Comments on: ABC’s Gibson out of touch, sends college journalists wrong message

By: Fred M. Wachira

Fred M. Wachira — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:14:49 +0000

I have been a long time viewer of Mr.
Gibson and his newscast. I like the
way he gathers his information on world
and international news. I think he is
the top journalist in his field. I
just want to congratulate him for a job
well done, and give him A BIG THUMBS UP!! And I hope future journalists can
do as well as they learn from this
man of great talent, knowledge and
passion for his work and others. God
Bless Charles Gibson and God Bless
America !!!!

By: Mark Briggs

Mark Briggs — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:22:14 +0000

Devin, I tend to agree with you. I would even go so far to suggest that many bigger sites that have enjoyed those resources focused too much on “journalism for journalists,” instead of on true accountability reporting that was important – and interesting – to regular citizens. If you look at newspaper circulation numbers over the past 40 years, they start to decline after Watergate created an award-driven celebrity journalism culture. The Internet came later and only exacerbated the decline.

Free market competition should be a good thing for investigative journalism. I think it already has for political coverage when you look at what Politico, HuffingtonPost, Talking Points Memo and others have done.

By: Devin Johnston

Devin Johnston — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:49:02 +0000

I tend to agree with what you are saying here. That said, I’m wondering if you can comment on one of the issues raised in this video discussion between two editors of Macleans magazine (http://devinjohnston.ca/blog/2009/03/01/re-coyne-v-wells).

They argue that the fragmentation of the media market as it moves online is a bad thing because even if multiple smaller sites can each be profitable, none has the resources required for the level of research, investigation, and fact-checking that print and broadcast media giants currently provide.

I’m of the view that this is probably untrue because smaller niche news sources can focus their resources within their particular niche in order to achieve the same or higher level of research.

By: Barksey

Barksey — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:53:58 +0000

“More Americans get their news from ABC News, than from any other source.” – slogans like this are ok though??

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:31:40 +0000

By addressing Clay Shirky’s accusation about the fate of newspapers, Gibson completely missed the point. Shirky wasn’t suggesting that “the web” or some variant new technology would replace newspapers (although it’s entirely possible it will); his point was that the newspapers are dinosaurs who will die, whether or not there is something out there to take their place. The assumption that the likes of Gibson have been making, falsely, is that there cannot be a vacuum. Unfortunately for them (and perhaps, for all of us, for a while anyway) this might be exactly what happens, until somebody invents something that both pays for itself and gives us consumers what we want. Certainly there are no signs to indicate that *that thing* will come from within the existing publishing infrastructure.

Most telling of all, out of this dialogue, is the needless ad hominem against Clay Shirky. This speaks volumes about the feelings within the traditional establishment and their resentment about being called out on their likely path to failure. In a way you can say ‘who blames them’, as they obviously don’t want to fail, but at the same time you can’t help but feel such a reaction just shows who’s on the ball and who’s just watching it.

By: Dan Conover

Dan Conover — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:53:30 +0000

The deep irony is that newspapers have been giving away journalistic content in print FOREVER, just like TV and radio news outfits do, and if web revenues were as high as print revenues used to be, they wouldn’t be complaining now.

What’s on the way out is the lucrative advertising subsidy. And to be clear: Newspaper prices cover the cost of producing and distributing the physical object, not the journalism. There is no physical object to deliver over the Web.

We cannot figure out what journalism is worth in the monetary sense so long as its production is financed primarily by advertising. It warps the market. And to suggest — as the mass-media voices seem to be suggesting in unison this month — that the Web is the problem is to miss the point entirely.

Remember: The goal creates the values system, and the goal of modern mass media isn’t quality journalism but double-digit profit margins funded by inefficient 20th century advertising models. In that system, journalism ultimately bends to whatever draws people’s attention. Traffic trumps quality, and shoddness is the business plan.

If people actually paid for journalism, would they want something different? Would a change in the way we pay for journalism improve it?

Magic Eightball sez: “Signs point to YES.”

For more on the future of the business:
http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/03/news-futures-a-whats-next-overview.html

By: Josh (joshhalljourno)

Josh (joshhalljourno) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:13:06 +0000

@bastet – ’students who probably wasted four years of their lives getting a degree that will become meaningless.’

There’s no time for regressive thoughts like that and those, from what I’ve heard, of Charles Gibson.

Those kids in that room were the future of journalism and there’s plenty of reason for excitement and optimism about that.

Take a look around the Web, see how passionate most college journalists are about progressing journalism. I hope it’s an infectious optimism.

By: bastet

bastet — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:07:18 +0000

Gibson has no idea of the financial disaster that journalism is in. Buying newspapers is like using scotch tape to repair a leaking roof. It’s ADVERTISING that’s sinking the ship, both in print and online.
Newspapers relied on classified ads for the bulk of their operating revenue. When Craig’s List came along, out the door went all that money. Display ads only bring in so much. Online ads are the least valuable of all.
So, who’s going to pay the reporters? And all those bright young kids sitting out there?
Gibson has a lot of nerve castigating students who probably wasted four years of their lives getting a degree that will become meaningless. I was a reporter for 25 years and I see what journalism has become it ain’t pretty.

By: Mark Briggs

Mark Briggs — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:56:45 +0000

It didn’t appear to be recorded by the folks who organized the conference (at least I didn’t see anyone with a tripod set up). But there were many cameras in the audience and I suspect some of them were shooting video. A quick YouTube search didn’t turn up anything, however.

By: Tara

Tara — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:49:39 +0000

does anyone know if there’s video of this??