Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing, or There is No Such Thing As A Free Ride

Real jour­na­lism. I love it. I read it. I want more of it.

Most of the rea­ders here know this topic is one of my chain pullers. Pun­dits are not jour­na­lists, nor are most blog­gers. Huff-Po (for the sake of bre­vity the only exam­ple, of many poten­tial exam­ples, I will use), at least up until now, had no real inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lists. What they had was a group of peo­ple, some with a cer­tain exper­tise, some not so much, willing to give their opi­nion based on the facts as they see them. For god sake Bill Maher?

Opi­nion is good, I love giving mine. This post is tag­ged opi­nion. It’s my favo­rite tag. I love a few of Huff-Po’s colum­nists too, but what about the real inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism? The kind that makes us sit back and think, not run to the nea­rest opi­nion blog to see what others think. What about fin­ding out the ans­wers to lar­ger socie­tal and poli­ti­cal quan­da­ries? For all the ram­bling on the new way of news, there is no new way of real inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism. We are already a world of edi­to­rials, thanks to cable tele­vi­sion. When the jour­na­lism, or the source of the news, goes to hell, the edi­to­rials are worth less than they would be other­wise, and that’s unner­ving, con­si­de­ring how edi­to­rials go.

I came across the posts lis­ted in the follo­wing para­graphs and thought I’d put them out there for you to read, as a pre­lude to the NYT maga­zine Strai­ned by Katrina, a Hos­pi­tal Faced Deadly Choi­ces . The piece — by Sheri Fink, an M.D., a staff repor­ter at Pro­Pu­blica, and senior fellow at the Har­vard Huma­ni­ta­rian Ini­tia­tive — is a spec­ta­cu­lar must read (will be in the NYT Maga­zine this wee­kend), and an exam­ple of what we may be mis­sing in the future. It is a piece that needs diges­ting, and we will dis­cuss the piece itself another time, save to say that this is real inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism, done by peo­ple who know what they are doing, and care about the sub­ject mat­ter. It takes time, and it is expen­sive to produce.

This post is merely a link to posts asking the ques­tions we have to ask. Good reads for what might be a rainy wee­kend in many pla­ces throughout this country.
Cost of the NYT Maga­zine NOLA Story Bro­ken Down
The Price of Truth

My ques­tion for the wee­kend is, if we are unwi­lling to pay for things like real inves­ti­gate jour­na­lism, why? Is it because we really don’t want to know the truth? Are we are too wrap­ped up in our own pro­blems, sig­ni­fi­cant or not, to see any worth in the lar­ger ethi­cal, social, or poli­ti­cal ques­tions we should be asking. Or is it some kind of cal­cu­la­ted evo­lu­tion? Will jour­na­lism go the way of the clothing we wear, made in third world coun­tries, some­ti­mes from fac­to­ries with ques­tio­na­ble labor prac­ti­ces, and often of les­ser quality.

What say you?

What of the future of jour­na­lism? What of the future of the truth.

Check out the pre­ce­ding post, Old School Fri­day, if you mis­sed it.

Share This
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • SphereIt
  • Mixx
  • FriendFeed

28 Comments

  • The Times piece is long. I can’t do it jus­tice until tomo­rrow, but the other links were worth the read. I don’t know the ans­wer. I hope that future gene­ra­tions do not miss out on real jour­na­lism, but I fear that it may be the case. Truth will be nothing more than someone’s opi­nion. And that should never be the case, no mat­ter who the opi­nion belongs to.

  • The inter­net seems to be the only way to get real info, which of course you must decipher for your­self. Scary, but that’s the way it is.

    Ame­ri­can publi­ca­tions pro­vide little info about Ame­rica.
    I believe the news media, & Holly­wood still want us to believe that jour­na­lism con­sists of some guy sit­ting behind a desk scratching his head at a typewriter.

    As for Bill Maher,but it’s like watching a kid scream, :“I win, I win!” all the time. Rou­ting behind him makes me feel stu­pid even though I agree with him most of the time.

    We are in the dark about a lot. Could change if our youn­ger gene­ra­tion rea­li­zes spon­so­red News depen­ding on ratings isn’t always the best source.
    Bennet´s last blog ..Sell Some Crazy For The Hazy

    • The amount of real in of we can get from the inter­net is ques­tio­na­ble, and it’s rare’ inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism. Well I think my gene­ra­tion is too often so big on get­ting on the inter­net they have a hard time deciphe­ring what is real.

