Davos '09: What's Missing in Journalism?

The media machers at Davos got together yesterday with three economists to ask what went wrong in financial coverage that did not warn of the crisis.

Like others leaders from other segments of society here in the meeting of the machers, they did not don hairshirts. I believe that will be the worst outcome of this year's Davos: a failure to take responsibility for the failure of leadership. But blame isn't the most productive priority. What's more critical is to ask what to do about the failure.

I wonder what gaps the crisis reveals in journalism. That's where the discussion finally went yesterday. (Because it was held under the Chatham House rule, I can't attribute quotes.)

The assembled journalists insisted that the crisis had been reported, that they can point to articles that warned of the insanity. I'm not sure whether that's an effort at industrial whitewashing: If one reporter gets the story, the entire profession gets credit. But fine, let's stipulate that the stories were written. But one of the wiser editors said that didn't do any good because it didn't make an impact; it didn't register; it didn't go mainstream.

So is that what's missing in journalism: the ability to bang on a story until the world pays attention? Our assumption had been that if it appeared in a major newspaper or magazine, that was the definition of attention. It assumed that the world paid attention to our news. So under this argument, we could be seeing an admission that papers and magazines have lost their juice. But let's get past that, too. I think there is something to the idea that we aren't good at driving a story.

In response, I quoted Arianna Huffington telling the same group two years before that journalists have attention deficit disorder and bloggers have obsessive compulsive disorder. Josh Marshall's key skill is dogging a story until the press and the powerful do pay attention. The press can learn from that.

But then again, as an editor said yesterday, if an editor devotes page one every day to a warning that the sky is falling, no one will listen to him, either.

A well-respected journalist told the group that in economics, there is no objective truth. It's too complex. So it shouldn't be declarations of doom that should dominate front pages. It should be questions: How can these companies be this profitable? What is the impact of this much leverage? How can people without income get loans? It the constant poking and prodding we need.

That requires the willingness to be a pain in the ass. We journalists used to pride ourselves on being pains in the asses -- or just asses. But now they like to be liked -- they think they need to be. They believe that maintaining their connections is their key value. But that compromises their ability to dog.

One of the journalists complained that companies are so opaque they are hard to cover. "There's not much a journalist can do, or anyone can do, when you don't know what's going on." That's true. And indeed, I believe the most important reform we need to enact post-crisis is transparency, an ethic and law of openness. But this argument, too, lets the journalists off the hook. It's our job to find out what people don't want to tell us. Maybe that is the real definition of reporting. The rest is just information.

An economist that "it's hard to hold the press to a higher standard than the profession itself." There was much nodding. But I question that. If we are to be the watchdogs -- instead of merely the messengers -- then don't we need to try to know if not more than our subjects than at least enough to know what to dog? I've long argued that journalists aren't experts, they find experts. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe news organizations need to hire different kinds of experts. One editor yesterday said he hired a cultural anthropologist who really was ahead in warning about the danger of derivatives because she looked at it through a different lens. An economist talked about hiring psychologists and even scientists and the emerging study of neuroeconomics. Papers have hired economists to cover finance. But papers can't possibly afford to hire experts and people with different perspectives in every area they cover.

You've been waiting for me to bring blogs into this. Here's my chance: Many of those experts and players are publishing themselves. They are questioning and arguing and so perhaps the key skill journalism needs is to curate that. (I also couldn't get through a post such as this without saying "curate" at least once.

The risk now, many agreed, is that journalism will -- as is its habit -- overreact. A journalist I ran into in another session yesterday said she thinks we're now in a "doom bubble." American business journalism has been too American with too much reporting -- including puffery -- on companies and too little reporting on finance, on the markets that have such a profound impact on our lives. There are plenty of lessons to learn from journalism's failure to warn well enough of the crisis to come. But we can't stop at that, at incremental change in journalism: a few more of these people, a few more of those headlines, a better job with that kind of story. We need to look at the fundamentals of how news -- a large, global, complex, interconnected ecosystem of news -- can be and should be made now.

Comments

[undrgrndgirl]

what's missing in journalism??? uh...that'd be JOURNALISM !!

[andycan]

MR. JARVIS, YOU ARE CHICKEN

Mr. Jarvis, you are playing the same game of chicken. Why don't you reveal who said what?
What the hell are "Chatham house rules"? Rules so that cowardice can live on? So you Davos round-table talker journalists are afraid that the powers that be might find out who you are and blackball you?

Yes, journalists have been both intimidated from investigative reporting - and lured with material and celebrity inducements - the stick and the carrot, you see, to make them docile. They're only human and afraid, and that's why we have now the financial collapse with minimal journalistic forewarning, that's why military decisions are made that wreck the lives of millions...

