A great business opportunity

This is most of my (slightly edited) response to one of Glenn Greenwald's angry readers who has declared that he is no longer reading the MSM, and that good journalists could make readers interested in any topic. I thought it worth sharing:

If you think that it is possible to make the public read about anything, I invite you--or for that matter, Glenn Greenwald--to go do so. There are a large number of good journalists out there. Hire them, and send them to write the stories you think everyone is deliberately undercovering. Then sell lots of papers with those stories in them. It should be a simple matter to make money doing this, since the only thing required is to have good journalists. If your thesis were true, this would be an excellent place to put all of your retirement savings.

But in fact, you'd lose everything. People wouldn't buy the paper if the headlines didn't interest them. It is hard to make people read stories in a paper they don't own.

If they did buy it, they would skip past the stories that we're supposed to force upon them. There are plenty of usability studies about how people consume media. I suggest that you go read them before blithely asserting that the media have some vast untapped power to make people read things that they don't care about.

Nor is there any previously unexploited reservoir of interest in these topics. The broadcast media have extremely good data on exactly what people watch, and when they choose to change the channel; stories like the ones that Glenn and I want to cover are the ones that make them flip the channel. Web media have very good data on what people read and how long they read it; stories like the ones that Glenn and I want written do not attract large numbers of readers.

I think it's great that you and people like you are seeking out different voices. But there is no conspiracy, not even of the cosy oligopolistic "why bother" type. Almost every journalist in Washington came here wanting to cover the kinds of things Glenn Greenwald wants written about; almost every editor here was one of those reporters, and assumed their current job hoping to break these kinds of stories. They are simply limited by the tastes of their readers.

Comments

Inspiring. In fact, I've decided to stop writing about futurism, technology, culture and politics. I'm still passionate about those things, but I'm limited by the tastes of my readers. So I'll write about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's latest accessory babies and Britney's latest puppy. After all, who am I to resist the sensibilities of my readership? It's not that I'm jaded, just that the American public won't let me cover the things I'm really interested in.

Posted by Chris Wren | April 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Chris Wren, are you writing for a mass market? If not, then of course you're free to write about whatever interests you. However, if your goal is to capture a large audience in order to keep your business venture afloat, you'll probably feel some pressure to write about things that your potential customers are interested in reading.

Posted by kenB | April 8, 2008 1:59 PM

Almost every journalist in Washington came here wanting to cover the kinds of things Glenn Greenwald wants written about; almost every editor here was one of those reporters, and assumed their current job hoping to break these kinds of stories. They are simply limited by the tastes of their readers.

And how do you know this? How do you know what the tastes of your readers are? Or those who watch Katie Couric or Charles Gibson at night?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 2:03 PM

KenB:
But that's the problem. How do you know what your potential readers are interested in reading? You just assume you know, when you really don't.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 2:05 PM

I stated it in the previous thread, but it bears repeating; if anyone debating this topic had 100 million to invest, would you truly use that capital to print a newspaper that ran the stories that Greenwald thinks should be run? When people don't have any skin in the game, meaning significant sums of capital being risked, it is quite predictable that they find it easy to give advice to people who are risking significant sums of capital. Nothing like the prospect of being wiped out, as advertisers go with the competition, to deliver a dose of reality.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:10 PM

Chris what's your point? Are you a journalistic business that makes money via your readers? Invariably the MSM is all about lining up eyeballs and ears for its advertisers who pay the bills. They have every incentive to give people what they want since more viewers makes advertisers happy.

They are not just some monolithic hand connected to an under-construction website. They are about money.

And what you find is that the more educational or complex something becomes, the less people pay attention. Which is why something like a Charlie Rose show or a PBS's news hour, will not exceed the ratings of a CSI or a show with dueling singers.

Yes there is always a portion of people who will get passionate about some subject and are just dying for more depth. But it's impossible to monetize those small groups in sufficient fashion.

So you can give people what they need, but go bankrupt doing it. It's like those speculators in the markets, who KNOW what the direction should be, but exhaust all their resources waiting for prices to catch up to economic reality and their own analysis.

Posted by Finn | April 8, 2008 2:10 PM

If the majority of mainstream journalists dropped the Cheeze Steak and Bowling beat, and instead latched on to real, actual reporting made a real, sustained and concerted effort to explain the issues that they'd 'love to write about but just, um, can't,' does Megan think for a moment that the American public would riot in the streaks, DEMANDING their vacuous stories about Britney and Lindsay and Obama's bowling score?

Does she really think that? Or is she too busy digging her hole even deeper to ponder these questions?

Posted by JohnnyRingo | April 8, 2008 2:13 PM

If the majority of mainstream journalists dropped the Cheeze Steak and Bowling beat, and instead latched on to real, actual reporting and made a real, sustained and concerted effort to explain the issues that they'd 'love to write about but just, um, can't,' does Megan think for a moment that the American public would riot in the streaks, DEMANDING their vacuous stories about Britney and Lindsay and Obama's bowling score?

Does she really think that? Or is she too busy digging her hole even deeper to ponder these questions?

