Will Newser End Without Newspapers?

If you can ignore Michael Wolff's distracting, ad hominem attacks against David Carr -- calling him, among other things, "semi-retarded" -- there is a legitimate question buried in yesterday's polemic. Apparently, there's some rivalry between Carr, a media columnist for the Times, and Wolff, the founder of Newser, a content aggregator; Carr thinks Wolff undistinguished, and Wolff calls Carr "really quite a nitwit."

Okay, but what's important is not a pissing match between two middle-aged men, it's the worlds-apart worldviews espoused by these former colleagues about the state of American journalism.

"Let me not put too fine a point on this: newspapers suck," Wolff said in a phone interview this morning -- a somewhat rabid take on a familiar line: that new media is rightfully, and thankfully, supplanting old media.

Carr, by contrast, holds that newspapers have essential -- and perhaps inimitable -- strengths. "Sometimes," Carr writes, "people have to make the calls, hit the streets and walk past the conventional wisdom."

Rather than assess their respective characters (after all, Carr and Wolff have each other for that), let's consider the content of their reporting. I've surveyed the major columns that the two have written on the future of journalism since the New Year -- Carr for the Times, and Wolff for Newser -- and listed their sources (see the appendix below).

Carr has written four columns this year, in which he made 16 citations. Of those, five were personal interviews, 10 were citations from articles or speeches, and just one was a standalone link. He's obtained information from the Chairwoman of the SEC, the founders of Huffington Post, the Editor of the Wall Street Journal, executives of Google and the Associated Press, and authors, writers, analysts and bloggers.

In short, Carr has tried to interview and write about someone who represents almost everyone involved in, or touched by, the future of newspapers. And unlike colleague Richard Pérez-Peña, who covers newspapers extensively, Carr is a columnist, and not a beat reporter.

By comparison, Wolff has written 12 articles this year, in which he made 46 citations. Not a single one came from personal reporting.

Of the 46, eight were direct links to The New York Times website, one a direct link to the Los Angeles Times, one to the now-online only Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and another to Editor & Publisher, a journal about newspapers. 22 of Wolff's links point to internal Newser articles, which summarize or paraphrase other publications. Nine come from the Times, and 13 from other content-producing publications. Wolff also cites his own website nine times, and three of the links do not work.

In other words, Wolff depends entirely on working journalists -- and particularly those at the Times -- for evidence, unless he's referencing himself or a blank page.

"At Newser," Wolff writes, "we make the Times shorter. Meaning no disrespect to David Carr, the Newser version of his story is cleaner and quicker than the Times version." But without Carr's actual writing and reporting -- in this case, including quotations from an author, analyst and blogger -- there would be no "Newser version."

And that's the larger point here: in relentlessly attacking the Times in column after column, Wolff implicitly rejects the premise of his own website -- "that the Times...no longer puts out a necessary newspaper" -- by almost exclusively relying on the Graying Lady to make his point. Wolff can't source a blog without the Times, but we're supposed to renounce the paper?

(Wolff, for his part, says it's not a question of sourcing but rather a "question of being about.")

Wolff is convinced that the Times is dispensable, and that citizen journalists can fill the void. Yet do-it-yourself-ism is frowned on in almost every other profession: citizen policemen we call vigilantes; citizen doctors we call quacks; citizen bankers we call Ponzi schemers; and citizen musicians sing karaoke. Perhaps anyone can be a postal worker, and, as Wolff's site does, deliver the envelope -- but who's writing the news inside?

"Let a million flowers bloom, or whatever," Wolff said this morning, and one or many will take the Times' place. But as for just who these change agents are, Wolff admits, "I don't think we know the answer to that."

Wolff holds up Arthur Sulzberger, Bill Keller, and Carr as straw men, as incorrigible tree-killers, doddering fools, flacks and has-beens. What he fails to see, however, is that the newsmen aren't clinging to print for dear love, but for dear life. As Newser ably demonstrates, there's no working alternative yet -- and maybe not ever -- to traditional newsgathering, like that practiced by Carr.

