Why the Huffington Post Can't Replace The New York Times

Michael Wolff writes on the Huffington Post that it is a "shibboleth" that the New York Times is important for the good of journalism and notes that an evolving piece of conventional wisdom is that "the Huffington Post is the new New York Times."

I know Huffington Post. Huffington Post is a friend of mine. I write for Huffington post. But, the Huffington Post is no New York Times -- nor does it attempt to be.

The idea that the Huffington Post, or the explosion of interesting internet news or blogging sites, can replace journalistic institutions like the New York times or other newspapers or dinosaurs of the mainstream media truly misunderstands the web, newspapers, journalism and the serious threat posed to democracy if the news gathering institutions fail.

I really do love the Huffington Post. It does a superb job packaging, filtering and choosing the news (albeit with a liberal slant), and is one of the best places around for commentary and analysis. And it sometimes breaks news, too. But it is not primarily a news gathering organization -- as a look at the Huffington Post home page will reveal.

On the Huffington Post's home page, Thursday around 4:15 pm EST, I counted 29 news headlines (I may have missed some because they update the page so frequently). Of those, 9 were Associated Press stories, 11 linked directly to stories reported by mainstream media outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN etc), 3 were written by Huffington Post staffers but were basically summaries of what they'd read in mainstream media outlets, 4 were from Huffington Post staffers but based on video clips or statements in the public domain (e.g. Nancy Pelosi's press conference, John Conyers' "Dear Colleague" letter). One was original HuffPost analysis that was excellent but involved no new reporting and one I couldn't quite classify (they reported, based on Lisa Bonet's official fan site, that her son would be named Nakoa-Wolf Mankauapo Namakaeha Momoa).

In other words, of the 29 stories, 23 were created by or based entirely on journalism by mainstream media outlets. The others were based on public domain (watching public press conferences or TV shows). None were based on original, gum-shoe reporting.

Again, I mean this as no criticism of the Huffington Post or, for that matter the Drudge Report, which performs a similar function. They do break news, too (including some big stories, like Obama's "bitter" gaffe). And spotting and filtering the news is a valuable function. What's more, they keep mainstream media on its toes.

But Huffington Post most often relies on the reporting done by the much reviled MSM. Obviously, we need the Huffington Post and the New York Times.

Steven Waldman is Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet.com (a new media concoction) and formerly worked in old media dinosaurs, Newsweek and US News & World Report.

Comments

[zest]

It can if they stop printing it.

[Carolab]

The New York Times won't let its readers blog.

[Carolab]

I don't agree. We need to replace the MSM with more blogs that publish original research.

[Truby]

We can survive without either. All media exists to sell advertising. The type of news chosen for publication merely reflects a targeted audience. Feed your brain the largest variety of information on a subject, practice skepticism and independent thought and recognize you will never, ever have all of the answers.

[johnnynyc]

I've always found it ironic people here who seem to cheer any bad news about the NY TImes Company fail to realize without the TImes, WAPO, Time/Warner etc sites like this wouldn't exist, couldn't exist.

[guajiro]

Good subject Steve. While papers, like the NYT do cover original stories, places like HuffPo cover the other side of the story. You left out the fact that there is a general consensus that the main media has a vested interest in telling the good side of a corporate story, instead of the side that benefits the people. At HuffPo we get analysis, as you said, that won't come out on the main media. You say it's a liberal slant, I call it the truth.

[InofTouch]

I call it bias and what wrong with that depends on your view.

Sky is blue...fact or slant

[durant]

Whether The Huffington Post can replace The New York Times is less important than whether NYTimes.com can replace The New York Times. When the last printed newspaper goes into the recycling bin, will The New York Times Company and its peers still be in business, or will they have been replaced by news organizations that have smaller bureaucracies, lower overhead, and a better understanding of how to earn revenues from local advertisers and audiences?

