In the
e-mail press release announcing his hiring as Vice President
of Opinion at The Washington Times, Richard Miniter is
quoted thus:
"The Internet has transformed the environment for opinion
writing," Mr. Miniter said. "Every blogger has an opinion and
the market for pure opinion is saturated. We are going to be
different. Readers want editorials, op-eds and columns based on
reporting and news. We expect our editorial writers to act like
reporters and then add insight and perspective to explain what
it all means. And we will respond at blog speed."
I've been saying the same thing for years. The privileged
positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by
op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by
the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world,
the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators
like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its
news-reporting operation.
Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper
business gets it.
It's a matter of corporate incentive having a synergistic effect
on the newsroom pecking order.
Opinion writers have always been at the top of the status heap.
And opinion is cheap -- no matter how much you pay a
Brooks or a Dowd, you won't get close to what it costs to keep a
good reporter in the field, what with transportation costs, meals
on expense account, and all the other myriad expenses a person
traveling ends up paying. Triple that or worse for something like
Iraq.
So the corporate owners of the news organizations have emphasized
opinion over reporting, simply for cost-saving, and the news
organizations went along with it because it fit perfectly with
their existing social arrangements.
Trouble is -- it's said that opinions are like a*holes,
everybody's got one. That's too weak, as the Internet
demonstrates. Opinions are like turds, any a*hole can squeeze one
out. The market won't stand the price; the supply is
near-infinite. News organizations that expect to survive need to
get back to reporting, real, on-the-scene reporting, or they have
nothing to sell.
Ric Locke| 3.9.09 @ 11:46AM
It's a matter of corporate incentive having a synergistic effect on the newsroom pecking order.
Opinion writers have always been at the top of the status heap. And opinion is cheap -- no matter how much you pay a Brooks or a Dowd, you won't get close to what it costs to keep a good reporter in the field, what with transportation costs, meals on expense account, and all the other myriad expenses a person traveling ends up paying. Triple that or worse for something like Iraq.
So the corporate owners of the news organizations have emphasized opinion over reporting, simply for cost-saving, and the news organizations went along with it because it fit perfectly with their existing social arrangements.
Trouble is -- it's said that opinions are like a*holes, everybody's got one. That's too weak, as the Internet demonstrates. Opinions are like turds, any a*hole can squeeze one out. The market won't stand the price; the supply is near-infinite. News organizations that expect to survive need to get back to reporting, real, on-the-scene reporting, or they have nothing to sell.
Regards,
Ric
Deborah| 3.9.09 @ 1:07PM
Good for them.
Mo MoDo| 3.9.09 @ 8:21PM
We need columnists like Maureen Dowd so that bloggers have someone to bitch about.