  • Spea­king for myself, I am happy to pay for inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism. I am unhappy to pay for opi­nion. My favo­rite opi­nion I get from peo­ple like you and blog­gers are gene­rally as good as pros.

    I found it funny, in times past, that the NYT’s web­site char­ged for colum­nists and gave away infor­ma­tion. If Times Select had been the news sec­tion of their web­site, I’d gladly have subscribed.

    But why pay for Tom Fried­man when I can get Coo­per for free? That would be silly.
    Doug´s last blog ..The Refor­ma­tion of Wolfshau­sen

    • You make me proud with those lose purse strings.

      That was inte­res­ting they did used to do that didn’t they?

      Doug you keep making feel like I should be

  • I think peo­ple still want real jour­na­lism. What’s hap­pe­ning is pun­dit jour­na­lism is being dis­gui­sed as real jour­na­lism. Front­line still does a very good job of inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism, and occas­sio­naly you’ll catch one of the major net­works doing some real work too.

    What we’re seeing is peo­ple with pre­dis­po­sed opi­nions with no jour­na­lis­tic trai­ning pas­sing their sto­ries off as real jour­na­lism, with our current media esta­blish­ment allo­wing it to hap­pen. The left does it as well, it’s not just Fox News.

    For the future, I see blogs pla­ying a lar­ger role in fact chec­king pun­dit jour­na­lism but blog­gers are by no means jour­na­lists. I see major media beco­ming more blog­gish, which is scary if you think about it.
    Chris´s last blog ..Quic­kies

    • It’s actually not dis­gui­sed ever­yone should know that all those show from good old Billy to Good Old Chris are opi­nion journalism.

      It is scary, and I hope it isn’t the case.

  • A good point about the NYT for­merly char­ging for the op-ed columns.
    They have some of the bet­ter opi­nia­tors, but what it really shows is peo­ple will pay to hear there own opi­nion mimic­ked but they won’t pay to hear the truth.

    Glenn Beck would like­wise make a killing in the paid con­tent arena, crazy or not those like him would pay to hear him mic­mic their views.
    john´s last blog ..Currently Fea­ring Everything

  • I agree with Doug. And I believe that edi­tors are too easily swa­yed by opi­nion pie­ces they think will sell news­pa­pers and the­re­fore the fifth of the very basic ques­tion that used to have be ans­we­red don’t any­more: “who” “what” “where” “how” “why.” That one’s fud­ged. Fact chec­kers are busy chec­king the most basic of facts – was the repor­ter where he/she said he was rather than ques­tions of subs­tance
    pia´s last blog ..Clim­bing metapho­ri­cal moun­tains

    • I’m too easily swa­yed by opi­nion pie­ces as well. I can be swa­yed in 10 dif­fe­rent direc­tions on any given day.

  • First of all, I’m slowly diges­ting that Katrina-hospital article as we speak. It is an ama­zing read, and a great exam­ple of inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lism, as you poin­ted out.

    As for your ques­tions, I think that most peo­ple do not care to really know the truth, to be expo­sed to the rea­lity of this world. That may sound cyni­cal, but I get the impres­sion that this country is filled with McDonald’s eating (no offense), Box Store shop­pers. For the most part, they don’t think for them­sel­ves or look for truth.

    Cyni­cism aside (actually, this may just be more cyni­cism), the press, at least in the Uni­ted Sta­tes (and mostly elsewhere, too) is lar­gely con­tro­lled by various corporations/corrupt indi­vi­duals who pre­fer to expose us to what they want us to see.

    I was just thin­king recently, How come we don’t see regu­lar NYTi­mes artic­les on the current situa­tion in Hon­du­ras? It’s pretty explo­sive down there and the Uni­ted Sta­tes does have a rela­tionship with the country and its govern­ment. I think this says something about what we’re expo­sed to and what is “hid­den” from us.

    An indi­vi­dual needs to make real effort in order to dis­co­ver true jour­na­lism and most peo­ple are, frankly, too lazy.

    I apo­lo­gize for offen­ding anyone with this com­ment — it’s my recent bout of intense doubt in the public and the majo­rity of human beings in this country. But I am not direc­ting it at anyone in par­ti­cu­lar and I’m cer­tainly open to another perspective!

    • That was an ama­zing read, I think I’ve sent it to ever­yone I know.

      I totally agree with you. I remem­ber a few years ago I was rea­ding this jaunty little tra­vel piece in the NYT on Oaxaca, Mexico. I was a piece about how beau­ti­ful it was, the food, the hotels, and the repor­ters vaca­tion. This was at he same time as he teachers strike, the mur­ders of social acti­vist and even one US jour­na­list -,and so on and so forth.
      Not a men­tion of it from the repor­ter — who has a lovely vaca­tion there.