It's hip for bloggers to bite the hand that feeds them, and Wolff's got some oral fixation. It's not good enough for him to kick the Boston Globe or Seattle Post-Intelligencer while they're down; he needs to cite their own articles while he's doing it. We all have a personal stake in The New York Times, but for Wolff it's more than that, it's his bread and butter. Without the news, he's just an -er.

APPENDIX

WOLFF May 5, 2009, "Will the World End Without Newspapers?"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Washington Post
• Link: New York Times
• Link: Newser story culled from Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times

CARR May 3, 2009, "Newspapers' Essential Strenths"
• Speech: Mary L. Schapiro, Chairwoman of the SEC
• Speech: Kenneth Lerer, Co-Founder of the Huffington Post
• Interview: Arianna Huffington, Co-Founder of the Huffington Post
• Cite: Michelle Haimoff, Blogger for the Huffington Post
• Cite: The Wall Street Journal

WOLFF April 17, 2009, "Does Information Want to be Paid For?"
• Link: Newser's own website
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Ars Technica, a blog reporting original arts news
• Link: Newser's own website

WOLFF April 14, 2009, "The Times and Globe: Death Be Not Proud"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Boston Globe
• Link: Newser agglomeration of Boston Globe articles
• Link: New York Times
• Link: New York Times
• Link: Newer agglomeration of newspaper articles

CARR April 12, 2009, "Papers Try to Get Out of a Box"
• Interview: Thomas Curley, Chief Executive of the A.P.
• Speech: William Dean Singleton, Chairman of the A.P.
• Cite: Robert Thompson, editor of WSJ, in The Australian
• Cite: Danny Sulivan, on Daggle, a blog
• Speech: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google

WOLFF April 8, 2009, "Newspapers Want Cash for Content. Tough Luck"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of The Australian
• Link: Editor & Publisher, a journal covering newspaper industry
• Link: New York Times
• Link: New York Times
• Link: Los Angeles Times

WOLFF March 27, 2009, "It's Not The New York Times"
• Link: Newser column, Feb. 25, 2009
• Link: Newser story culled from The New York Observer, Business Insider, Reuters, Gawker
• Link: Newser column, March 9, 2009

WOLFF March 17, 2009, "The Old News Becomes New--Or Tries"
• Link: Newser story culled from Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Link: Newser paraphrase of The Atlantic
• Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Link: Newser agglomeration of Seattle P-I articles

WOLFF March 11, 2009, "Can the Times Pay the Rent?"
• Link: New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Advertising Age (log-in required)

CARR March 9, 2009, "United, Newspapers May Stand"
• Cite: Alan D. Mutter, on Reflections of a Newsosaur, a blog
• Interview: Philip Meyer, author
• Interview: John Morton, newspaper analyst

WOLFF March 9, 2009, "It's Not Your Father's News"
• Link: Newser column, Feb. 25, 2009
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser agglomeration of newspaper articles

WOLFF February 25, 2009, "The New York Times is Falling Down, Falling Down..."
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Broken Link
• Broken Link
• Broken Link
• Link: New York Times article skimmer
• Link: New York Times blog
• Link: Nieman Journalism Lab, Harvard University

WOLFF February 10, 2009, "The End is Near But the Times is Jolly"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times

WOLFF January 21, 2009, "Times: Hope's Slim"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of New York Times
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Wall Street Journal
• Link: Newser paraphrase of Bloomberg
• Link: Newser story culled from Times (UK) and BBC

CARR January 12, 2009, "Let's Invent an iTunes for News"
• Cite: Craig Moffett, Bernstein Research analyst
• Cite: Michael Hirschorn, writer for The Atlantic
• Link: Michael Arrington, TechCrunch, a blog

WOLFF January 8, 2009, "The Times Dies"
• Link: Newser paraphrase of The Atlantic

Comments

[larry278]

This is a pissing contest where all contestants always piss into the wind.