Posted by JohnnyRingo | April 8, 2008 2:13 PM

Joe, which magazine covers move from the newstands mosty quickly; the ones that feature John Yoo, the ones that feature Barack Obama, or, to really get to the heart of the matter, the ones that feature Jessica Simpson? If your capital was at risk, capital you had spent a lifetime accumulating, which cover would seem to be the best way to risk you capital?

The notion that the print media market is massively inefficient, with billions being invested nonsensically, without any knowledge of what actually sells copies, decade after decade, seem extraordinarily far-fetched.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:18 PM

I got the impression a lot of your readers here would've been interested in the specifics you promised on the counting-the-dead issue. Did I miss them? (question for anyone)

Posted by random | April 8, 2008 2:18 PM

Reading Megan's efforts remind me of the old phrase, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Ms. McArdle, you are out of your league going up against Greenwald. He just wrote an entire book about this very subject. He is meticulous in building cases against bad journalism (just ask Joe Klein). Plus, you are defending the indefensible. Glenn's point is not that John Yoo's torture memo gets less media play than Britney's latest foibles, but rather that political journalists, whose jobs are to cover the important political issues of the day, have made it clear that they believe Obama's bowling prowess to be more important than a memo circulated within the Bush Administration justifying the use of torture by our own government. Political journalism has bought into the neoconservative way of looking at the world, and this is a prime example.

Posted by The_Question | April 8, 2008 2:19 PM

Joe Klein, there's very good data on this, particularly from the web and television, and trust me--this is not a figment of the editor's imagination. Check the relative popularities of Glenn Greenwald and Pitchfork media.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 8, 2008 2:20 PM

No, Johnny, they wouldn't riot, they would just by the stuff they wanted instead, from the people who inevitably supplied it, and the mainstream journalists who went the route you speak of would in short order be on to other careers.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:22 PM

JKC@2:05pm

The tastes of Megan's readers are the people Megan attracts to her blog. To the extent she falls out of sync with their tastes, they will stop reading.

Eventually, if she draws no audience, her employers will offer her freedom to pursue other activities.

Now people can come here, and say, "Megan you are not writing about what interests me." But to the extent their actions (in showing up) contradict their mouths, then they are interested.

That Atlantic Monthly chooses the subject matter it chooses (as opposed to being another People magazine) is reflected in its level of profits. I would imagine they are going without this (money), in exchange for that (loftier subject matter). There is a cost to giving audiences what they want.

Posted by Finn | April 8, 2008 2:26 PM

Thank goodness crappy journalism didn't in any way contribute to the Iraq Invasion and its attendant atrocities. Or did it?

Either way, I guess that's what The People wanted. Which come to think of it, might just be a convenient excuse for Republicans who pretend to be libertarians (or actually think that Atlas Shrugged is more than an adolescent fantasy--it's a fine line) who are finally second-guessing the Iraq Debacle.

Posted by ed | April 8, 2008 2:26 PM

Will Allen:
If the media is giving people what they want(specifically newspapers and the TV nightly news .. meaning Charles Gibson, et al), why are newspapers a bad business now .. and the ratings for the news casts sinking like a stone? Is it all due to people on the go? I don't think so.

Megan:
I am not talking about CSI or American Idol. I am talking about Time. ABC Nightly News. The Washington Post.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 2:30 PM

Question, to know what political journalists thinks is "most important" requires more than examining what appears in the mainstream media. Do you really think the goal of people who are risking large amounts of capital is to print what they subjectively think is most important, or that their primary concern is what the journaists they hire think is most important? If your chracterization of Greenwald is correct, Greenwald is clueless, and apparently thinks publications are picked from the printing press trees that grow wild in the forest.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:31 PM

Also, I'm surprised not to see more of the appropriate Wynand quotes on this topic. . .

Posted by Random | April 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Will Allen:

I stated it in the previous thread, but it bears repeating; if anyone debating this topic had 100 million to invest, would you truly use that capital to print a newspaper that ran the stories that Greenwald thinks should be run?

Yes, absolutely. Without reservation.

Were you expecting a different answer?

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 2:38 PM

Joe Klein's conscience: re How do you know what your potential readers are interested in reading?

Um, market research? I suspect that the big media companies have confirmed what Ms McArdle suspects regarding the news interests of the average American.

Posted by kenB | April 8, 2008 2:45 PM

I suspect, Joe, that people are rather more interested in doing other things. Believe it or not, people like you and me are extraordinarily unusual, in regards to our interest in politics, and how we like to pursue it. Many people would rather watch "Top Chef" than a news program, and with time shifting and repeats, they can do so. If you don't think the news competes directly with distinctly frivolous entertainment, you are wrong. The only diference now is that people ALWAYS have a MULTITUDE of distinctly frivolous entertainment options to choose from, whereas thirty years ago you had three nightly news shows and on syndicated game show to choose from at 5:30. Hell, sports programming alone has expoded; how may male eyeballs does it attract that used to watch the news? What do you think a 22 year old guy is going to watch, "Sportscenter" or Katie Couric?

There are some very smart people with billions to invest in media ventures, and have done so successfully for many years. The notion that Greenwald simply possesses greater insight as to what sells is laughable.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:45 PM

And yet. While I generally agree with McArdle and Dresner, I do wonder: did the Pulitzer-winning stories help circulation at all? (Leave aside the VA Tech shooting--that's blood and guts and sure-fire media attraction.) Seems to me good journalists can sometimes come up with narratives that also reveal truths. It's just very very hard, because every institution out there wants to feed the media information, but not to reveal any stories. And one thing I've learned from listening to director's commentaries on DVD's, you gotta have a story.