[yourstruly]

For years, we lived in a protective bubble in which distinguished families like the Ochs, the Sulzbergers, the Pulitzers, the Chandlers, the Meyers and a few dozen others owned newspapers that provided excellent journalism and made dependable if erratic profits. Not all these papers were wonderful, of course, but their owners liked the prestige and influence that came with newspaper ownership. Some owners grew fat and lazy, others grew alarmed that change was coming. But to my mind the most seductive force was that of Wall Street, which convinced owners that they should capitalize on their "brands" and increase their profits exponentially by going public and corporatizing.

Newsgathering is costly when done right. It sometimes makes you unpopular with advertizers and even readers.If your eye is always on corporate profits, it's almost impossible to run a first-class operation. Look at the three major networks: little information of value leaks out since they started demanding that news compete with sports and entertainment.

Rupert Murdoch would, of course, disagree with me. He's king of the hill these days and puts his biased spin on everything his corporation touches. But I don't call that good journalism, and I keep hoping someone is going to figure out how to create news organizations large enough to finance excellent reporting and make money at the same time.

[saami]

We live in the Seattle area and faithfully read the NY Times every day. It is a source of information that we cannot get anywhere else. The indepth reporting and articles along with coverage of the rest of the world besides just the spot where we live is invaluable. Blogs and web based news outlets will not adequately replace the New York TImes and other excellent news papers.

[GhostwriterDoF]

Well Steven, I agree with you that the Huff Post is no replacement for the NY Times. We learn more by what you"re not telling us over there, than what you"re reporting.

Here we get to scrutinize the Mainstream Media, fill in the blanks and discuss what the Gum Shoe, Fact Gathering efforts are failing to uncover. Yes, there is the Liberal Slant here but, if you notice they cry out for Justice and Humanity, where the so-called Conservative sites cry out for Profit and Destruction. Which do you believe to be more representative of American values?

People don"t appear to trust in the Journalistic Institutions to which you refer. It is one common ground that even the most fanatical Left or Right thinkers can agree on. You in the Mainstream Media do have many entertaining personalities to represent you but, the term "Journalist" is used very loosely these days. Hopefully with sites like the Huff Post, we can Change that too.

[indyleftist]

The internet does a better job of covering international news than the New York Times.

Not Huffington Post, but certainly sites like antiwar.com or democracy now
Huffington Post and Drudge are good if you want partisan political news, but you could just watch cable for that
The NYTImes used to be much better. Their columnists were always mainstream idiots but they used to do a decent amount of investigative journalism, but that's not really the case anymore. Now they just take their stories from the wire services. They are still probably the best daily paper I suppose

[SaulBloodworth]

"The internet" does not cover anything at all. The internet is a means of distribution, it will probably replace paper to a huge degree sooner or later, but this has nothing to do with production.

News are made by people. If antiwar.com would not have the internet it would hand out leaflets or be n FM radio. Granted, the internet makes it easier, but it makes it easier for everybody, including the MSM.

http://cabal-thenovel.blogspot.com/

[taptaptap]

I read HuffPo daily for pure entertainment and for the variety and calibre of its bloggers (one big mother op-ed!).... but as a real source for news reporting and journalism? Read some of the headlines! Editors know how to keep your attention. It's kind of like the NYPost meets National Enquirer meets People meets USAToday with a hint of a smidge of NYTimes/AP/Reuters. It's always sensational, gossipy, irreverent, with a news story thrown in to keep it credible-enough . A guilty pleasure.

[melponeme k]

Yes, we need more articles that are in the same caliber of those glorious reporters Jayson and Judy!

Therefore we need the NY times.

[cayuse]

We need free press and free comment to blogs. That should be the critera.

Unfortunately Press is conglomerated into a few Media Corporations that create the best FICTION. So abuse of freedom is RAMPANT. Opinion and Political Agenda's are the norm in favor of Wealth.

I cannot say that the little BLOGS on the left side of the main page always print my every blog. 99% of Huffington Post is free. Better than 10% of the media

[Tim in Chicago]

"Unfortunately Press is conglomerated into a few Media Corporations that create the best FICTION. So abuse of freedom is RAMPANT. Opinion and Political Agenda's are the norm in favor of Wealth."

"Abuse of Freedom" is a dangerously overused phrase. Remember, "freedom" of the press means only that they are free to write what they see fit, it has nothing to do with you, the reader.