[Fryeness]

Yeah, but only Michael Wolff stands with his mouth open.

[Chip W]

What type of media is used is less important than the functions provided, especially the Fourth Estate function. Newspapers used to do this but haven't done so well recently - eg covering the buildup to the Iraq War.
I don't see who will be keeping an eye on things in the future. That's my concern.

[mjwca]

Mega media has tried to turn newspapers (and most other news reporting) into modified content aggregators. Their newspapers have fewer and fewer staff reporters, fact checkers, etc. They publish stories from the wire services and their national desk while doing away with local reporters that could offer different perspectives, insights, etc. They foolishly devalue the most important component of their own product to cut costs at the expense of quality and credibiility. However, Wolff is an idiot who needs to get over himself along with the rest of the content aggregators who all want something for nothing. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for "citizen journalists". It is as democratic as it gets and media would do well to stop pissing on that notion instead of encouraging excellence and standards among its own ranks to make its own survival necessary. But citizen journalists do not and can never replace well trained professional journalists and the institutions that provide the needed resources for that level of journalism to exist. Just as there can be excellent amatuer musicians, most are not - they just love to do it. That is why we have professional orchestras, bands we pay lots of money to see, etc. Writing is no different. We can all do it but we can't all do it well.

[WarSkeptic]

But the papers usually just take their stories from the wire services
Either that or they just quote government officials. which if they weren't there the officials would just go to the next media format

My paper in StLouis does not have any kind of investigative journalism whatsoever. The NYTimes and the 4 or 5 other national papers I suppose have a little bit. But the real journalism is done by the weekly magazines like the New Yorker, Mother Jones, the nation ect. And all of those magazines lose money and are only supported by donations

The sad truth is that journalism and corporate ownership do not really mix. never have.

[WaitingforJanuary]

We need credible newspapers even if it's not a traditional format. Something has to be done, and I'm not talking bailout.

[Shitaki]

Why do newspapers have to remain paper? I would pay (hopefully marginally less since electronic does not have print costs) to have my NYT or BG or LAT or WP delivered electronically in a form I could read at my computer or via a paperless book reader. They could have the same ads, or they could even sell ads that match my region. They would know my region if they sold me an electronic subscription. Do not offer free access except to libraries, schools, etc. The income off of an electronic edition should keep the papers afloat.

[JustMyWords]

If the income off a paper edition isn't enough to keep papers afloat, why would an electronic subscription be any different?

[salamanca1]

I've been a newspaper journalist for nearly 30 years, and despite the failings of newspapers, and I am referring to those mentioned here of "national" papers, the journalism of regional and local community newspapers is simply irreplaceable. There is no other model that will do the work to get the facts on state, regional, and local issues in the depth readers need to make decisions about their local and national government, health issues, the environment, etc. News aggregate sites feed off newspapers, and have not yet demonstrated a self-sustaining, by which I mean profitable, model that will support the reporting staffs needed to replace the content provided by newspapers. Having worked with correspondents for years, I can tell you that "citizen journalists" still need to be trained in news judgment, reporting and writing in order to be effective in any sense of the word. Who will be doing that training? God help us if newspapers die out.

[sailortitan]

http://greenmountaindaily.com/
http://vermontdailybriefing.com/
http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/

Hey look, three separate, *excellent* local news blogs for Vermont. My local newspaper, the Essex Reporter, is also free and has an online edition. (http://www.essexreporter.com/EssexReporter/Home.html). Not sure if that counts since it's technically "in print" even if it doesn't have any cost. Also, there's http://www­.7dvt.com/ 7 Days, whose free online edition is as vibrant (If not more so) than the free weekly.