The myth of the effectiveness of Internet! The fifth estate was about to become a farce.
Let's hope no enterprising journalist faces "extraodinary rendition".

[magibrotherhood]

reminds me of that children`s story where the Emperor is running around naked and everyone is too afraid to call him on it ----so they all say what great threads he`s wearing--------then some punk kid comes up to the Emperor and says 'Dude,you`re NAKED-----" remind you of anyone????

[breakingpoint]

David Korten Asks,

Do Wall Street Institutions do anything so vital for the national interest that they justify trillions of dollars to save them from the consequences of their own excess?

Is it possible that the whole Wall Street edifice is built on an illusion of phantom wealth that carries deadly economic, social, and environmental consequences for the larger society?

Are there other ways to provide needed financial services with greater results and at lesser cost?

Are there any journalists willing to ask the same questions of these captains of financial industry?

[RoseMerry]

Back during the reign of Bush Sr, Molly Ivins talked about the ahistoric nature of our press. But I like Eric Idle's term the best, micropaleo­anthropolo­gists: people who studies the vast culture significance of the last 15 minutes.

[RoseMerry]

Back during the reign of Bush Sr, Molly Ivins talked about the ahistoric nature of our press. But I like Eric Idle term the best, micropaleo­anthropolo­gists: people who studies the vast culture significance of the last 15 minutes.

[LoyalOpposition]

When we lost Peter Jennings, and other newsmen and women on the main networks, and replaced them with young talking heads, and when even the NPR morning edition host was let go, the disruption caused many to drift away from the networks and public radio to cable news. There, the average viewer either stuck with only the headlines, or listened while more talking heads screamed at each other (Chris Matthews still cuts off his "experts.")
The Bush years made a lot of us really good at ferreting out the real news. Hope it is made more convenient for the rest with Obama in the White House.

[Roci]

Honesty

Integrity

Dignity

Professionalism

Objectivity

and to this very good list furnished above, let me add a few more.

Experience-Doing local weather and looking good on camera does not make you any more ready for being an Anchor than it does for politics, or delivering packages, if it comes to that. Did you get that, Katie?

TRUST- When Cronkite told us that Jack was dead in Dallas, we had to believe the very worst. History had changed forever, and we faced it because someone WE KNEW said so.
The same was true about Vietnam. When Cronkite said "get out", LBJ knew it was over. On the other end, when we landed on the moon, Cronkite (and Clark) put us there along with them.

The media conglomerates of the present day ought to be treated the same way TR and Taft treated the Oil Trusts, and the stupid bean counters who insist that a news division has to make a profit ought to be handed a toothbrush and put to work cleaning out the executive loo.
Congress needs to take it's spine back and remind corporate America that the airwaves that are making them rich, while they slop viewers like hogs belong TO THE PUBLIC, and NOT to the highest bidder.
Will Congress do anything? I doubt it. If there's one outfit I distrust as much as Network media these days, it's Congress. So much for the public trust,, huh? Roci

[Henryk A. Kowalczyk - Huffpost Blogger]

As an engineer by training and political writer by choice, I am asking where I can buy a meter that can measure the above attributes for both journalists and editors (they appear to be more at fault) as well.

In other words, your suggestions are lofty wishful thinking. Nothing will change until we will have a business model that those having the traits of character that you listed would be paid much better that those that do not.

BTW, I have on hand such a model. If you know someone who could invest $1 million, let me know.

[AnnfromCA]

What's missing is pretty obvious. Objectivity.

Credibility is gone, and it will take a lot of change to come back.

[magibrotherhood]

what`s missing is COURAGE---"Speak truth to power"--------takes guts.

[PocketWatch]

I used to be a news junkie, generally watching CNN... until this thing happened... 9/11/01. Within 5 days of that event (and I was in NYC at the time, so I saw it up close and personal), I saw video on CNN of Saudi princes smiling and throwing parties, talking on the phone to their buddies as to how great this was, etc. THEN, suddenly, I was seeing very fancy ads on CNN for Saudi Airlines, vacationing in Saudi Arabia, etc. For some reason, all that video of the happy cheering shieks disappeared. Can't imagine why. And I've never watch mainstream news again. Apparently, they can be bought, but then, I'm not surprised.

[22edec]

Scary indeed. I did not know things were that bad. It is more depressing than I thought. I was watching CNBC this afternoon with Maria Bartiromo 'interviewing' Bill and Melinda Gates about their Foundation for at least a half hour, from 4:30 to 5 pm. Not sure if they were on before that as well. I felt like I was watching a Gates Foundation info commercial. Yes, it was that bad. CNBC should not be using valuable broadcasting time on something like this. It was an interview for either Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer. And some tough questions should have been asked. That is the problem with most financial journalists. They become sycophants to get a story or interview.

