer to this question hinges on new business models and startups reaching a certain level of efficiency, discourse should shift towards those areas.
- If accountability journalism will be under-provided in a competitive market no matter how efficient companies are, it makes sense to focus on public policy solutions.
Current discourse:
- The Knight Commission’s Information Needs of Communities notes that information is a public good but makes the mistaken [1] conclusion that “because so much information is a public good, communities and the country also need to make some public investment in the creation and distribution of information.” Additionally, it provides qualitative research on the level of information needed in a community/democracy.
- Need more economic/quantitative research on this topic.
We must save existing news organizations to ensure accountability journalism will be sufficiently provided in the future.
To resolve:
- Is this absolutely necessary? Or does it depend on the level of government/foundation funding or the efficiency of new business models?
- What are the embedded benefits of existing news organizations that new institutions will be unable to provide? Does this have to do with their scale, culture, experience, or something else entirely?
- Is this time-limited? How much does it matter when government steps in or new business models are created?
Arguments influenced:
- If there is no inherant advantage to existing newsrooms, discourse should shift to business models that will provide journalism, not how to save news organizations.
- If there is an inherant advantage, discussion needs to take place regarding the value of that advantage and any transfer mechanisms.
Current discourse:
- Michele McLellan believes “we need to stop flatly equating good journalism with newspapers as more journalistic players enter the field.” \…\
- Dan Gillmor believes non-profits will cover the market failure from existing news organizations dying. …
- Need more viewpoints on embedded benefits of existing news organizations.
Providing general/advocacy journalism will produce accountability journalism as a by-product at historically similar ratios.
We are used to thinking newspapers and accountability journalism go hand-in-hand. This was not always the case. The beginnings of newspapers were as political advocacy material providers. Will we return to that model?
To resolve:
- What factors impact the demand ratio of general journalism to accountability journalism?
- How much do people value accountability journalism versus other forms of journalism? Does that ratio change depending on the medium? (Perhaps online, people are looking for cheap thrills.)
- What factors impact the supply ratio of general journalism to accountability journalism?
- How much accountability journalism is driven by market force and how much is subsidized by newsroom culture?
- Do newly proposed business models change these ratios substantially?
Arguments influenced:
- It may be the case that online startups will provide similar levels of general journalism as traditional newspapers, but have a far lower collective output of accountability journalism. This should be addressed on a medium and model-by-model basis.
- It may be the case that newly proposed business models and changing journalistic demands (to produce copy for multiple mediums, for example) for traditional newsrooms affect their supply ratio. Again, this should be a concern.
Current discourse:
- The CJR makes the observation that “in the plurality of the American media universe, advocacy journalism is not endangered—it is growing” but “accountability journalism, particularly local accountability journalism, is especially threatened by the economic troubles that have diminished so many newspapers.”
- Need more case studies and thought on the changing or stable ratio of general journalism to accountability journalism at profitable institutions (that may or may not be profitable as their market becomes increasingly crowded).
Of course, this is not a comprehensive list of assumptions that are commonly made. [2] But these are the broadest ones: the ones that, if answered, provide a sort of philosophical underpinning/frame for additional concrete discussion.
Maybe we should just make a list of assumptions and force everyone to respond before being allowed into the discussion. We can give out stickers or something.
This is part of a series of articles suggesting a systematic approach to future of journalism research. The next article proposes a centralized ontological scheme »