[noamjunior]

this is a poor argument hiding a moot point. It's not like the NYT is all original content either. And while it is a no-brainer to assume bloggers wont have the resources of traditional journalists- the real point is that even with the resources, newspapers have done a terrible job of informing their readers in the 21st century.
It's not like newspapers even did their minimal job of reporting the facts during the 2000 Supreme court selection of Bush for president or the phony lead up to war in Iraq.

[tonedef]

Call me naive, but isn't the INFORMATION printed in newspapers the real "product"? If the distribution model changes, why should the journalists and news companies themselves suffer? We still need their journalism. That to me is the bottom line.

[noamjunior]

we needed their information throughout the Bush presidency and the newspapers let down their readers

[chichel]

There's a difference between "sourced" and "being about". Ultimately? No. Either way, if the papers go away, Wolff's got nothing to write about. Wolff's playing semantics. He's a compiler with an opinion. He critiques while real journalists do the work. What qualified him for that?

[ProfessorDuh]

Media critic Bob McChesney said, “If I work in a coal mine all day, go home, cook dinner, do the laundry, read the kids a bedtime story, clean the house and then sit down to blog on the global economy at 11:15 at night, it’s probably going to suck.
“How the heck am I going to know anything about the global economy? Now, if there are a lot of journalists covering it from different news media that I can read, maybe I could comment on it. But I can’t do the original work at 11:15 after all that day. I need someone else."
What’s at stake in this crisis are fundamental American rights. McChesney said freedom of the press and freedom of speech are often conflated, and should not be. It’s freedom of the press that generates the information people need to govern their lives. “It’s not just the right to say whatever you want. It’s the right to be a society where you’re exposed to the breadth of information you need to understand the world and govern your life."
“You can’t have freedom of the press without freedom of speech. But you can have freedom of speech without freedom of the press. You can have a society where we’re all running around screaming our opinions, but we might not know what we’re talking about. Freedom of the press is to make it so we have some idea what we’re talking about when we’re screaming our opinions.”

[noamjunior]

no one would argue that in theory a large newspaper would do a better job informing the public than lone bloggers, except the 8 years of Bush presidency show that theory to not hold up

[ProfessorDuh]

You read all the newspapers everywhere, did you? Including the Knight Ridder papers that exposed the Iraq war lies before Bush invaded?

[Dredd]

A pissing match while others are concerned with the notion of a "free press".

With all the newspapers filing bankruptcy and going out of business, we can ponder the free while the nattering noises up the joint:

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/breaking-which-free-is-bad-free.html

[dooleynoted]

This little episode should be held up as a perfect, succinct analogy of what is going on in the blogger vs. journalism world today. Bloggers and other Internet writers (as well as many readers of Huffpo) won't admit they rely almost totally on newspaper journalists for the factual sources they need to spout off, then demonstrate their total hypocrisy by rejoicing in the death of newspapers while ignoring the salient fact that professional journalism is the important loss here, not a business model or that we will now have more trees. When Huffpo and other Web sites do reliable, consistent journalism then we can celebrate the death of newspapers. till then, be careful what you wish for, You may not have any reliable news to comment upon everyday.

[noamjunior]

Professional Journalism was lost when the media failed to report the truth about the Florida election in 2000 and failed to report the truth about WMD's and Bush's false statements about Iraq. Journalism is most definitely a "what have you done for me lately" business model, and the 21st century saw one of it's most widely known investigative journalist (bob Woodard) shilling for the Bush Administration.
If newspapers are such a valuable resource- where were they when we needed them ?

[larry278]

Prostitution, like journalism, is also called a profession by some. Others call prostitution & journalism an occupation. Has anybody made journalism il-legal yet?

[bvongrabe]

Take it or not, much like the Record Industry newspapers have slept and have failed TIMELY to adapt. The result is their demise. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
As to Journalists, they have a wide field in electronic communication, including online video communication.
And as to content, they DID let us down by not reporting timely the election fraud issues. Even today, I have to go to Brad blog or the Daily Koss to get the info the newspaper whussies don't have the chutzpah to report.