Since the financial crisis stepped up a gear in September, to be fair, there are others on CNBC, like Dylan Ratigan, asking some tough questions. He needs to be commended.

[Spiritgirl2]

Let's face it, between corporate consolidation of "news" and many (though not all) celebrity seeking "journalists" - we the people have been suffering a real creditable lack of information! As what passes for "news" is really more fluff and "infotainment"!

Maybe if the corporate handlers weren't so busy with their bottom line, and really interested in "reporting" what is really happening (but wait - that might affect their bottom line!) - they too might be more creditable with the American public! As many people don't realize exactly how dumbed down this nation has become! Maybe now the real journalists will start to have a real voice vs. the blood-suckers and sycophants that currently have voice!!!!

[DanniD]

Honesty

Integrity

Dignity

Professionalism

Objectivity

[wendynyc]

Well what exactly are journalists to do when the main publishers of business news - a la Wall Street Journal and CNBC are large corporate conglomerates with a very biased tilt towards one particular idealogy?

The consumer suffers as a result.

Its a shame - the US is no longer a country of fairness and opportunity for all.

Our democratic culture is vanishing right before our eyes.

[mountainweb]

Journalists compromise their ability to report "true" news when they only report from one perspective or when they state their opinions as if they were news. They should have learned from Rather, who killed a great career by thinking his opinion had more value than the truth.

Reporting correctly on the sub-prime mess would have required stepping on a few toes. But, had they had the courage to do so, maybe we would not see newspapers going out of business and reporters looking for work. True journalism has to be able to see an issue from all sides, Republican, Democratic, top of the corporation and from the bottom. Anything else is journalism without ethics.

[iblogleft]

Rather has the best news program on cable by far. You can see him on HDNET, Dan Rather Reports. (If you do not have HD, HDNET is one of the only excuses you need to get it) and no, I don't work for any of them :-) (Tuesday at 8pm

Besides the fact that Rather did report the truth, just not the truth that the financiers wanted to hear. Rather is at the top of his game.

I would hope that Huffington will find the benefit of his style of journalism.

[renatam]

Since media ownership et al were deregulated during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton eras (as with banking, insurance and Wall Street) -- journalistic decisions are often fused with the PR agencies and advertising agencies. So, Wall Street banks received glowing (PR spun) press, and they in turn sponsor media events and/or advertise in the WSJ, NYT, CNBC (their biggest cheerleader even today), Fortune, Forbes, etc.

Many corporations purchased media distribution outlets in order to ensure their PR teams could manipulate their press and voters. Bankers running media cos. is also part of this problem, when mega corp. entities bought the Networks and newspapers and began cutting staff so they basically get the news from PR Agencies representing corporate America. There is virtually no investigative journalism - and, corporate interests merged with the Bush White House -- were virtual cheerleaders for the Iraq War and bogus intelligence.

Media, the host for objective journalism, has become PROPAGANDA OUTLETS.

As with the banking/insurance industries, media companies have to caucus about their future as the host of Constitutionally protected JOURNALISM. We may have to separate entertainment media from journalism, to separate the conflicts of interests. Media will not be bailed out, as banking/in­surance/fi­nance are - continually.

[MimiK]

"We need to look at the fundamentals of how news -- a large, global, complex, interconnected ecosystem of news -- can be and should be made now."

Great point, great ecological metaphor.

So, taking the ecological metaphor to another level, in sustainable agriculture there is a method known as "clustering." Instead of planting single species in rows, as in agribusiness model that leads to the need to industrial pesticides and fertilizers, what you do instead is create Clusters of different plants together. The plants in the cluster help each other grow. One plant protects another plant against a nasty pest, for instance, essentially functioning as a pesticide.

What if journalists "Cluster" related stories together to give them more power, so that we get, in effect, a lot of different "plants" on the same theme clustered together in the blogosphere reinforcing each other's message. Journalists helping each other drive home to readers how important a story is, through clustering together.

Creating a different web page format of a visual Cluster -- more like a mind map -- of related stories instead of scrolling down "columns" in rows.

Readers could track (through RSS feed?) Clusters growing over time.

Clustering could be either reader driven, with people posting onto clusters, or editor driven, editors at, say Huffington Post deciding on the Cluster of the Day/Week/Month/Year -- whatever.

(Clustering is essentially "webbing," a cognitive term that fits....)