Can investigative reporting survive through online grassroots efforts?

Jay Rosen posted a link on his Twitter a few days ago to the Knight Digital Media Center article “New grassroots life for investigative reporting?”  In it, author David Westphal discusses recent efforts to revive and sustain watchdog journalism through grassroots efforts, funded by foundations and philanthropy.  He mentions organizations like Texas Watchdog, which received a year of foundation funding to keep an eye on the Texas state government, and ProPublica, a recently launched investigative non-profit.  Westphal seems to believe there is hope for these attempts to prioritize watchdog journalism, and he highlights some of the creative ways that these organizations are working to sustain themselves in the long run.

There are multiple strikes against the idea that watchdog reporting can actually gain a foothold as a grassroots movement. Practically any business model has sharp limitations when it comes to investigative work, which is time-consuming, treacherous in its predictability and certain to be controversial. So is there a financing mechanism that legions of out-of-work journalists and others could adopt that would at least partially bankroll accountability reporting projects?  The answer is likely many months or years away.  

Voice is financed partly by foundations and mostly by philanthropy, and neither the foundations nor philanthropists are intending for their funding to be permanent.  But it’s an island of stability compared to the challenges facing other sites. Texas Watchdog got first-year funding from the Sam Adams Alliance, but now is looking to other potential revenue streams, including advertising and money made off a citizen journalism training program. Baltimore’s Investigative Voice is in a different situation. It basically began with no start-up funding, and exists now with a few advertising dollars and contributions, but mostly free labor.

I think it’s great that Texas Watchdog gets some of its money from a citizen journalism training program – what a creative idea.  Hopefully organizations like these keep up the search for a business model that will work long-term for investigative journalism.  Be sure to check out the whole article.

Jeff Jarvis gives newspapers the harsh speech they need to hear

Jay Rosen posted a link on Twitter today to a great post by Jeff Jarvis on Buzz Machine. In “The Speech the NNA Should Hear,” Jarvis holds nothing back as he delivers his fictional speech to the Newspaper Association of America. His basic message to newspaper heads: “You blew it.” Jarvis chides newspaper executives for failing to take any substantial actions to adapt to the changing media world.  He also strongly suggests that newspapers stop complaining and actually thank aggregators, bloggers and Facebook–as without them, newspapers would lose half of their traffic.  So much of what Jarvis says rings true, it’s scary.

Here are some of the highlights:

On most of your sites, only 20 percent of the audience in a day ever sees your homepage and its careful packaging; 4 of 5 readers instead come in through search and links. In the link economy – instead of the outmoded content economy in which you operate – Google and aggregators and bloggers are bringing value to you; they should be charging you for the value they bring. You should rise up today and give Mr. Schmidt a big thank you for not charging you. But you won’t, because you’ve refused to understand this new business reality.

The financial crisis only accelerated your fall. It didn’t cause the fall, it accelerated it. So now, for many of you, there isn’t time. It’s simply too late. The best thing some of you can do is get out of the way and make room for the next generation of net natives who understand this new economy and society and care about news and will reinvent it, building what comes after you from the ground up. There’s huge opportunity there, for them.

Surviving the transition to online journalism requires more than just a degree in journalism

Jay Rosen posted a link on Twitter today with the article “You’ve got to know what you stand for to survive in journalism online” by Robert Niles.  Niles, from the Knight Digital Media Center, covers a number of topics in his article, but one point I found particularly interesting was his assertion that a degree in journalism is no longer enough.  Niles points out that, as more and more lay-offs take place at traditional news organizations, the number of times a story is edited before being published decreases, increasing the likelihood that an inaccurate story will be published.    Niles says that up-and-coming journalists need to have an additional degree, or extensive experience in covering a specific beat, to maintain traditional journalistic values.

We now need writers who have more practical expertise and academic training in the beats that they will cover, so they can take more responsibility for the accuracy of their work, without editing assistance. It’s not enough for aspiring journalists to study how to craft a story – they must bring also a passion for and training in a beat to cover.   Newsrooms can’t expect j-school graduates with one 200-level econ course to their credit to be able to attract an audience covering the business beat when they are competing with bloggers who have PhDs in economics, or years of industry experience.

How do we make money through news when news is a perishable item?

How do we make money when news is something we consume quickly and then throw away?

Jay Rosen posted a Tweet with a link to an interesting article from the Nieman Journalism Lab.  The article “Please pay us for our news – please?”, addresses the question of how to make money through journalism when, to most people, ”the daily news is a perishable product of limited value that is here one minute and fish-wrap the next” and “many people don’t care (and in many cases don’t even know) whether they read a story in your paper, or your competitor’s paper, or heard it on the radio, or saw it on TV, or read it on Perez Hilton or found out from their friend at work.”

Dismal and true.  I suggest you check it out.

Hyperlocalizing…Can it be profitable? (Also, a note to those not willing to take a chance on the younger generation…)

Jay Rosen posted a tweet today with a link to an interesting article, with information on an idea that I think every journalist should be aware of.  The article, “A Brief History of Hyperlocal News,” was posted by Keith Hopper on his blog yesterday. 

As explained in Hopper’s article, the term hyperlocal “generally refers to community-oriented news content typically not found in mainstream media outlets and covering a geographic region too small for a print or broadcast market to address profitably. The information is often produced or aggregated by online, non-traditional (amateur) sources.”

Los Angeles Times to get rid of local news section…terrible idea?

Jay Rosen posted a tweet a few hours ago with a link to the LAObserved.com article “’California’ or ‘Business’?” by Kevin Roderick, in which Roderick expresses his utter disbelief at the insanity of the Los Angeles Times’ decision to get rid of its local news section.  Rosen calls the move an “odd decision,” but Roderick all-out pans the decision:

 Los Angeles Times staffers were told Friday by resigned editors that publisher Eddy Hartenstein realized there would be a sizable public backlash against his decision to kill the local news section, but that he felt getting rid of the Business section instead — as all top editors reportedly advised, even the current and last two Business editors — would harm the paper’s stature. It seems a tone-deaf stance by Hartenstein, given how little actual news the Business section offers most days. Call me crazy, but this was probably not the smartest Sunday to show upset readers how much the Business section has withered compared to its past award-winning years.