Re: What is the future of journalism?
Kurt Andersen discusses the future of journalism. He hopes that news organizations are able to find a way to maintain their traditions of integrity and independence while adapting to the new media environment.
Filed under:
Media And The Press
Posted at:
02:12 PM on November 19, 2007
Well journalism faces a lot of challenges. I’m not sure that what are seen each day as the great challenges . . . the death of the newspaper, for instance, or it’s being supplanted by online media
. . . is the greatest challenge. I think . . . I think that trying to . . . that . . . that . . . there . . . there being a . . . a . . . a set of facts that we can all agree on is the great challenge of journalism, at least in the near median term – that journalism doesn’t entirely evolve to the left-wing version of facts, or the right-wing version of facts or the, you know, the Islamic version of facts, and the western version of facts. I mean there will always be the left, the right, the different cultures, different sensibilities who have their own little silo . . . journalistic silos of their version of the truth. And while we can never get back – I’m not sure we went to get back – to the pre-Internet, pre cable table version where there were three networks and New York Times, and they told us the truth from on high, I do think, and I do hope that we can maintain some . . . a shared sense of . . . of “here are the facts” and we here in some little place are engaged in a good faith search for the truth. You know the . . . the . . . “the truth” as a thing has . . . has . . . has gotten a kind of bad reputation from various sides by virtue of various critiques over the last 30 years. But I still . . . I still think that that is what needs to power and drive journalists. And . . . and I hope that the institutions that allowed that to happen in a robust way will figure out a way to maintain themselves, whether . . . by whatever economic model.
Recorded on: 7/5/2007 at
The Aspen Ideas Festival
Read full transcript »
Kurt Andersen, host of Studio 360 on NPR, is a journalist and the author of the novels Hey Day, Turn of the Century, and The Real Thing. He has written and produced prime-time network television programs and pilots for NBC and ABC, and co-authored Loose Lips, an off-Broadway theatrical revue that had long runs in New York and Los Angeles. He is a regular columnist for New York Magazine, and contributes frequently to Vanity Fair. He is also a founder of Very Short List. Andersen began his career in journalism at NBC’s Today program and at Time, where he was an award-winning writer on politics and criminal justice and for eight years the magazine’s architecture and design critic. Returning to Time in 1993 as editor-at-large, he wrote a weekly column on culture. And from 1996 through 1999 he was a staff writer and columnist for The New Yorker. He was a co-founder of Inside.com, editorial director of Colors magazine, and editor-in-chief of both New York and Spy magazines, the latter of which he also co-founded. From 2004 through 2008 he wrote a column called “The Imperial City” for New York (one of which is included in The Best American Magazine Writing 2008). In 2008 Forbes. com named him one of The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media.
Anderson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, and is a member of the boards of trustees of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, the Pratt Institute, and is currently Visionary in Residence at Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. He lives with his family in New York City.
Read more about Kurt Andersen »
What would it take for people to get really motivated about avoiding spin and demanding *real* fair coverage? Is it a matter of people not knowing (or not caring) what fair coverage is any more? Do people crave the gossipy nature of news told from an angle set to favor their own prejudices (never mind the *actual* gossip of celebrity "news")? Or, is there a real demand from the general public for fair news coverage, but the media conglomerates who own it all simply won't allow it (presumably because fair media is against their interests)?
But more important than the cause is how do we get rid of it? How do we blunt the "angles" and pare down news to its most verifiable essentials? How do we motivate the news owners and the news audience to hold mass media to higher standards of objectivity? That's what I'd like to know.
The beauty of conventional media is its ability to cross-subsidize --- you do certain things that draw audiences, and you do certain things because they're important to do, and they aren't always the same things. But one pays for the other, in essence.
Many of the new economics emerging in journalism are based on models that seem aligned with what people want, and not necessarily what they might need, to know.
Now, no one wants the preaching-from-the-mountain model of journalism, but there are valuable functions of journalism that involve revealing important truths --- things on the menu that no one might choose unless served.
What's important in the time ahead is to find ways to pay for the work that isn't necessarily going to move the needle on audience or circulation, but will have a softer value involving reputation or credibility. In other words, the journalism creating a sustainable model.
As the advertising-based models of journalism evolve digitally into much more targeted content aimed at specific audiences, the future of journalism will depend on finding ways to generate high quality that isn't necessarily highly demanded.
It might be through narrower subscriber-based models, it might mean underwritten models with independent financing, or it might mean allocating a certain portion of revenue to generate content withou a pre-determined market. But if we don't find these new models, the public service work of journalism will be harder to sustain.
www.themediamanager.com