Blake's Think Tank

I have to admit that I was amused by John Brummett’s column on the newspaper business. In his piece he relies heavily (and some might argue lazily) on comments made by David Simon, a former Baltimore Sun reporter and the creator of “The Wire” as justification for his position that the Internet (and more specifically bloggers and aggregating Web sites) is ruining the newspaper business.

As David Kinkade notes in his well-articulated response to Mr. Brummett posted on his blog, The Arkansas Project, yesterday,

Let’s pause here to note that Brummett’s column is around 700 words, about 250 words of which is a direct quote from Simon. That is what “high-end journalism” looks like, if you have never seen it before.

Mr. Brummett’s argument is this (as stated by Mr. Simon before useless congressional hearings on the future of the newspaper business):

Understand that I am not making a Luddite argument against the Internet and all that it offers. But … you do not, in my city, run into bloggers or so-called citizen journalists at City Hall or in courthouse hallways or at the bars and union halls where police officers gather. You do not see them consistently nurturing and then pressing sources. You do not see them holding institutions accountable on a daily basis.

I have no idea whether bloggers frequent city hall in Baltimore, but such a statement is silly as a categorical characterization. By way of example, Matt Drudge, a blogger, broke the Monica Lewinsky story. (In a post here a few weeks ago I noted how influential he is at driving news, particularly in Washington, D.C.) Talking Points Memo, spearheaded by Josh Marshall, is breaking news frequently in Washington, D.C. and actively covering the halls of federal government. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein has a White House press pass, and Arianna Huffington is actively trying to hire freelance journalists (mostly those that have been laid off by newspapers) to cover a variety of subjects. These are just a few national examples.

As Mr. Kinkade appropriately observes, here in Arkansas Michael Tilley’s City Wire in Ft. Smith and the Fayetteville Flyer are two shining examples of how online publications are working effectively here in Arkansas. Scott Miller’s Argenta News is another one.

Another example is that of a local blogger, Jason Tolbert of The Tolbert Report, who spent a substantial amount of time at the capitol covering committee hearings and interviewing legislators during the 2009 legislative session. He was so visible at the capitol that Rep. Steve Harrelson, in a effort to bring more transparency and accountability to state government, proposed “The Jason Tolbert Transparency Act of 2009.” It failed, of course.

The discussion we’re having is about the future of journalism, I realize. Newspapers are a vital component, but can they develop an economic model that will allow them to survive? No one knows, but there are plenty of people (and no, Mr. Brummett isn’t one of them) that have been trying to stir conversation about what that  model might be. Through thoughtful discussion good ideas emerge.

In the meantime newspapers are laying off reporters. I’ve articulated many times the potential harm this can have on us all. But until newspapers make a concerted effort to do something differently, it’s silly to point a finger at the blogosphere. None of us – not even Mr. Marshall at TPM – have suggested that the blogosphere can consume all of the reporting responsibilities of newspapers. It will, however, consume some, particularly at the local level.

Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times today, suggests that new paradigms (community journalists, internet start-ups or some other) will be able to handle local news. It’s rather inexpensive, he believes, to cover the school board or the planning commission in a community. I’d also suggest that it’s rather inexpensive to cover the state legislature in Arkansas, too.

He writes,

Reporting the news can be expensive. Some of it — monitoring the local school board, say — can and is being done by voluntary “citizen journalists” with time on their hands, integrity and a Web site. But we can’t have serious opinions about America’s role in combating the Taliban in Pakistan unless brave and knowledgeable correspondents (with security to protect them) tell us in real time what is actually going on there. We can’t know what is happening behind closed doors at corrupt, hard-to-penetrate institutions in Washington or Wall Street unless teams of reporters armed with the appropriate technical expertise and assiduously developed contacts are digging night and day.

That makes perfect sense.

In the meantime Mr. Brummett continues to harpoon bloggers – in this case me and Mr. Kinkade – because we “who boast, practically, that they don’t want to go anywhere near the state Capitol during a legislative session.” His point seems to be that without newspapers no one will cover the Arkansas legislature.

He writes,

That’s quite all right as long as someone from the newspaper goes there every day and gleans vital and insightful information about prospective laws on which the bloggers can choose to comment.

That’s pretty ridiculous and I’m sure Mr. Brummett knows it. There are plenty of new models of reporting that are sprouting up all over the country. They’re not affiliated with newspapers, but they’re reporting the news and keeping their communities informed. They’re cheaper, more nimble, and provide a lot more content, too. And a majority of them are housed exclusively online.

This is a conversation the media world is having right now. In the digital age, how can the industry of journalism continue to perform effectively?

Mr. Brummett’s latest bloviation on the newspaper business isn’t helpful. He offers nothing more than, “It will all work itself out or it won’t.” In this day and time Arkansans deserve more thoughtful analysis and discussion from someone who’s spent a lifetime working in the industry.