A Pulitzer Proves We Still Need Journalists

In an historic first, the Pulitizer Prize committee has awarded online publication ProPublica a top honor for investigative journalism. On the one hand, the fact that it has taken this long for an online publication to win a Pulitzer marks just how reticent towards the new digital paradigm the journalism establishment remains. On the other hand, the nature of the award reveals that despite business model turmoil, professional journalism remains an essential element of a free society.

When we think about the disruption of professional journalism, it's useful to desegregate the pieces, rather than dealing with the sector as a monolith. So what has really happened?

1. The difference between journalism, the profession and publications, the industry. The first break we need to make in our thinking is to separate the activity of journalism from the industry which grew up to support it. I would argue that the internet disrupts both, but in different ways.

2. Disrupting the business model. It's hard to argue against the fact that the business model of printed news has been disrupted. Newspapers used to be supported largely by 1) classifieds; 2) advertisements, and 3) subscriptions & newsstand sales. These elements all worked together - higher circulation meant higher rates for ads and classifieds. But then the internet created a vastly better market for classifieds, created new outlets for consuming news, and enabled advertisers to pay based on how many people were engaging with their ads rather than on the less precise measure of how many people saw them. The result: a vicious downward cycle for print publications.

3. Unpacking "journalism." The field of journalism includes myriad smaller pieces, but I'd argue that the three biggies are: investigative journalism, news reporting, and editorial or opinion writing. The advent of the internet has brought new voices to the field, particularly in terms of reporting the news and providing opinion, a largely positive advance.

That said, I don't think that more people coming to the table has undermined the need for professionals. Sure, it's great to have more people have a chance to share their opinion, but there is a substantive difference between your average opinion blogger and Thomas Friedman or Nicholas Kristoff. That difference does not undermine the role for either, but they are not interchangeable.

The same goes for reporting the news. The rise of "citizen journalists" adds an incredible amount of local perspective, specific detail, and nuance that just can't be achieved by news reporters as individuals. At the same time, reporting the news is supposed to be about getting the whole story, and I believe still requires a curatorial voice to ensure that fact and opinion remain separate provinces.

Investigative reporting in some ways has the most complicated relationship with the internet. On the one hand, the flows of information and the opportunity to discover new sources has never been greater. On the other, one of the first things to go as newsrooms cut back is support for intensive, extensive investigations.

4. Enter new models. While the average response from most major print publications has been along the lines of "do more of the same, just move it online and hope it works," sites like ProPublica and Spot.Us -- a nonprofit that allows journalists to crowdsource funding for important local investigations -- are taking a more nuanced approach to understanding the new opportunities the web news world provides. Interestingly, many of these new organizations are nonprofit. This allows them to accept donations and grants to help subsidize other earned income streams, and redistribute some of the financial pressure felt by major newsrooms.

5. So what happens next? I think that the crisis traditional media publications are feeling is real. I think that even as we recognize the continued importance of professional journalists, the ease of content distribution means we simply don't need as many of them.

But I also think that there is a lot of upside here. More voices -- even if it takes a new sort of curation -- is a good thing, and smart publications and companies are going to figure out how to leverage that change. What's more, I don't particularly mind there being more journalism build around a nonprofit model. Advertisers in traditional publications put immense pressure on editors to not put their advertisements next to stories of crisis, famine, war, rape, or any of that nasty stuff that we frankly rely on publications to tell us about. A nonprofit model means (potentially) less of that sort of pressure.

The Pulitzer awarded to ProPublica recognized the nonprofit site's outstanding investigation of controversial deaths at New Orleans' hospitals in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The need for that sort of reporting isn't going anywhere, and I just don't believe that it can happen with citizen journalists alone.

Now how all this works out financially -- that's a question for the journalism entrepreneurs.

Photo credit: ShironekoEuro