Gone are the days of Joseph Pulitzer, Edward R. Murrow, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Gone are the times when people relied on daily newspapers and their favourite evening anchor for the news. Now we are pummeled with 24-hour news networks, the Internet and news feeds on cell phones and BlackBerrys. I sometimes wish I could go back, just for a little while, and experience life as reporter in the good old days.
We now have what seems to be instant news, literally in the palms of our hands. This, coupled with newspapers being sold to mega corporations that are more focused on a profit than the news, has created a confusing time in the media. But through all the confusion, transition and uncertainty, one thing remains consistent: the news, despite often being hijacked by bloggers, is there, every day, because reporters are digging - there is nothing instant about it. When used properly, the Internet is a valuable resource for reporters. For people wanting to express themselves, it's a great platform. But surfing the web is not journalism. Blogging is not journalism. Journalists are taught and work hard to maintain certain standards and are held accountable when they fail to do so. I believe Dan Rather, based on his experience during the run-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, could back me up on this. Although what happened to Rather is an example of bloggers actually breaking a story, and I will concede this happens on occasion, it is rare and unreliable. Former LA Times editor John Carroll estimates that 85 per cent of the original reporting done in the United States is done by newspaper reporters. "They're the people who are going out and knocking on doors and rummaging through records and covering events and so on. And most of the other media that provide news to people are really recycling news that's gathered by newspapers," Carroll said in a July 8, 2006 interview with PBS. Companies such as Yahoo! and Google admittedly rely on newspapers for their content. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, recently told Frontline, "We're in fact critically dependent upon the success of newspapers. We don't write the content. We're not in the content business. So anything that screws up their economics, that causes them to get rid of reporters, is a really bad thing."
The "screwed up economics" Schmidt is referring to is the pressure many publishers now face to satisfy shareholders. Over the past 15 to 20 years, longtime owners, often families, have sold their newspapers to mega corporations, which has placed an emphasis on the business side of newspapers. In an attempt to keep costs down and profit margins up, reporters have been laid off at alarming rates. Family and independent owners have, typically, been less obsessed with year-to-year profits, primarily because they don't have to answer to shareholders. It all seems a bit daunting, but people are starting to realize that society can't afford to lose reliable and complete reporting. Philanthropists and families are starting to take back ownership of newspapers. It's happening slowly, but editors are getting back their newsrooms. I may never experience the good old days of reporting, and that's fine - because some of the best is yet to come.