For example, Gene Weingarten could have done a story about how the audience for classical music is graying and dwindling. That's a story that's been done and redone over the years. That's the sort of story symphony orchestras might help along, but it doesn't have much sex appeal. Instead Weingarten came up with a memorable story, overcoming several obstacles to do so.

So maybe the MSM could find audiences for stories which educate, but we underestimate the difficulty in finding stories in things like calculating bond durations.

Posted by Bill Harshaw | April 8, 2008 2:45 PM

Liberalrob comments on Will Allen"

I stated it in the previous thread, but it bears repeating; if anyone debating this topic had 100 million to invest, would you truly use that capital to print a newspaper that ran the stories that Greenwald thinks should be run?
Yes, absolutely. Without reservation.

Were you expecting a different answer?

And you'd be going broke.

Posted by JohnM | April 8, 2008 2:50 PM

liberalrob, all you have to do then is acquire 100 million, or find someone with 100 million who share your views. There are plenty of centimillionaires in this country, of all political persuasions. Go see if they want to risk a hundred million that way. George Soros is waiting for your call!

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 2:50 PM

I remain unconvinced. When I was young, people who cared about the stars read fan magazines. Now, it's in the local paper as if it were news.

It's not like there is any competition. Oh wait, there is. It's the internet - where I now go for the news the paper no longer provides. The paper is for local news and advertising.

High School English disproves the notion that you can make even great literature palatable to everyone.

Posted by MarkD | April 8, 2008 2:51 PM

Will Allen:

If you are going to argue that the only obligation of the MSM is to make money go ahead and argue it explicitly.

"If your chracterization of Greenwald is correct..."

It isn't. Good to see that you are willing to post from a position of total ignorance.
---

Hire them, and send them to write the stories you think everyone is deliberately undercovering. Then sell lots of papers with those stories in them.

This is a 4th-grade level line of reasoning. "You think Sammy Sosa is washed up! Well let's see you hit a 95 MPH fastball!" Total non-sequitor once again.

Your readers may not have any interest in being business owners, may not have any business acumen, may already have jobs they like, etc. Double-dog-daring them to do better themselves is silly.

This is the kind of retort you can use any time anyone complains about anything. You think the FDA does some silly things? Well why don't you become FDA head then? (Or at least try) You have better ideas on academic tenure? Well why don't you start your own university and put those ideas to the test?

Almost every journalist in Washington came here wanting to cover the kinds of things Glenn Greenwald wants written about...

There is zero evidence this is true, and in my experience it is not true. It certainly isn't true in journalism school.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 2:52 PM

Margalis-
The dare is an elaborate way of saying that you CAN'T make money covering the sort of stories that Glenn and you and Megan would rather see. If you could, the major newspapers would be doing it.

MSM may or may not have other obligations than to make money-but if they don't make money, they will not be able to meet any of those obligations. Money is a sine qua non, I believe is the correct latin phrase.

Posted by jamie | April 8, 2008 3:03 PM

With all the spittle and outrage flying around regarding torture of and the obligation to cover it and the MSM is not doing its job, blah blah blah, you are all missing the point.

No one cares. Do you understand now? Let me repeat it for the back row. No one cares about the torture of suspected terrorists. Be outraged if you want, but at least face reality. You could buy up all the newspapers in the country and force them to write nothing but what Glenn bangs on about with his breathless, run on sentences. At the end of this exercise ... no one would care.

Posted by johnm | April 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Yes, Margalis, in a free society, the only obligation those that invest capital have is to employ it as they see fit, while obeying the law. Look, if you are going to speak of "obligation", then it is perfectly reasonable for people to respond by saying you are free to start your own publication to print what you think there is an obligation to print. What you really object to is that more people don't share your preferences. The expectation of "everyone should be more like me!" is the epitome of the egocentric 4th grader. Guess what? Most people don't share your interests, or at least not to the degree you do. A lot of us come to grip with this reality by the time middle school rolls around.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Yes, absolutely. Without reservation.

That is, in no small part, why you don't have $100 million to begin with.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Bill,

I think you're right that any one Pulitzer winning piece will help circulation. The trouble is that for every such story a paper produces, you get fifty or so 5-part thumbsuckers on the continuing decline of ... (Sort of like all the second-tier Oscar-bait tha the movie studios release each November.)

Plus almost nobody reads the story in question (Could you tell me what the NY Times' winning stories were last year?). They simply use "Pulitzer" as a shorthand for "good newspaper".

Posted by heedless | April 8, 2008 3:07 PM

Margalis:

I'll say it: the only purpose of the MSM is to make money. It flabbergasts me that people would think otherwise. It takes a *phenomenal* amount of money to set up a newpaper or TV station, and pretty much the only way to get that money is to give people a return on that investment. There are some channels that exist only to provide information regardless of the commercial viability: C-SPAN and PBS. I shouldn't have to tell you the relative popularity of these.

