I don't want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers.
--Steve Jobs, speaking at the Wall Street Journal's digital conference in California, June 2
In an onstage interview with Walt Mossberg, WSJ's well known technology guru, Jobs emphasized the role of a free, healthy press with educated journalists in a thriving democracy. Although Jobs has a great deal of self-interest in promoting top newspaper content for the sake of the IPad, it is a profoundly important issue.
Although not well known, Google, too, is trying to figure out how to pay for top journalistic content and keep a few newspapers in business. It's a tough issue. Newspapers still lack a successful business model. Actually, no more than three or four newspapers can be counted on to deliver content of significance. It's damned expensive.
Candidly, I read WSJ for capitalistic content, technology, the arts and books, with occasional forays into the opinion pages. But sorting the nonsense on WSJ's heavily biased pages can be problematic. Sometimes, like Cheney, it's obvious that WSJ is really attempting to create reality, not admit to it. Still, I dare not skip WSJ.
There's little doubt that the NYTimes has the finest journalists in English speaking world. Contrary to what some seem to think, the Times' stable of journalists represents the entire spectrum of perspective, right to left (or whatever model you choose). What some seem not to understand is that the Times is an urban newspaper, not a liberal newspaper. Although urban/liberal have overlaps, they're not synonymous characteristics.
Of course, running a tight second is the Washington Post, family-owned, with a mission of significance. And last, the DesMoines Register still has great journalism, but lacks the coverage of the Post or the Times. If you check out the bylines in most newspapers, you'll see that a huge percentage are syndicated from the Times, the Post or WSJ. I confess. I quit taking our local McClatchy newspaper, the StarTrib because the significant material was from the Times, WSJ or the Post, and I could pick up the local events of importance to me from Minnesota Public Radio (easily the best public radio in the nation--in surprising contrast to Boston or New York. Chicago's pub radio runs a pretty close second to MPR. Although I can't vouch for it, a friend of mine in the business tells me that nearly half of all public radio content is generated through Minnesota Public Radio and its business wings. E.g. Southern California's pub radio is an offshoot of MPR.)
All this is to say that picking up trustworthy news from the Web, outside of those few newspapers and NPR, is tough sledding. Much of what goes as news belongs in People Magazine, etc. Assessing content's accuracy becomes a very difficult task for most of us, and I have no simple recommendations as to how to resolve that problem. Few are willing to take the time and put out the bucks to read the more sophisticated or academic journals. They want instant news. But instant news, without intelligent comment, often is not only misleading, but more oriented to creating readership than offering wise analysis and comment.
I'm well aware that this blog is a rant!
So, what do you think?