What's missing from great investigative journalism today is a readership for it. I know plenty of great journalists who are now flacks for some shitty PR company.

I would agree with you for the present. The question is the future. I could foresee specialists that possess the types of context that you define there to provide or translate information, perhaps without even the assistance of the formal reporting process. We're a long way out from that happening en masse, if ever, but I've pondered about the possibility before.

I'm always happy when nick ponders about possibilities

this

- the problem is, the media's reaction to this lack of readership (which it has played a huge role in creating) is to dumb down their formats even more - and it doesn't help that there's the perverse current environment that applauds stupidity and finds intelligence and education somehow repugnant.

the media creates its own demise by pandering to their readership instead of challenging them either intellectually or in some inspirational manner by presenting well written, factual, and relevant articles.

Problem is Americans don't want to be challenged. We wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning series about Sheriff Joe that lost us a ton of readers and millions in advertising dollars. Yes, we all stuck to our journalist guns and hammered out an incredible series that everyone is proud of, but as far as I know, only one person involved in producing that series is still a journalist.

Unfortunately, until there is a nonprofit model that works, newspapers (sorry, but that's the only "media" I know) are a business and pandering to your readership and advertisers is the only way to survive. That generally means shorter, easier to consume articles that aren't particularly challenging or inspiring. Market gets what market wants.

I'm glad to hear of your fighting the good fight, but I fear that investigative journalism is also subject to a bias towards authority. Sherrif Arapio might be the exception to prove the rule as outside his local voters it is fairly popular to denigrate him whenever his locality is brought up. Whatever purported civil rights violations that Arapio is guilty of (and I don't doubt he is guilty of some), police do the same across the country on a daily basis. They might not have the same focus on illegal immigration or pink jumpsuits, but the effect on those brought into the system is similar.

It's probably unavoidable that journalists give some deference to those that provide them with information in a timely manner. In practice this means that the journalists that cover the police blotter have a working relationship with the police. It seems to be difficult for such an individual to balance the public interest and their professional interest.

Maybe this is an issue with no perfect balance: distance and criticism versus timely, accurate information. I think I get one aspect underlying the critique of blogging: they typically don't have to make such choices as they don't have any access to put on the line.

Some magazines still produce good investigative journalism (Mother Jones comes to mind) but that's hardly a model ready to hook up with a mass base. McChesney's The Death and Life of American Journalism makes a really strong case for public funding for journalism.

On what basis?

Fine, I'll Google it:


Oh, is that all.

No. There's plenty more to it than that. They examine the history of public funding for journalism (which was ample in the United States), the consequences of the advertising model failing due to the internet and the proliferation of media, the potential political repercussions, various funding models, comparisons with what other countries do, the importance of political journalism that speaks truth to power for the preservation of democracy Stuff like that.

Isn't this really the heart of it? And how is that different to any other business facing changed circumstances? People just aren't buying newspapers like they once did.

that is true, but unlike most products, a vital news industry is essential for self-government

News itself isn't going anywhere, people are just seeking it out differently than they did 10 or 20 years ago.

No. Events continue to happen. That's not the same thing. News is how events that effect us are brought to our attention and made understandable, and that has changed dramatically, and in many cases not for the better.


-decline in investigative journalism
-rise of niche news creating solipsistic citizens
-lack of accountability for reporting in the larger internet
-dramatic rise in punditry
-increasing reluctance to challenge official sources (the rise of the reporter as someone who simply reports what people in power say)
-decline in serious reporting on labor issues, environmental issues
-increased emphasis on packaging news as entertainment
-dumbing down of the language through which news is communicated
-scary increase in the amount of media ownership consolidated in very few hands


There are a few positive trends too, but we're not in a good place, and if we do not understand the world around us we cannot hold it accountable.

http://spiffysean.com/2013/08/07/2497/

all you need to know if there is bias or not. why isnt this national news akin to the zimmerman case?

this seems like a completely different scenario, peeps. just as sad and unfortunate, but completely different.

there are over 10k firearm deaths per year (75% of homicides). they will not all become huge stories.

i was more focused on the fact that the shooter was made a part of this scene through the request of somebody that felt threatened/wronged (the girl in the car). unlike the zimmerman case where the shooter pursued the victim b/c the kid fit a profile.

oh i agree. I was just pointing out how many cases there are, so you'd need a particular confluence of variables to really get attention

lastly, i don't know where this happened, but i'm going to go out on a limb and presume that even if the law was in the books in the state where this occurred, i'm guessing the investigation wasn't delayed for days b/c the shooter claimed he was "standing his ground." that was a significant part of the "outrage" and "media coverage" from my perspective.