Future of Journalism

Yesterday Sterling wrote about the reasons people blog. His post was inspired by this entry, from "Life's a Pitch". I was particularly struck by this last paragraph:

I like to think that artists and industry folks with blogs constitute an important aspect of the broader cultural conversation, but I don't pretend it's journalism. Where would be be if all of our news came from people with "real"/"day" jobs? Someone has to be an unbiased reporter of the facts. Someone, I guess, with family money?

The digital age has provided not only the means to publish your own work, but free and easy access to an audience. This has created the debate around what it means to be a journalist. US Senator John Kerry recently brought attention to this debate with his "Future of Journalism" hearings. David Simon, creator of the HBO series "The Wire", testified before the Senate Committee and his comments can be found here. What Simon tackles in his statement is traditional high-end journalism versus new media, such as blogs.

He raises the question - and this is comes back to the "Pitch" quote - what is the validity of the so-called cultural conversation if people are not able dedicate enough time and energy to the pursuit; in other words, if they are not able to make writing their profession?

The defense of traditional forms of media usually includes an argument such as David Simon's about the importance of the profession. And the argument against new media has to do with the struggle to monetize it. Culture Grrl is clearly actively engaged in this struggle. And I have complete respect for someone who just wants to make a living doing what is important to her. This connects to David Simon's argument: if you are being compensated for your time, then conceivably you can spend more of it engaging with your subject matter.

What happens when we lose experienced and well connected journalists (because there is no longer money to pay them) and information instead comes from sources such as blogs, written by those with potentially less training and experience?

This debate happens in theatre all the time: there are those who will not take on a project (or cannot, if they belong to a union) if it is not professional - and yet community/amateur theatre has always existed and continues to thrive. The assertion of the professional artist is that they should be paid a living wage to engage in the work in which they have trained and have experience; it is their profession.

As in theatre, the important question in journalism is how does it serve the community? Simon argues that a disconnect from the newsroom leads to a disconnect from the community. Here is a response to Simon from "The Opinionator" Eric Etheridge. He points to a number of civic-minded bloggers who are dedicated to covering their community, their 'beat'.

Now, what I like about Sterling's piece and it's connection to the debate, is this kind of revitalized definition of what it means to profit from one's writing. Sterling's point, and I'm totally paraphrasing/extrapolating here, is that there is a measurable gain from accessing and engaging a particular community, and that in the long run this has more advantages because it develops a stronger sense of community and helps advance the cultural conversation.

The larger idea here is about developing ways of engaging one another that doesn't include a financial transaction. I agree with Sterling that there is a different kind of payoff in building "a community with words". This implies and in fact demonstrates the kind of civic-mindedness that David Simon argues must be preserved.

I also think there is beauty in mixing together many different voices, and that insight can be gained when more people participate than what was possible in traditional journalism. The traditional media machine or 'gatekeeper' would keep all but the most elite voices from being heard. Jan Phillips over at the Huffington Post wrote this about the interesting threshold of capitalism where we find ourselves. She argues that this is a time for "community engagement and community inquiry". And she warns against the kind of system we have had, where we focus on profit alone. "The questions now," she states, "are bigger than profit, bigger than returns on investment, bigger than individual success."

So, how do we engage with these questions? Are journalism and the cultural conversation mutually exclusive as "Pitch" suggests? How do we keep the ideals of high-end journalism, which include the commitment to challenge authority (David Simon); without the salaried positions for said journalists, without begging money from readers (Culture Grrl), and without "family money" (Life's a Pitch)?

Being new to blogs and to blogging, I am intrigued by these new(ish) forms of two-way (or multi-way?) communication. I have been following a number of blogs for a few months now and am only just starting to wrap my brain around the concept that these writers don't just want me to read their posts, they want feedback. Being a lover of words, I am used to taking in without ever having to give back. I am a consumer. I am trained to consume. I also grew up with the belief that only opinions to be trusted were those expressed by individuals with 'credentials'.

Perhaps the elimination of the kind of journalism that David Simon admits has only existed for about the last 50 years, is part of the wildfire Jan Phillips is talking about. Perhaps a clean slate is what we need in order to re-start the conversation. And I'm realizing it is a conversation, as it affects all of us. The message, it seems to me, is to stop merely consuming; to stop measuring the value of something by how much it costs or the validity/importance of work by how much you are getting paid. And instead, to measure the powerful reach of ideas as they are shared, shaped and re-shaped by those with the passion to engage with their beat.