Picard, Patterson and the Value of Journalism

Picard and Patterson both address the crisis facing journalism, but from somewhat different angles. Picard focuses primarily on the declining economic value of journalism, while Patterson addresses the declining quality of reporting.

Regarding Picard’s argument, it’s not clear that the ability of users to “observe and report news, gather expert knowledge, determine significance, add audio, photography, and video components, and publish this content far and wide (or at least to their social network) with ease” (Picard, 2009) for free is a strict substitute for professional reporting. I think Gelson’s article in The Washington Post nicely complicates this notion. Yes, we have access to more information, often freely provided, but without a filter, context or analysis, this access has yielded more polarization, less fact-checking, and sometimes general confusion. Meanwhile, focus on economic outcomes, as Picard puts it, can easily be interpreted as guiding the punditry of Fox and MSNBC, which contributes to the problems Gelson enumerates.

Patterson argues, along similar lines to Gelson, that due to the increasing flow of data we need journalists to convert that data into useful, contextually-situated information. Even if we accept Picard’s claim that the value of their labor is decreasing, journalism has many positive externalities which are not so easily quantifiable. While Patterson’s reference to reporting on the lead-up to the Iraq War is definitely not an example of them, The Guardian’s reporting on the Snowden leaks is, contributing to a much needed and publicized debate on free speech, privacy and government surveillance. And, after all, Snowden went to an established newspaper rather than a local blogger (although I think that’s what Glenn Greenwald has kind of become, rather successfully).

That being said, demand for print news, whether of quality or not, has diminished. It’s wasteful and not nearly as immediate as getting news digitally. It also changes the playing field. Many of those who only got a local paper delivered can now access any newspaper they want online. Because digital reach is larger, competition between papers has also increased and smaller local newspapers are usually the first losers. Picard’s solution is greater newspaper specialization. While specialization, as in local news for instance, diminishes potential substitutes, it can also reduce potential market reach. If you’re interested in national or global news, you’d likely forego paid online access to the Austin American-Statesman online access when you can read The New York Times for free (for now).