Comments on: Emergency summit on Baltimore journalism: anger, grief and not much relief

By: What happens after newspapers? Reporting, apparently, still gets done » Nieman Journalism Lab

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:36:59 +0000

[...] next day, one local news-focused site, Baltimore Brew, served up a summary which was long on looks back to The Sun’s glory days of print publishing, but also offered a [...]

By: Alice Cherbonnier

Alice Cherbonnier — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:22:26 +0000

Who. What. When. Where. How. Why. How Much.
The Baltimore Brew might want to review its own “news” stories for these key reporting points.

By: Mark Potts

Mark Potts — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:04:03 +0000

Just to be clear: I showed Baltimore Brew and the others on my list PRECISELY to make the point that these sites are “aiming to provide real journalism.” I said that repeatedly, in fact, and reiterated it in my blog post. Unfortunately, for reasons of time (and volume of examples), the tour had to be brief. But my point was that real journalism is already being committed by this site and the other alternatives, and I was very much trying to celebrate that.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:42:20 +0000

Whoops … As I was saying…

I agree The Sun handled its downsizing badly, ejecting too much of the very journalistic talent it needs to distinguish itself from the electronic competition.

But I fear you are heaping more blame on the paper than it merits. There are economic forces at work here that no paper has successfully tamed. (And, as you make clear, this forum got us no closer to the answer.)

The Sun continues to publish because it remains profitable, and it remains profitable only because it had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Advertisers (not readers if you add on-line freeloaders and print subscribers) have gone elsewhere.

Finally, I’m confused by The Brew’s stance. While calling for higher quality local journalism, this piece is clearly a first person (plural) rant, not a piece of even-handed reporting. Even today, Sun editors would have sent it back to the reporter for a rewrite.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:30:16 +0000

I agree there has been a failure of imagination in the industry. It was tuned to make piles of money, and allowed itself to be blindsided by a new technology that drained its revenue sources.

By: Tim Windsor

Tim Windsor — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:22:12 +0000

For another view of the evening – one it pained me to miss – I recommend Dave Troy’s take. I think he nails the disappointment of a lot of people who’d hoped that the event had focused more on what’s coming than what’s gone:

http://davetroy.com/?p=581

“Just as the failure to prevent the September 11 attacks was attributed to a “failure of imagination,” we see a comparable failure of imagination in journalism today.

“The traditional media companies fail to imagine what the confluence of web, mobile, and citizen journalism might ultimately be able to deliver, and that it might be better than anything journalism has delivered to date.

“Potential funders see all options as risky and want to bet first on “traditional” outlets. They see these brands not only as less risky, but as a restoration to a prior order.

“‘Restorations’ are not how markets work. Things don’t get restored. They are creatively torn apart and reassembled.”