Who Will Watch Government When All The Journalists Are Laid Off?

The loss of advertising revenue for daily newspapers has resulted in the lay-off of experienced journalists as a way to control costs.

As news papers continue to shrink and more focus is paid to the Web version, the problems continue to rise. The Web becomes both an additional business model and at the same time the revenue problem by leeching sources from print. Advertising revenue for the Web is about 20 percent of the same print ad.

But let's focus on the most critical fall-out here, and that is the trained and skilled journalist removed from the city room. We'll get to the Web further down.

The implications of fewer journalists covering the government are obvious. "When reporters leave the state Capitol, the mice play," said Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard. "It takes no imagination," Jones said, when "the governor of Illinois was arrested (on corruption charges) ... to understand that state government needs watching very carefully."

The brain-drain is staggering. The Newspaper Guild, CWA, reported that at least 34,000 of the more than 44,000 news industry employees, who lost their jobs between 2001 and June 2006 had been employed at newspapers. Thousands more news staff are expected to lose their jobs in the next six months.

"They [new reporters] are a lot less informed. They don't know what's going on," said Melinda McCrady, the communications director, the House Democratic caucus.

Business is Business

It's not difficult to understand business needs and that costs must be cut. But reducing experienced editorial staff is not the way to go about it. That's like trying to save on gas by taking the engine out of your car. Sure, you'll save money by not buying fuel, but you won't go anywhere either. Newspapers save money by not paying for skilled reporters. When quality suffers, the entire industry is tarnished.

In terms of news and content, the Web experience has changed how reporters craft their stories, and studies show that a story is presented differently on the Web than in the paper.

Web content must be brief. Most Web users are looking for something specific. They are not browsing in the same way they might at the kitchen table. The Web reader is usually on a mission for specific information.

Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at the Nation Institute and former New York Times foreign correspondent, believes the Internet is not the vehicle of choice for serious news readers. "The average reader of the paper copy of the New York Times spends forty-five minutes reading the paper," he said. "The average viewer of the New York Times website spends about seven minutes. The Internet is not designed for a literate society. We are moving into a post-literate society, a society where information, and of course a very limited quality, is portrayed primarily through images. The Internet can make that fusion between print and images. But the medium itself will determine the content. And to somehow look at the Internet as simply another delivery system is a mistake."

Some are blaming the Web for loss of revenue because readers can find the same information online for free. So, why pay for it? True to a point.

If the newspaper industry must divide its business model with the Web, so be it. New business models force companies into being innovative and creative. The term "print-Web hybrid," was coined by columnist Robert Kuttner, in the Neiman Report, the newsletter for the Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. Using Kuttner's model of "Print-Web hybrid" could possibly stand in for a softer landing solution for newspapers than what we are currently experiencing.

Here is how I see it: The daily will continue to publish a scaled down version of the printed paper with regional advertising helping to defray costs. Full news coverage and everything that did not go into the print version is offered on the Web version. In order to read the Web version, the subscriber must use a log-in provided by the subscription price.

This may not be the perfect solution. However, in order to have an experienced and adequately staffed press, we must find a way to generate ad revenue to retain experienced journalistic talent.

Geri Spieler is the author of Taking Aim At The President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman Who Shot At Gerald Ford. The story of Sara Jane Moore, a middle-aged mother and doctor's wife who shot at Ford's head and missed by six inches.

Comments

[springsm]

Oh, I missed it...were Journalists watching the government the last 8 years? Darn, did they report honestly and consisely upon it ? Missed that too. I am sure that these people will be replaced by someone who really wants to report on government or anything else. We know the young gop ambitious ones will be scutinizing Obama's administration, someone else will step up to the plate for other "governemental issues". It would be good to clean house of these journalists who weren't. No more Lohan, AN Smith, Brittney, ad nauseum. THAT is what has been on the minds of these "journalists".

[lloydnxile]

Its out of realm of truth ....just Spin....an­d the public is left alone ...to juggle the pieces till we are tired of juggling and generally come to accept the greater of abuse thought possibe , as probale...

[ProfessorDuh]

No one.
And that's the way the ruling class likes it, thanks. It's what they've long worked for.

[DennyCrane]

Who watched the government when journalists were employed? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for these people. They sat back and did nothing for 8 years except repeat all the lies of the Bush administration. And now they've suddenly decided to grow spines. All this talk of a liberal media is hysterical. You mean the liberal media that wasted years talking about Clinton's affair but said nothing about Bush's phony war and now criticizes Obama's every decision?

[mizerello]

I have to agree with everyone else Ms. Spieler. Had journalists actually been doing their jobs, especially those veteran Washington journalists you refer to, then I too would be lamenting their demise. The fact is that the American media is responsible for killing themselves. They've become irrelevant because they haven't done their jobs for years. You all gave into the conservative demagogues a long time ago when you began practicing so-called equivalency journalism in your efforts to prove that your weren't part of the "liberal media." Add the fact that more than 94% of our major media outlets are now owned by 7 multinational corporations and it's obvious that your concern is based on the way it was, not the way it is now. Those so-called veteran editors in D.C.? Where were they during the buildup to and first years of the Iraq War? Good riddance!

[Chavez08]

The establishment so-called "journalists" were more interested in missing (pretty and white) women and Paris Hilton then they were doing their jobs.

- I am one among many people who had both Open Source intell and public quotes to prove Saddam had neither WMD or ties to Al Qaeda (in 2002). 15 govt. Intelligence agencies generated reports saying the same. Establishment journalists *knew this* though chose instead to play propagandists for Der Furor.

- The Downing Street Memo made international news 3 months before the corporate lapdog U.S. media was *forced* by the masses to put it on the radar (then they still tried to downplay it)

- Reaganomic­s/Neoliber­alism has been eating our economy and our industrial base for 20 years. The establishment "journalists" both lied and said the supply-side critical statistics were false AND white-washed the mass exodus of U.S. service sectors.

We had to count on bloggers and foreign media outlets (discredited by corporate status-quo journalism elite) to give us the truth.

"Journalists" are losing their jobs because they chose not to do them.

[MPeter]

Which journalists are you referring to? We have not had Journalists in Washington since Nixon resigned. The blowholes we have in Washington are not watching govt, they are partisan mouthpieces for party propaganda. The media was supposed to be the Fifth Estate, asking questions of politicians on behalf of citizens. Not anymore. They have been part of the ruling class. So, let them go to hell.

[wakupmagy]

Absolutely spot on.
And another thing--the ink stained wretches of yore are long gone. Today's journalists frolic at the same clubs, private parties, gyms and restaurants populated by the very people they are supposed to be investigating. They are far more concerned with their "Q" factors than doing the tough reporting we need them to do. Every print journalist yearns for a spot on the 24hour cable news cycle, and the ulitimate goal is "Celebrity", not good journalism­.(Obviousl­y, there are a few standout exceptions, but sadly they hardly make a dent in the din).
That's why I love HuffPost. Opinion pieces don't masquerade as reportage, and there is enough diversity (especially in the comments!) to paint a full picture. Then, I make up my own mind.

[wrensis]

They were watching???? They were watching Anna Nicole Smith.

[Pyrum]

The journalists wouldn't be getting laid off if they had done their job and watched the government in the first place! Who wants to pay to subscribe to propaganda?