Iran and the Future of Journalism

[Sheilbh]

These are mostly random thoughts provoked by this post:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/16/whither_twitter
Which quotes this:

I followed the events of the weekend via three basic sources.  The first was cable news, and as everyone in the world has pointed out, it sucked.  Most TV news outlets have no foreign bureaus anymore; they didn't know what was going on; and they were too busy producing their usual weekend inanity to care.  Grade: F.

The second was Twitter, mostly as aggregated by various blogs.  This had the opposite problem: there was just too much of it; it was nearly impossible to know who to trust; and the overwhelming surge of intensely local and intensely personal views made it far too easy to get caught up in events and see things happening that just weren't there.  It was better than cable news, but not exactly the future of news gathering.  Grade: B-.

The third was the small number of traditional news outlets that do still have foreign bureaus and real expertise.  The New York Times.  The BBC.  Al Jazeera.  A few others.  The twitterers were a part of the story that they reported, but they also added real background, real reporting, and real context to everything.  Grade: B+.  Given the extremely difficult reporting circumstances, maybe more like an A-.

And this from Megan McArdle:

The Missing Iran Coverage

15 Jun 2009 09:01 am
One of Andrew's readers asks where the MSM is on Iran.  The New York Times and numerous internet sites have wall-to-wall coverage, including Andrew's sterling work.  Other outlets practically ignored the biggest story currently going on in the world over the weekend.

I haven't commented on it because other than the obvious--elections should result in the election of the person who got the most votes--I don't have anything to add.  I know nothing about Iran, and I don't blog much about foreign policy because I don't know much about foreign policy.

But I think Andrew's reader's question is ultimately a business story.  Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage?  Because they don't have the manpower.  The cable networks are hamstrung by the fact that they don't have much footage of what's going on in Iran.  As I watch, they're showing a combination of shots of peaceful protests in Western countries, lying propaganda footage from Iran's state television system, and random b-roll of unidentified protests in some unidentified country that does not seem to be Iran.  This is less than must-see-TV.

The print media is hamstrung by the fact that they've slashed their foreign bureaus to the bone--and then amputated the bone.  There are too few journalists in too few places to cover a big story like this. 

Basically I'm wondering where we're heading in terms of the media.  The direction for a long time has been for TV stations and newspapers to cut down on foreign bureaus as much as they can.  This isn't the case with the BBC because it's funded by the taxpayer and the BBC World Service (which is funded by the government) depends on being able to report from the areas that matter to the 100+ languages it broadcasts in.

Similarly a few high-brow papers are probably able to make some money out of their foreign affairs coverage because other newspapers don't provide as much: the NYT and Guardian have been superb in covering Iran and both seem to have active journalists who know Iran well in Iran right now.

But with those few exceptions, and I don't know if they'll last, I'm finding it difficult to see how we'll have a culture that's able to keep abreast of developments in foreign affairs.  Without foreign bureaus, which for newspapers and TV stations aren't terribly profitable because people don't tune in (and don't see the adverts) for that sort of news I worry that what we currently have in the blogs will sort of become our news.  Lots of shouting and an aggregation of information with little context, because we won't have the people on the ground providing the context.

I also worry that the same thing will happen in the opposite direction.  I wonder just what local government (sub-state for the US) will get up to if they don't have a local paper dedicated to that county or city watching the local council.  It seems like it is the sort of situation in which corruption's more possible than normal. 

But I'm not sure and I'm aware people have been having such concerns since Gladstone's abolition of the paper tax didn't lead to the mass education he hoped for, but to the start of the tabloid press.  So maybe we'll just carry on at about the same rate?

[The Brain]

The situation now is a lot better than back when everything we knew about foreign events was filtered through journalists. I am not worried.

[garbon]

Hyperreality.

[Iormlund]

We see glimpses of the future in phone vids uploaded to Youtube, Twitter posts and such. In a few years everyone will be routinely recording and uploading real-time footage of his or her surroundings. For security, if nothing else. Sending that to a public space like Youtube will be easy.

Journalism will consist on filtering all that information into a coherent image.

[saskganesh]

Journalism will consist on filtering all that information into a coherent image.

yea. which will require different education and standards for journalists, and a different, but related, role from they have right now.