Hell, if MR Greenwald's delusion were true, C-SPAN would be the most popular channel on television, because quite a few of the boring speeches and Congressional committees that people love to mock have a great deal of influence on everybody in the country. The fact is that most people just don't care. We're all in an echo chamber of people that love to debate this kind of stuff, and I get the sense that a lot of commenters think that we're all typical, when we're really a couple of standard deviations away from the mean.

Posted by CatCube | April 8, 2008 3:14 PM

Wow. I have got to get faster at composing my posts, since I got ninja-posted by johnm and Will Allen, a whole 9 minutes before me.

Posted by CatCube | April 8, 2008 3:22 PM

The dare is an elaborate way of saying that you CAN'T make money covering the sort of stories that Glenn and you and Megan would rather see. If you could, the major newspapers would be doing it.

That logic is total nonsense.

I could use the exact same logic to "prove" that you can't make money selling an iPod, because before the iPod came out nobody was making the iPod, and if there was money in it they would have been.

You can use the exact same logic to prove that no new product or service will ever make money. Try it, it's fun.

A video-game system with motion controls. An online music store. High-end Tequila. None of those products made money until they did, and before they did no doubt somebody was saying "you can't make money off of high-end Tequila, if you could we'd already be offering one!"

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 3:22 PM

Margalis,

Except that, you know, an Ipod actually sells. So does high end Tequila. How many books has Glenn sold that were bought by anyone who doesn't read his blog?

Posted by johnmc | April 8, 2008 3:26 PM

Shorter McArdle: Many editors tell me that no one wants to read my sh*t. Therefore, no one wants to read serious, quality reporting.

See what you've done there?

Posted by Fanny About | April 8, 2008 3:30 PM

Except that, you know, how many books Glenn has sold has nothing to do with this discussion.

Good try though.

Keep arguing that the iPod, high-end Tequila and the Wii are all terrible ideas bound to lose money. It's very convincing. It's not like we have the benefit of hindsight and can definitively see that "if this made money we'd already be doing it" is clearly poor logic.

Nope, it makes perfect sense. Which is why Apple, Nintendo and Patron are all out of business.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 3:38 PM

Joe Klein, there's very good data on this, particularly from the web and television, and trust me--this is not a figment of the editor's imagination. Check the relative popularities of Glenn Greenwald and Pitchfork media.

This is just an amazing line of reasoning.

As journalists, our job is not to educate and inform, it is to entertain; because that's what our polling indicates is popular. We will make more profit, sell more magazines, garner more website hits if we tailor our content to the lowest common denominator; therefore, since journalism is primarily a business (and an entertainment business at that), that's what we should do. As journalists.

Simply amazing.

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 3:41 PM

99 out of 100 stories are about Obama bowling, ergo people want to read about Obama bowling more than Michael Mukasey's big lie. It's all quite self-justifying isn't it?

Why then is MSM readership/viewership dwindling? Using McArdle's own overly simplistic analysis the answer would be that the MSM isn't giving their consumers what they want.

So tell me again how they're doing a good job?

Posted by bakum | April 8, 2008 3:42 PM

Ok, the MSM exists only to make money. It has no other special role within our society, and is equivalent to a garden-variety retailer. Give em what sells, and nothing more. I will concede that point.

In exchange for the concession, I demand the return of all special considerations given to the press. For instance, since they have no special role to play in our society, the press certainly does not need special treatment in defamation cases, do they? And as for any sort of journalist's privilege to keep sources confidential, bah, we don't give a privilege to grocers, so why to sellers of celebrity magazines? In fact, what's the point of the first amendment, getting all concerned about "freedom of the press?" Who cares? They just sell widgets anyway, don't they?

Posted by Joe | April 8, 2008 3:43 PM

Complaining that the mainstream media doesn't print the stories one wishes to read makes about as much sense as complaining that "American Idol" doesn't feature arias.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 3:46 PM

Except, Margalis, that those products didn't exist before those companies created them. There are plenty of places to go to get the sort of news you're talking about (which indeed is why we here in this forum know about the Yoo memos), but surprisingly, those places don't have millions of customers banging on their doors for more.

What you and GG are really asking for is that existing news organizations that have already built up a large readership/viewership using their current business models should now switch to advocacy, by highlighting the particular news items that you (and I, by the way) feel are so important ( i.e. that they should be force-fed to people who aren't interested in looking for them).

Posted by kenB | April 8, 2008 3:48 PM

bakem - The MSM is becoming less popular because of the availability of the internet and more channels to offer more tailored entertainment to small niche groups. The MSM has to try to find a common denominator for viewers, but everyone is finding they have the option of going to the internet/different channel to find exactly what they want. This doesn't imply that a lack of "good journalism" is the common-denominator the MSM is missing; it just means there isn't a really good common-denominator when there are so many options. Like it or not, people aren't tuning out because of the journalistic quality; they're tuning out because they can watch sportcenter instead.

Posted by Chas | April 8, 2008 3:52 PM

"Keep arguing that the iPod, high-end Tequila and the Wii are all terrible ideas bound to lose money. It's very convincing. It's not like we have the benefit of hindsight and can definitively see that "if this made money we'd already be doing it" is clearly poor logic."

