Newspaper life watch: AP to share non-profit content

 Posted by on 13 June 2009  Modern Life
Jun 132009
 

I’ve written a number of “newspaper death watch” posts, because I have a morbid fascination with the ongoing transformation in my own industry, but I’ve been meaning to write a series of “newspaper life watch” posts as well. There’s a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in journalism these days, because we’re in the middle of a huge transformation — and nobody knows what the end product will look like, or how to get there. Or how many it will employ.

But from a slightly different perspective, this is a fantastically exciting time to be a journalist. Not only are we in the middle of a paradigm shift in information transmission and consumption, but we actually get to chronicle that shift from the inside! It may be sad to see a lot of the old traditions fall by the wayside, but to be in on the ground floor as we move to a whole new system — and perhaps to, in some small way, influence the shape of our new traditions — is thrilling.

Here’s one small, new shift that I think is both a good idea, and proof that “old journalism” and “new journalism” can coexist not only peacefully, but symbiotically: The Associated Press has announced that it will carry stories from non-profit organizations that have been freelancing investigative reports.

As they sharply reduce their staffs, many newspapers have cut back on investigations or given them up entirely. When there are barely enough reporters to cover the daily news from the local courthouse and the school board, it is harder to justify assigning someone to an in-depth project that might take weeks or months.

At the same time, independent groups doing investigative journalism have grown in number and size, fueled by foundations and wealthy patrons, and are offering their work to newspapers, magazines, television and radio news programs, and news Web sites.

In some ways, these non-profits may be somewhat agenda-driven: they may not have the same commitment to impartial, unbiased reporting as traditional newspapers try to have. But in other ways, they could also be free from the commercial taint of an ad-ridden newspaper. I welcome the six-month experiment, and I would be really surprised if it didn’t become a new standard.

Good stuff!

Grant Hamilton

  • Matt Goerzen

    My dear Hamilton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that having AP take stories from non-profit interest groups is a “good stuff” kind of thing, though I will admit it will be interesting to watch.

    Your argument that the non-profits won’t have the same commercial taint as newspapers begs the question: since when is the Associated Press a newspaper? It’s a wire service. They are not directly beholden to ad revenue, though indirectly they are affected by the funk in newspapers ad sales across North America.

    All that aside, I have trouble believing that outsourcing material from non-profit groups with political interests (sometimes known, sometimes otherwise) is a good idea. There will always be the question of what have they left out or put in for their own personal reasons. I find it more likely that a reporter working for a wire service will be less swayed by financial interests (outside of their own paycheck), than a political interest group. Whether the same can be said for newspaper reporters, well I guess that would depend on the newspaper.

    I will embrace what the new media world order brings as best I can — to a point. (I still find Twitter rather pointless.) But I am as yet unconvinced that well-researched journalism can survive the onslaught of the give-it-to-me-free generation.

    The fact that there will be fewer employed journalists that have been trained to investigate working for ACCREDITED news organizations, is never a good thing. You can call it gnashing of teeth in a flippant ‘what-are-you-complaining-about’ kind of way, but there is a real danger here. It started with the growth of large media empires which sought to exert more and more control over the editorial content of the news — the Blacks and Aspers of the world. When the source materials for news become less trustworthy, that surely cannot help the situation.

    Generally speaking we are both on the same side of the media issue. We both want good quality writing and investigation to not only survive but thrive through the inevitable changes that are no doubt coming. We both want to be there on the other side and maybe help give some direction to the way out.

    And I think you and I can both agree — in fact I’m sure of it — that media companies have done some extremely bone-headed things. Cutting staff and cutting corners in a newspaper just to increase the bottom line only makes the product less desirable at the end of the day.

    It’s bad enough that the public has begun to turn its back on traditional media, favouring instead moronic diatribes on sites like ebrandon as “gospel news tips.” It just makes for a less educated citizen, and creates a public debate that veers more towards shrill than reasoned.

    And yes, I am saying all of this with a nod to my own self-interest. I love having the time to do proper investigation and research on a story.

    Anyway, my long-winded point is simply this: I think it’s a crying shame that a long-standing and storied news agency such as AP with a wonderful history in investigative reporting, is forced to take possibly questionable reportage from outside sources.

    Perhaps AP and other wire and news services should simply become non-profits themselves. Now there’s something I would call thrilling.

    • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

      Matt: your comment (which was wonderful!) deserves a well-thought-out response, which I cannot give at the moment (since I am, ironically, at work at a newspaper right now). However, it also deserves a speedy response, which I can certainly give now.

      Essentially, I would ask you to look at it like this: The Associated Press, you are right is not a newspaper; it is a content aggregator (kind of like this blog often is). As such, it generates very little of its own content, instead choosing the best of what it is offered. If you look at the growth of wire services, you’ll see that it goes hand-in-hand with the rise of impartial journalism. That’s because AP and others demanded that its members submit content in a standard style, and attempted to edit out bias and slant so that each story could be shared (uh, sold) as widely as possible.

      If AP, in that role as content aggregator, now thinks that non-profit sources can meet the same standard as traditional newspapers in generating that content, I’m inclined to trust AP. At least until I see different.

      By the way, many of these non-profits have been founded specifically to push investigative, impartial journalism, with no other agenda, political or otherwise.

  • Matt Goerzen

    No doubt, AP is a content aggregator, but up until now AP used content from trusted member TV, radio and newspaper sources, all of them actual media companies employing people who are trained to do the news.

    Just for the record, I think wire services are perfectly capable of making bone-headed decisions too. AP said last November that it intended to cut 10 per cent of its employees, and with traditional media on the skids and ad revenue tanking, I would question whether AP’s owners are making a reasoned decision, or a desperate one.

    But we will see. It would be foolish to completely disregard an investigative story based on the fact that it came from a non-profit organization. I simply have my reservations, and I don’t want to see the profession’s reputation constantly dragged through the gutter. At least, not without good reason.

    • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

      Again quick: I agree that AP is probably scrambling for original content, and they’re happy to take it wherever they can get it, even non-traditional sources like this. But these non-profits are indeed hiring trained journalists, and because they have no motive other than their stated desire to advance the cause of journalism, I think it is probably going to turn out great — not least because it will bring publicity to these news sources (and therefore, more money into their endowments, helping them be even more independent).