I'm just not as confident "watchdog" journalism is a high priority at The Gazette, or media in general, right now. Talk is cheap. Many reporters and editors beat their chests chanting "journalism" in public, but in budget meetings, money rules. Actions show up on page 1. If the "watchdog" role was a high priority at The Gazette, the paper would not have disbanded its award-winning investigative unit several years ago. Advertising and marketing do not give a whit about being a "watchdog," they want money and happy advertisers. Controversy and conflict irritate advertisers, even when they're not involved. Change is coming to journalism, but the "watchdog" will be chained to the doghouse more often.
Are dedicated, smart people worrying about this problem? Sure. But pressure often changes priorities. Will The Gazette succeed with its "reorganization?" Maybe. The company can define success any way it wants. I only hope the company is not buying the newest, shiniest deck chair for the Titanic.
1 comments:
John, I rely on your grizzled-ness for credibility.
But seriously, of course advertisers would prefer no controversy or conflict, but they'd prefer an audience for their ads even more.
I don't think anyone is ravenously consuming cute baby photos and ignoring "real" news. Audiences want important and relevant news about the places they live.
The problem is when audiences aren't given the choice to pay for hard-core reporting because local media only sell fluff. But the Internet allows smaller operations to compete with bigger outlets like The Gazette (similar to the way TPM and its three- or four-member staff can compete with the big dogs).
Post a Comment