Sorry, had to respond to this bit of nonsense. The point is not that you can't create new markets with new, innovative products. The point is that there ARE products that do exactly what you're suggesting (The American Prospect, The Nation, Greenwald himself) and they clearly aren't as popular as things like US Weekly and People magazine. Pundits who love to go on about John Yoo (and I certainly wish there were more in prominent media outlets) don't have a bigger share of the market because there just isn't as much demand. Unless you think that people buy US Weekly because of the quality of their material as opposed to the subject matter, I don't see how you can imagine that "forcing" talented journalists to cover Yoo would lead to the kind of increased readership you are envisioning.

Posted by delurking | April 8, 2008 3:53 PM

But in fact, you'd lose everything. People wouldn't buy the paper if the headlines didn't interest them.

That business plan seems to be working out OK for Marty Peretz.

Of course, even he has to put in a bit of non-arabs-dalenda-est stuff to keep the readers coming.

Posted by Retief | April 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Yes, Joe, and Congress should pass no law regulating what widgets they sell. Why would you presume otherwise?

liberalrob, no, as journalists our job is to do what the people who sign our checks tell us to do, within constraints of law . The people who sign our checks have significant capital at risk, and thus reasonably will insruct us to print stories which best protect and grow that capital. If we disagree with the people who sign our checks, we are free to put up and conglomerate our own capital, which we can then risk as we see fit.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 3:55 PM

all you have to do then is acquire 100 million, or find someone with 100 million who share your views.

No no no, your question was if I had $100 million would I do it, and I said yes. Now you're changing the premise.

That is, in no small part, why you don't have $100 million to begin with.

How do you figure? Are you contending that I could have had $100 million, if only I hadn't wanted to start up a newspaper with it?

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 3:57 PM

No, liberalrob, all I'm saying is that if you think that is the best way to use 100 million, then you only have to get 100 million, and then go use it that way.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:01 PM

You are quite right Megan. The issue is not the journalists but the readers. The material is all there and quite accessible thanks to the internet if people want to inform themselves. Hell anyone can gather the news themselves now.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 8, 2008 4:02 PM

"Congress should pass no law regulating what widgets they sell. Why would you presume otherwise?"

Will, why not? Why shouldn't Congress be free to regulate the sellers of written widgets, just like they regulate sellers of manufactured widgets? We don't have constitutional amendments prohibiting Congress from regulating general commerce, do we? I mean, it's all just business, right? Or is there something I'm missing?

Why would you presume to be free of regulation?

Posted by Joe | April 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Don't overthink it Rob. Will was commenting on the stupidity of your business acumen. If you are stupid enough to say that you would spend $100 million on this exercise, you would already be well on your way to bankruptcy. Anyone so stupid could never have accumulated such a fortune to begin with, unless you inherited the money or stole it.

Posted by johnm | April 8, 2008 4:05 PM

But that's the problem. How do you know what your potential readers are interested in reading? You just assume you know, when you really don't.

Uh, that's what you learn from those studies that Megan mentioned.

Posted by TW Andrews | April 8, 2008 4:11 PM

liberalrob, no, as journalists our job is to do what the people who sign our checks tell us to do, within constraints of law .

A sorry state of affairs.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Emphasis mine. Of course Megan is not strictly a journalist, she is a blogger which is more or less like an editorialist or pundit. Even so, she can't expect people not to call her out when we think she's wrong.

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 4:16 PM

Because, Joe, I always presume people should be free, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. By the way, speech is regulated in this country already, and I do think that every citizen should receive the same protection of the 1st Amendment, and think it is a shame that only people who are part of certain organizations receive more.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:18 PM

No, liberalrob, all I'm saying is that if you think that is the best way to use 100 million, then you only have to get 100 million, and then go use it that way.

That reminds me of Steve Martin's "How to be a millionaire!" joke.

Step 1: get a million dollars.

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 4:21 PM

How do you figure?

I figure that you can't amass serious money like that if you're apparently willing to just throw the stuff away. Obviously I was being a tad hyperbolic.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 8, 2008 4:23 PM

Well, liberlrob, I carry no water for the Society of Professional Journalists, and think that people should pursue their ethical concerns with their own money, instead of freeloading off people who put food on their table. None of this, of course, means that people do not have an ethical obligation to be honest. I just don't a journalist's obligation is higher than anyone else's.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:25 PM

Will was commenting on the stupidity of your business acumen

No he wasn't I was.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 8, 2008 4:26 PM

Aren't you guys breaking Megan's rules of polite discourse?

Will asked a question, Rob gave an answer. It wasn't the answer Will wanted to hear so he moved the goalposts. Insulting Rob for not actually having 100 million dollars is not only rude but silly.

The point is that there ARE products that do exactly what you're suggesting (The American Prospect, The Nation, Greenwald himself) and they clearly aren't as popular as things like US Weekly and People magazine.

None of the things above are newspapers, which is the topic at hand. Apples and oranges. "Greenwald himself" is not a product and he certainly isn't a newspaper.

There are NOT products that do exactly what I'm suggesting. Or at least if there are you've failed to name any. If we are going to pick random apples to oranges examples I could point to Olbermann. Before his show began I'm sure many would have argued that his type of program would get dismal ratings.