      I share in your doubt.

  • Peo­ple live in a bub­ble and they like it that way. I know peo­ple who surf the sho­res of the world who know more about what is going in it than those who are currently repor­ting in it.

    I’m not saying this is wrong, it may be the way it was inten­ded, but it makes small minds and is not hel­ping humanity’s case.

    The corrup­tion hold is something which puts me in cons­tant state of “why should I care”. We live in a dead end.

    The NOLA piece was superb.
    g´s last blog ..Old School Fri­day

  • I read the Katrina piece before going to sleep and don’t sug­gest that

    As a medi­cal geria­tric social wor­ker a doctor’s misin­ter­pre­ta­tion of something basic was mind num­bing – and how peo­ple went along with it.
    The author was great. She repor­ted it and let you come to your own conc­lu­sions.
    There’s so much in the article to take in
    I know you’re not up to tal­king about that article but it was the sin­gle best piece of inves­ti­ga­tion jour­na­lism I have read since – well expo­ses of men­tal hos­pi­tals etc but in the poli­ti­cal realm I have to go back too far
    pia´s last blog ..Follow the fellow who follows a dream

    • The piece was won­der­ful. Meant to be read again, which I plan to do. I have been away from home most of the wee­kend just now sett­ling in, so haven’t given it a second run through. It is rather mind boggling.

  • I’m going to read it even­tually, due to the acco­la­des. Not tonight.

    I’m with the spendth­rift Doug, the cynic Tris­tan, the poli­ti­cal Pia, and the fore­ver idea­lis­tic (but doubt­ful because she knows we are like peo­ple who com­plain we can’t see out the win­dow, when the truth is we never open the blinds), coo­per.
    jacob´s last blog ..And Then There Were Two

  • It’s all about money, a rank fear of the sligh­test cri­ti­cism, and the lack of wan­ting to do the hard, dirty job of dig­ging into a story.

    The news is so… what’s the word I’m loo­king for… veneer? It’s all sur­face coa­ting these days while the publishers look for ins­tant gra­ti­fi­ca­tion.
    sauerkraut´s last blog ..Mock the Week: Brits take on Ame­ri­can Health­care Reform

    • Ven­ner is a good term. No solid wood.

      Wiat maybe it’s ply­wood we are loo­king for some ven­neers are worthy masterpieces.

  • My grand­father was a jour­na­list for thirty years. We’re losing real journalism.

    Nobody inves­ti­ga­tes anything any more. I fear we will one day have a world wide cala­mity star­ted by some twitterer.

    Cheap news, easily trans­mit­ted (across the inter­net), but far from the truth.
    jake´s last blog ..Life Rai­ned Out

    • “Cheap news, easily trans­mit­ted (across the inter­net), but far from the truth.”

      That is a nice way to put it jake. Did he work for the Sun?

  • Don’t disa­gree with you at all. But Jour­na­lism is facing the pres­su­res that the car industry et al face in beco­ming a bet­ter biz model. As a result, in the tran­si­tion, there is going to be A LOT of crap pro­du­ced, and good journalists/writers who research are going to get axed.

    The key is for the best to get together — form a new com­pany — and find the marketing/ad rev to keep their per­so­nal and pro­fes­sio­nal exper­tise out there doing what it needs to do.

    Without the money to sup­port their trips, their inter­views and their time inves­ted, it goes no where. I’d say it will be 5 years before a new print/online media com­pany adapts com­ple­tely to the entire social media/online/ad game thats going on.

    Just an une­du­ca­ted thought.
    Jason Powers´s last blog ..No Rest in Fan­tasy Base­ball: Cash for Clun­kers, Fines for Plun­kers, and Punk’d Moves

    • There-in lies the pro­blem. I already see it, the peo­ple wri­ting essays or op-eds half the time have no wor­king know­ledge of anything, and haven’t really even got­ten off their ass to inves­ti­gate. It’s usually peo­ple my age who think they are doing something new and it’s the future, but really it’s a pretty poor future if that is what they think.

  • […] Won­der­land or Not: Inves­ti­ga­tive repor­ting can be expen­sive. Do rea­ders really want to pay for it? […]

  • The truth. So hard to digest, it’s unpa­la­ta­ble at best, some days. To face it is hard, to see it is pain­ful, and to find out what it is is expen­sive. The truth will go the way of many things. Away. It looks like it will take real jour­na­lism along with it.