A trip in the time machine back to 2006 is maddening and reassuring
Know somebody else who needs respite from the attention economy or the doomscroll? Recommend they subscribe to Understated. Ideas on how to find, share and understand the information we need to stay engaged without being overwhelmed. Dispatches about once a week because that's plenty.
"Everyone talks of decline and only feeble efforts to respond to the changing environment are underway," the lament about news starts. "No one talks of achieving greatness, few are innovative, few produce quality content, and fewer still seek to increase value. "
I didn't write those two lines, and I can't believe it either!
They were written in 2006 by media economist Robert G. Picard in Journalism, Value Creation and the Future of News Organizations. That paper was published as part of a research series published by Harvard's Shorenstein Center.
“Journalism and news organizations are at a decisive point in their existence,” He goes on. “Those that choose to change and increase value for their stakeholders will have a future; those who continue on their current paths will wither.”
I discovered Picard's paper only a few weeks ago, and found the clarity of this diagnosis shocking. Many of the people working so hard today to change news for the better were literal children when it was written. That these arguments still feel contemporary and unresolved is both humbling and frustrating.
I was able to connect with Picard. He hasn't lost faith in the news yet and was happy to talk about his work, the role of value and values in news organizations, and the pace of change. I'm taking a detour from re-examining the essential functions of news (if you missed those, we have taken a look at record creation and record correction so far) to share that conversation with you, edited for length and clarity.
Alvarez: I was really happy to find your piece, and at the same time, I was so frustrated that a lot of the problems you diagnosed are the same.
Picard: I've been working with media companies for 40 years. There was this panic in the 70's about failing newspapers. There had been one in the 50's. There had been one in the 30s. The issues kept coming up over and over again. As every new media came on, they kept splitting the audience, and it created more problems for previous media along the way.
The one underlying thing that I found through all of these over the years is that many news organizations and journalists make the mistake of assuming their audiences are as interested in news as they are. The majority of the public doesn't read, watch, or listen to news daily. That's just one of the realities.
Alvarez: You wrote extensively and provided a lot of data supporting the idea that audiences were not getting what they wanted from news long before you wrote this paper two decades ago.
Picard: Even today, the majority of the public doesn't want much news. Those that want it want a little world and national news, a little political news, and lots of news and information about their communities.
And over and over again, we still see a move away from the community and news in the community, partly because all the rewards of journalism—pay, awards, prestige—are not for community coverage but are for political coverage. They're for national coverage, crisis coverage, things of that sort. The reward structure is just completely wrong.
Alvarez: Do you still agree with your 2006 self that journalism needs to create more value for people?
Picard: I think people in news have to be asking, "What are we doing and what value are we creating?” every single day. They need to be reviewing and thinking about it when they're making editorial decisions and when they're making business strategy decisions. A lot of them are still trying to fill their sites by putting in stuff that does not have a lot of value for the audience.
Alvarez: You wrote about some values you felt were ubiquitous in the news in 2006. The ones you laid out were: fairness, balance, editorial judgment, integrity, diversity, and community leadership and involvement. Even if those values were ubiquitous and well articulated, I don't know that they are strong enough values to build coherent products on top of. Do you think so?
Picard: One of the problems is that basic values become platitudes unless you sit there and say, what this means to us is we do these things. Ask, which one of those values are we serving with this article, or this group of articles, every day? Every newsroom needs to have a good discussion of values. That's it, just to start out with. And I've actually been in newsrooms talking through that. Those got to very interesting discussions.
Alvarez: Because news is such a marginal source for so many people, if we say that we have an important role in democratic processes, it is less and less true. If we want to have a larger role in democratic processes and in shoring up a democratic culture, I think we're going to have to get more active.
What do you think about news moving beyond just discussing things and into contributing to a civic fabric through programs like Documenters? What do you think about news organizations undertaking that role?
Picard: I think that's an excellent move, and I think that helps create value.
Alvarez: You pose two questions about value in your paper that, again, I just can’t believe I didn’t write. You say news organizations have to ask themselves, “value for what?” and “value for whom?” What do you want to see for news, broadly, when you answer those questions?
Picard: I don't want all the news to do the same thing. That's my key. If you're a national source, you've got a different kind of answer to that question than if you're covering a neighborhood. It's going to be different. But it's a question you have to ask over and over again.
And it's not just a matter of philosophy.
It's a matter of whether you're going to be successful as an organization or not if you can't answer that question.
***
I was truly so thankful to find Picard's paper and to talk to him about the ideas we share. As hard as I can be on news organizations, I also realize how difficult change is for people and institutions. I'm ready for change, but in preparing this post I was reminded of how that enthusiasm inevitably creates work, big questions, and unintended consequences.
As I was getting ready to edit this conversation with Picard I realized I only had a video recording. So, I asked ChatGPT how to generate a transcript. Three hours later there I was, locked in with ChatGPT. It helped me build and run a Python script to transcribe audio into text by connecting to OpenAI's API.
This was the first time I've used ChatGPT to help me do something I didn't feel capable of learning on my own. I made a ton of mistakes (ChatGPT made some significant ones, too) and I still don't understand a lot of why the code works. But I do understand some of it, I finally learned how to use the terminal on my computer, and now I feel equipped to learn more.
The combination of information, guidance, and what felt like personalized attention made the process incredibly satisfying. I didn't feel guilty or dumb asking the machine to start over from the beginning, yet again. I asked basic questions and got my ego stroked with responses like, “That’s a really good question, Sarah.” This technology is very smooth at information delivery, specifically. I have years of practice texting with people about complex information and problems and am good at it. ChatGPT is good at it now, too. I took notes.
I understand now how hard it will be for us, as individuals and as information providers, to truly confront, adapt to, and put limits around the potential of this technology.
Have you had this moment with AI yet? If so, how is it challenging you and what are you excited or concerned about? I'd love to know. Until next week, take care.
What I'm reading
Talk about platitudes versus values. This piece contrasts the “values” of two news organizations trying to position themselves on different points along the political spectrum. Read it and throw something.
Laura Hazard Owen