I used historical examples to definitively prove the underlying logic to her argument is nonsense. The fact is "if it made money we'd already be doing it" is total nonsense that is easily proven false across a variety of industries.

That argument is a non-starter. Invent a better one.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 4:28 PM

Joe:

"In exchange for the concession, I demand the return of all special considerations given to the press. For instance, since they have no special role to play in our society, the press certainly does not need special treatment in defamation cases, do they? And as for any sort of journalist's privilege to keep sources confidential, bah, we don't give a privilege to grocers, so why to sellers of celebrity magazines? In fact, what's the point of the first amendment, getting all concerned about "freedom of the press?" Who cares? They just sell widgets anyway, don't they?"

"Will, why not? Why shouldn't Congress be free to regulate the sellers of written widgets, just like they regulate sellers of manufactured widgets? We don't have constitutional amendments prohibiting Congress from regulating general commerce, do we? I mean, it's all just business, right? Or is there something I'm missing?"

Yes. You are reading the 1st amendment as if it read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the MAINSTREAM REPORTING MEDIA; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"The press" in the constitution does not refer to a special class of people who get special constitutional rights because they are in the business of reporting. The fact that you seem to think so means that you have bought into their propaganda on the topic. The freedom of "the press" belongs to every citizen who can create a written communication and contrive (either by paying for it himself or convincing someone else to pay for it) to distribute it to people. THE PRESS in the sense you are using the term shouldn't be getting special constitutional rights anyway.

So we do have a Constitutional right which sets limits on what Congress can do regarding the press, but it has nothing to do with special rights accorded to a special business segmet.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 8, 2008 4:29 PM

Yeah, that's the point rob. It's pretty damned easy for someone without a hundred million to intone how they would employ it for a noble purpose, while making money doing it. The fact that zero, or at least damned few, people who actually have 100 million have chosen the path you assert you would go down, if you had 100 million, tells us that it is likely if you ever came to have 100 million, your choice of where to employ it would be different than from what you are now asserting. I'm sure you are a swell fellow, but I find it difficult to believe that you would be so uniquely savvy and noble among the population of centimillionaires.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:32 PM

Will, thanks for your response. Your commitment to personal freedom is laudatory. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask one more followup question.

Do you also presume that businesses involved in interstate commerce should be free from regulation, absent compelling evidence to the contrary? You no doubt are aware that Congress has nearly unchecked ability to regulate interstate commerce. Congressional limitation of the freedom of the press, on the other hand, is subject to much greater scrutiny. But if the press serves no function within our society greater than selling widgets, why the extra protections?

I say, if it's just another industry, treat it like one. Obviously, I think we as a nation have granted the press extra freedoms in a quid pro quo, expecting a little something more in return than a good return for News Corp shareholders.

Posted by Joe | April 8, 2008 4:33 PM

johnm:

If you are stupid enough to say that you would spend $100 million on this exercise

That I am "stupid" to want to provide a valuable service to the public is your opinion. I disagree.

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 4:35 PM

No, Margalis, I'm expressing doubt, given that there are no centimillionaires now living who are willing to spend 100 million printing the stories Greenwald would prefer. I could choose to believe that liberalrob would be uniquely noble among the population of centimillionaires, but absent evidence of liberalrob's unique nobility, it is more reasonable to believe that liberalrob is simply being loose with money he doesn't have.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:40 PM

That I am "stupid" to want to provide a valuable service to the public is your opinion.

Wait, that's different. You'd regard this as essentially a charitable donation?

I think there are better ways to spend charitable dollars, but now you're making sense.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 8, 2008 4:42 PM

Will Allen:

Well, liberlrob, I carry no water for the Society of Professional Journalists, and think that people should pursue their ethical concerns with their own money, instead of freeloading off people who put food on their table.

Interesting. So you support plutocracy? Just let the people with the money call all the shots, since almost everyone works for them and rugged individualists like yourself are a distinct minority (and always will be)?

If this is Libertarianism I'm surprised anyone believes in it for very long.

What are you going to do when the plutocrats tell you to do something you don't want to do? Where will you move to avoid them?

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 4:48 PM

Keep calling people stupid when they answer your irrelevant questions, it makes you look super-smart and respectful.

The idea newspapers are founded with 100 million of a single person's money is quite hilarious though. Clearly you know a lot about business.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 4:50 PM

"Congressional limitation of the freedom of the press, on the other hand, is subject to much greater scrutiny. But if the press serves no function within our society greater than selling widgets, why the extra protections?"

Maybe we just crossposted, but again, 'the press' protected by the Constitution isn't a special class of people. It is about a mode of communication protected for everyone. You keep confusing THE PRESS (a group of companies who make money by publishing stuff) with 'the press' in the Constitution which is essentially written word communication. Written word communication has special protection. The only reason THE PRESS should have any special protection is because it runs companies doing stuff with 'the press' which has protections for everyone.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 8, 2008 4:50 PM

No, Joe, every citizen has, or should have, equal protection by way of the First Amendment, and it is a great travesty that thinking has developed which asserts that some citizens can receive extra First Amendment protections by way of how they make money. The First Amendment protections are not dependent on whom employs a citizen.