And when the Drafters wrote the Bill of Rights, there were no newspapers like the NYT. "The press" was everyone and anyone with a printing machine (wealthy people tended to own most of them) putting out whatever agenda or version of the truth they saw fit. That was the exact freedom that the Drafters sought to protect.

It's your job - our job - to cut through the sensation and distraction that has always been part and parcel with the free dissemination of information in this country, and discern, as best we can, the truth. To fault "the mainstream media" for having bias or championing their own agenda is to ignore or purposefully slough off your duties as a citizen.

[melponeme k]

A very crafty way to give a pass to corporate media.

Before statutes against consolidation of our media were relaxed we had very thorough investigative journalism. We had the Watergate investigation and many other fabulous reports.

What do we have now? We have Judy Miller and her clones.

Reporters are now afraid to rock the boat because their is no outlet for them if they insult the powers that be. They can't get another job at another paper, that paper is owned by the same person who owns the one they work for currently. 9 times out of 10 that person's name is Murdoch.

The media must be free to give us the news not pap.

[cayuse]

It is our congress that have modified the laws of the land to allow the laws our grandfatheer wrote to allow free press. It was why most towns had at least 2 news paper. Now you say it is OK for one to own all press and sell his one idea.

In our grandad days, People purchase the newspaper from the one paper they most agreed. Hence free enterprise and free press grew together. And there was free choice all around

Today the wealth is centered geometrically in the hands of the rich. Mainly because of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few by monopoly and Traded Stock reinvestment and low capital gains.

You are wong thatOld Free Press is not responsible for the major gains in equality and justice againt the power of a few. Freedom only exists if there is free press (to tell the truth) and free enterprise (ability to enter into enterprise) NOT economy of scale. With the power resting in the hands of a few, piece does not have a chance.

[guajiro]

It is a different time today than from the time the Drafters wrote the Bill of Rights. Back then corporation's charters were terminated as soon as the project they were created for was completed. Corporation's were not considered "persons" as they are today. Much has changed and both the Right and the Left consider the situation critical.
"Corporate media" is a term which refers to a system of media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations, and is governed by the capitalist imperatives of maximizing profits for the investors, stockholders, and advertisers."
The "Propoganda Model" theory expands on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
So when, as a reporter, you feel like writing an article about the negative effect of corporate media, how long before you see the writing on the wall that you're writing about the wrong stuff? Is that the freedom of speech you're talking about?

[mredder4]

The Huffington Post can only be described as The New York Times' and The New York Post's love child. This site is a mix of real news and the worst of sensationalist gossip. Arianna herself railed recently about how the media was focusing on Blagojovich while the economy was being ignored, all while The Huffington Post's big headline and front page were given over to the Blago scandal. All this was done without a trace of irony. Gimmicky headlines draw readers into stories that have little to do with the actual content of those pages. The site had a Style section before it had a Green section, or even a World section. What does that say about priorities?

I like this site, and I still come every day in spite of these shortcomings, because I am tired of the excessively-balanced slant the news has taken, giving time to any crazy viewpoint that crops up for any issue. But I would like to see a little more maturity around The Huffington Post, if only to better the reputation of the site.

[gladiatorpodolsky]

So how come I get news 2 days earlier on Huffpost? Because they're getting it from Associated Press?

These much vaunted "journalists" you praise led us into the murder and maiming of thousands of children in Iraq with their brilliant reporting on "weapons of mass destruction". And then there was Y2K, hurricane seasons, Vietnam, Israel, etc. Their specialty is stampeding the public into disaster for the sake of their careers and vanity. Their other specialty is character assassination without due process. Their "facts" are chronically misleading, taken out of context, or outright false. I want less from these prima donnas rather than more.

Full disclosure--I have been a journalist, and 3 of my children are. And yes, I've seen them do it. Love them anyway. If it's good for their careers, what do I care?

--Neil Elliott

[SaulBloodworth]

You don't get the news two days earlier from HuffPo. You get it the exact same time AP is posting it.

The reason you are under that impression is that you are not checking the AP homepage.