I've seen newspapers embed twitter feeds on their sites, while they are covering an event, and it was surprisingly very refreshing. however, I think we all agree that newshounds no longer have the monopoly of gathering data; so I think practises like that will be increasingly supplied by other participants.

good journalism will become more like a storytelling hybrid of wiki and google: a story will provide context, with links to a variety of sources, data, blogs, posts, uploads and feeds. but there still will be people filtering the information in order to reduce noise and convey meaning. unlike wiki, the filtering process won't be open to the public.

don't like the story? there's always another channel. probably linked to as well.

journalists are adapting. the bigger issue: who pays for it? online revenue is pretty sketchy and the advertising industry itself is suffering. it's the dailies which are suffering the most. some of the niche medias are doing well, like trades, who have customers willing to pay good money for very relevant news, and some locals, who have communities willing to pay for it, because no one else can.

increasingly, I think the BBC model is very relevant: run media as a nonprofit for the public good. keep in mind that many of the failing dailies are suffering under high debt, incurred from their last acquisition.

[Sheilbh]

increasingly, I think the BBC model is very relevant: run media as a nonprofit for the public good. keep in mind that many of the failing dailies are suffering under high debt, incurred from their last acquisition.

I agree with all your post.

The problem is the money.  The groups that make money aren't doing it by providing in-depth, heavily contextualised analysis of world or even local events.  It's the cable news and tabloids who are doing well.  I think that's fine and that they have a worthwhile role to play in a sort-of healthy media ecosystem.

My concern is that most people won't pay for in-depth coverage of foreign affairs, or for a local newspaper that's dull 90% of the time but keeps an eye on local government and the scandals that wouldn't attract attention otherwise.  But I think both of those things are good for public discourse in general. 

My fear is that the local stuff will be ignored because there's no money in it and similarly the foreign bureaus will be too.  We won't have journalists with experience in a region who are able to provide context.  Rather we'll get coverage of foreign affairs in the same way we do domestic issues, without the sources and contacts.  A news clip and voiceover lasting a minute or two followed by a period twice as long in which talking heads from the two 'ideologies' or parties get to argue.

I like the idea of non-profits.  I think it could work, especially in terms of local papers.

[Monoriu]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

[jimmy olsen]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

It's not good for democracy or the functioning of civil society and the rule of law in general. I know you communist automatons don't care about that, but many of us in the west do.

[Valmy]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

I don't understand.  There is lots of demand for foreign and local news that is why news shows and news magazines and newspapers are bought.

[Monoriu]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

It's not good for democracy or the functioning of civil society and the rule of law in general. I know you communist automatons don't care about that, but many of us in the west do.

On the contrary, I think my view point is distinctly capitalist

[jimmy olsen]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

It's not good for democracy or the functioning of civil society and the rule of law in general. I know you communist automatons don't care about that, but many of us in the west do.

On the contrary, I think my view point is distinctly capitalist

My post had nothing do with Capitalism.

[DontSayBanana]

On the contrary, I think my view point is distinctly capitalist

Isolationist, yes. Flawed capitalism, maybe, but so many peripheral factors affect the markets that a breakdown in information sources would be distinctly un-capitalist in its consequences.

[Monoriu]

If the people don't want to pay for foreign or local news, perhaps they shouldn't get foreign or local news.  What is the problem with that?

It's not good for democracy or the functioning of civil society and the rule of law in general. I know you communist automatons don't care about that, but many of us in the west do.

On the contrary, I think my view point is distinctly capitalist

My post had nothing do with Capitalism.

Then my first post had nothing to do with communism.

[Warspite]

Personally, I think the whole idea of insider blogging and twittering is overrated as a news source - they are really no different to bazaar rumours.

Unless you have someone with experience and political nous - someone who can provide analysis, not just narrative - they all you have is an unfiltered, undiscriminated mass of text.

Let me put it this way: imagine if someone in the USA formed their opinion of what was happening in the UK based on the BBC's Have Your Say. 

[Monoriu]

Personally, I think the whole idea of insider blogging and twittering is overrated as a news source - they are really no different to bazaar rumours.

Unless you have someone with experience and political nous - someone who can provide analysis, not just narrative - they all you have is an unfiltered, undiscriminated mass of text.

Let me put it this way: imagine if someone in the USA formed their opinion of what was happening in the UK based on the BBC's Have Your Say. 

I am not sure I agree.  Some of the stuff I read on languish is actually much better than local newspaper articles, for example.  A professional journalist does not necessarily do better than another individual, especially if that someone is smarter, has access to generally unavailable information, has professional knowledge etc.  You may get a better understanding of the division of work among the 70+ HK government departments from me than from the local BBC correspondent.