News Corp., CBS, CNN, etc., have many functions; to entertain, to inform, make Sumner Redstone, Rupert Murdoch, and others money, employ a lot of people, etc.,etc.,etc.. The only obligations those organizations have, however, is to adhere to the will of the people who supplied the capital, within the constraints of law and ethics that apply to all citizens. Function is not synonymous with obligation, and the fact that First Amendment exists does not obligate anyone to employ their capital or labor to print the stories that you, I, or Greenwald might prefer. That's the aggravating thing about freedom, gosh darn it; people just aren't obligated to use it in the way we prefer, even if they own or work for a newspaper!

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 4:58 PM

Let me see if I have it straight:

1. MSM devotes little or no coverage to serious issues.

2. In light of (1), nobody knows about these issues.

3. In light of (2), nobody cares about these issues.

4. Because nobody cares about these serious issues, the MSM was right not to cover them.

(REPEAT. After a few hundred cycles, people stop buying newspapers. This is evidence that people want even less serious stories and even more sensationalism. College educated reporter sent out to cover whether Obama eats onion rings.)

Posted by bchurchfuses to report on an | April 8, 2008 5:02 PM

Margalis, as long as you're concerned with how people's comments make them look, perhaps you could respond to the criticisms of your "Ipod" comment above and either defend it or acknowledge that you were off-base.

Posted by kenB | April 8, 2008 5:02 PM

I could choose to believe that liberalrob would be uniquely noble among the population of centimillionaires, but absent evidence of liberalrob's unique nobility,

VOLSTAGG THE VOLUMINOUS: A man's true nobility is measured by his girth!

FANDRAL THE DASHING: Haha! Then truly thou art the most noble of all!

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 5:04 PM

Maybe we just crossposted, but again, 'the press' protected by the Constitution isn't a special class of people. It is about a mode of communication protected for everyone. You keep confusing THE PRESS (a group of companies who make money by publishing stuff) with 'the press' in the Constitution which is essentially written word communication. Written word communication has special protection.

This is easily demonstrable as false.

The idea that press freedoms are simply protections of the written word is wrong on multiple levels. For one, press freedoms also extend to TV which is not written word. Furthermore, press freedoms apply not only to the product but to the producers, for example shield laws. These laws have nothing to do with the written word and everything to do with the writers themselves.

You may have some point on the Constitution itself but you have no point whatsoever on accompanying laws.

Furthermore the reason we have things like official government press conferences and passes is that we expect the press to do something other than make money selling ice cream sandwhiches.

If the press is just in the business of making money and not in disseminating reliable information why bother with White House press conferences? Instead of holding the conferences for people with press passes why not hold them exclusively for 5-year-olds, prostitutes or insurance salesmen?

We do have have certain expectations of the press and its members, which is why we grant those people special privileges.

You can take issue with that but that is how it works now.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 5:05 PM

McArdle makes the economist's mistake. There is a market for news. It is relatively free of government regulation. Hence, it is the best of all possible worlds.

Greenwald is making a ethico-political critique. Good journalism, according to him, is not necessarily that journalism that sells the most papers, but that journalism that best ferrets out the truth, thereby acting as a check on governmental power.

Different metrics, different analyses. That McArdle cannot see this is not so surprising--economics systematically blinds you to such things.

Posted by Will Roberts | April 8, 2008 5:06 PM

McArdle makes the economist's mistake. There is a market for news. It is relatively free of government regulation. Hence, it is the best of all possible worlds.

Greenwald is making a ethico-political critique. Good journalism, according to him, is not necessarily that journalism that sells the most papers, but that journalism that best ferrets out the truth, thereby acting as a check on governmental power.

Different metrics, different analyses. That McArdle cannot see this is not so surprising--economics systematically blinds you to such things.

Posted by Will Roberts | April 8, 2008 5:07 PM

"First Amendment exists does not obligate anyone to employ their capital or labor to print the stories that you, I, or Greenwald might prefer."

However, these companies enjoy benefits due to their position. These benefits are not guaranteed in the Constitution, but are given due to the important role they are given in society. One of the benefits is that they don't have to reveal anonymous sources, even in a court of law. This suggests that they have a responsibility beyond their shareholders wallets. If they are not going to live up to this responsibility, then they should have all special protections stripped.

Posted by JordanT | April 8, 2008 5:08 PM

Well, liberalrob, the reason I've been self-employed since the age of 14 is that I very much dislike having a boss. Guess what? When you enter into a contract to perform a task for money, the person who gives you the money gets to negotiate what he or she is willing to pay for. If he says, "I'll pay you to write the stories that you deem to be ethically important to print", then you have a right to hold him to that agreement. If he instead says, "I'll listen to your suggestions about what you want to write, but ultimately my assignments editor will decide what stories are pursued" well, liberalrob, your employer then has a right to hold you to that agreement, and your ethical concerns about what should be printed becomes a secondary concern.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 5:09 PM

One of the benefits is that they don't have to reveal anonymous sources, even in a court of law.

That's not true in federal court; many states have the protection by statute.

For my part, I'd be up for repealing those laws whether or not the press covers "serious" topics.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 8, 2008 5:11 PM

Will Roberts, perhaps you could point out where McArdle provides a value judgment about the current state of affairs in journalism? AFAICT she's simply *describing* the status quo, not blessing it.

