Newspaper watch: How the tape recorder killed journalism

 Posted by on 4 October 2009  Modern Life
Oct 042009
 

Gay Talese asserts a controversial point here, and I’m not sure that I completely agree with him. Sure, the tape recorder changed journalism — and it may have completely eliminated the style of profile writing that he was doing — but I don’t think it “killed” journalism.

Of course, we get people saying that the Internet is going to kill journalism all the time, these days, and I think they are just as mistaken. Journalism is going to change, sure, but I doubt it’s going to die.

You could draw a comparison to painting and photography. You might say that photography killed painting, but that’s obviously not true. Certainly, painting lives on, as a hobby as an as art. But just as certainly, most people turn to photographs for their picture-taking needs, not to painters.

But I would argue the proper way to look at it is photography supplanting painting as a mechanism for capturing and reproducing images.

Similarly, journalism didn’t die with the tape recorder and it will survive the Internet. But it will be irrevocably changed by new technology, and people will continue to assert that the Internet killed newspapers, while missing the point.

Photographs are both better and worse than paintings, depending on what characteristics you value most. News in the Internet age is similarly better and worse than the languorously crafted profiles cited by Talese.

For the uninitiated, Gay Talese is famous. A founder of New Journalism, he wrote what is often cited as the “best magazine profile ever” — a 1966 Esquire article called “Frank Sinatra Had A Cold”, which managed to be a great profile without ever talking to the man himself. Talese discusses some of the process of writing that article in the video above.

Grant Hamilton

  • Matt Goerzen

    Sorry dude, I think you missed his point. Magazine journalism of the type that he wrote has – for the most part – ceased to be. If you look at what and how he wrote, the content could only have been researched through close and sustained contact with his subject, something that I think he rightly argues is missing these days. Cost-cutting measures would limit the ability of writers to spend more time in a subjects world, such as any hotel in Las Vegas. Not wanting to get sued by troublesome movie stars and their army of lawyers and handlers, news and magazine organizations obviously prefer taped interviews. That particular feeling is within our own newsroom too, and not limited to magazines.

    What that has done is dull our ability to observe and describe, which is obviously a cornerstone of his writing. While there are always exceptions, I think tape recorders made news and magazine writing safer, and thus a little less interesting. I look at the one article you pointed out about Sinatra, and I couldn’t stop reading. It was fantastic and illuminating. Could it be done today, say about Tom Cruise? Likely not.

    To me it reinforced an old cliche… actions speak louder than words. And in this case, they’re far more interesting too.

    Did the tape recorder kill journalism? The fact that you and I are still employed proves otherwise. It definitely left a mark though.

  • Colin Corneau

    I think it made journalists a little more accountable. That’s not a bad thing.

    Short-sighted cost-cutting will kill journalism a lot faster than than whether or not tape recorders are used. You might as well blame the colour of the wallpaper.

    • Matt Goerzen

      Accountability is a good thing. Losing the ability to write interesting articles because of a reliance on sound bites is not. It’s lazy journalism Colin.

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

    @Colin: short-sighted cost-cutting will definitely kill today’s journalism entities — which will obviously have a major effect on journalism — but I still have hope for the process of newsgathering and reporting.

    @Matt: I don’t think you and I are as far apart on this as you fear we are. I, too, bemoan the lack of good long-form journalism — and magazine profiles were once standards of the genre. Talese is dead-on when he says that changing technology has changed what editors and publishers want from reporters, and continues to do so.

    I think you make an eloquent point about our dulled ability to observe and describe. There are obvious downsides to this, just as there are obvious upsides to these technological crutches.

    Journalism is evolving — much more rapidly than a lot of people are prepared for, I think — and we’re losing a lot in the evolution. But we can’t hang on to the past. The important thing now is to recognize the upsides to this technological change and to make use of them in the best ways possible.

  • thebanana

    The masses don’t want journalism. They want sound bites. BTW, what’s a tape recorder?

  • Colin Corneau

    @Matt – A tape recorder does not a lazy reporter make.

    Laziness is a choice an individual makes. Whether that individual is a reporter sitting down and deciding how to craft a story, or Dilbert-esque management who thinks one can cut their way to profitability.

    (On that note: I saw Trailer Park Boys’ latest movie last night. One line by noted intellectual Ricky stuck with me. He was mad at Julian for spending their small amount of money to get an autobody business off the ground; Julian said that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
    “No, you don’t,” Ricky replied. “You make money by not spending anything and hanging on to your money and then you make money.” Who knew so many corporate figures channel the wisdom of Ricky….