Posted by kenB | April 8, 2008 5:14 PM

johnmc:

How many books has Glenn sold that were bought by anyone who doesn't read his blog?

johnmc, you do know that Greenwald is a best-selling author, right? (His third book hasn't come out yet, but his first was an NYT best seller and I believe his second also.) I'm not sure how many of the readers of his books are also readers of his blog (I would guess a lot, with causality in both directions), but I'm not sure why you think that's particularly germane.

This by the way is despite the fact no major US newspaper or similar reviewed either of his first two books (though some in Europe did). Why do you think that is? Given that the books were popular don't you think there would be a market for the book reviews? Or maybe, just maybe, editors sometimes decide what to run based on something other than exclusively market considerations. (Hint: Greenwald is often a pretty aggressive critic of the press.) And maybe that point applies in the Yoo and Mukasey cases also.

Posted by Crust | April 8, 2008 5:14 PM

Margalis, as long as you're concerned with how people's comments make them look, perhaps you could respond to the criticisms of your "Ipod" comment above and either defend it or acknowledge that you were off-base.

I already did respond. Scroll up. I addressed a comment very similar to yours.

You and the other commenter said that similar products exist that deliver the articles I am talking about, but we are talking about newspapers and neither you nor the other commenter named a single existing newspaper that fits the criteria.

The distinction between newspapers and things like blogs and monthly magazines is important. For one you can't pick up a blog or magazine at the newsstand. Newspaper writing is fundamentally different from magazine and blog writing as well.

Posted by Margalis | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM

JordanT, in many states, and in the Federal Courts, journalists do go to jail for failing to reveal sources. I think this is good law, and oppose special carve-outs for people who get paid by publishers or broadcasters.

Margalis, I never called anyone stupid, nor did I assert that newspapers were founded with a single person's money. I asked if anyone would spend a 100 million to print the sort of newspaper that Greenwald would prefer. Rob said he would. I was skeptical, because I see no reason to think why Rob would be so different from the people who do have 100 million dollars. By the way, the 100 million could be used to buy an existing paper, and to then print the stories Greenwald prefers, and wealthy individuals certainly have spent vast sums to purchase exsiting papers. Funny how nobody has yet seen fit to follow Greenwald's prefrences.

Posted by Will Allen | April 8, 2008 5:19 PM

will allen wrote:

"...as journalists our job is to do what the people who sign our checks tell us to do, within constraints of law . The people who sign our checks have significant capital at risk, and thus reasonably will insruct us to print stories which best protect and grow that capital."

Thanks for admitting that Lame Stream Media "journalists" are nothing but paid shills who churn out whatever swill their bosses dictate. Rest assured that we know very well that you're simply whores and that it's your editors and publishers who are the real source of all the lies and propaganda you spew.

Posted by Lish | April 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Let me draw your attention, Mr. Holsclaw and Mr. Allen, to the concept of "reporter's privilege." This is a privilege, currently recognized in some form in nine federal circuits and thirty-one states, that shields journalists from being forced to disclose their confidential sources in litigation. There is, of course, no federal shield law (hence Judith Miller tossed in the clink), but legislation to change that has been periodically kicking around.

The reporter's privilege is a limited right, based on the first amendment, and intended to protect not just written word communication in general, but THE PRESS in particular. It *is* a privilege directed at a "special class of people." And the reason that it exists is that we presume that this class of people, THE PRESS, has a special role in our society, and that the value of investigative journalism supported by confidential sources outweighs the value of full discovery in litigation.

If I'm missing something here, please correct me. But if your arguments are that THE PRESS, as special class of people, in fact serves no special role in our society beyond selling a product and driving shareholder profits, then I fail to see why this privilege exists in any form in any jurisdiction.

Posted by Joe | April 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Will Allen,
Your posts are outstanding refutations to the old lie that "the media is liberal".
Do you mind if I borrow your wording the next time a mouth-breather throws that idiotic statement around?

It sure does explain why the media is complicit, doesn't it?

Posted by Robert in BA | April 8, 2008 5:25 PM

If I had 100 million to invest - I think I'd invest it in Internet Porn - that is probably what would make me the most money.

Then I'd take 80% of the profits from that venture each year and plow it into a news team along the lines of what we USED to have and what Glenn would have. And guess what? It would lose money. But then digging up stories about corrpution and checking the powers that be is never going to be a profitable enterprise and it never was - partly because the powers that be pay handsomely to look the other way and also will punish you if you don't. Originally, the news departments for the various broadcast networks were run at a loss and they were expected to run at a loss - they were subsidized by the Britney Spears stories - because people thought it was actually important to have a vibrant fourth estate acting as a check on power.

That's not to say that one can't maximize the appeal of stories like with Yoo - but still, don't expect to make money on it. Making money isn't the point. Sort of like you're not supposed to aspire to higher political office just to make yourself money - yet that is what it has devolved to (and that is why we need a vibrant and real press).

So to get back to the 100 million - I'd invest in porn, then 80% of the profits each year at a loss in a news department. The remaining 20% would be split between a nice check for me each year and further investment in porn to grow the funds available for everything the following year.

Posted by