
Why can't all "tech" journalism be like this? - hernan7
http://kottke.org/11/01/why-is-schmidt-stepping-down-at-google
======
danohuiginn
Money.

Pretty much any sentence of that piece could be spun off into an individual
post on techcrunch &c. Spread your insight over a dozen blog-posts, and you
get far more ad revenue

The New Yorker, on the other hand, gets the very best writers and gives them
massive amounts of time to write a very small amount of text. So when you
read, say, an article by Seymour Hersh, you know he's spent anywhere up to 6
months working on it.

~~~
rickmb
Let's keep it in perspective: each of those sentences does have a background
story worthy of exploring further.

One may get the best of both worlds if one could, like, click on those pieces
of text. That would be awesome. We could call it "hypertext"...

The bottomline is that we've been stuck with the same issue for the past 10+
years: bloggers don't have the writing/journalistic skills, and MSM refuses to
take advantage of the technology. And we'll have to make do with two types of
half-assed products, piecing them together ourselves (with the help of sites
like HN) to get the whole picture.

No wonder no one is willing to pay for content.

~~~
randall
There is some hope.

While I can't provide huge amounts of detail, some TV stations are seeing the
writing on the wall. I've spoken with one in particular who realizes that a)
NBC/CBS/ABC is going to become a cable / internet network at some point,
leaving the local station that much more time to fill. Also b) most people
aren't turning to TV news, except in extraordinary cases where it fills a real
need. (TRUE breaking news, think 9/11, local standoffs, fires, earthquakes,
etc.)

They're talking about giving reporters 2 days to do 1 story. Each story is
double or triple the length, and hopefully even more times the quality of the
traditional 1:30 package. They're hoping the quality of the story can be
spread via Facebook / the internet, and then have people come back and watch
the newscast because it's a place to find out about quality things happening
in their community.

The current problem? The news staff doesn't want to do that. They want to stay
on their current course.

These signs point to a new hybrid form of journalism that excites me. A
longer, in-depth story where appropriate, but also the bite-sized chunks which
blogs have somewhat perfected.

Will it work perfectly? Not tomorrow. I'm confident, however, that it will
work at some point in the future.

Anyone else who reads HN and who's looking at solving the same problem should
get in contact with me. I want to talk to smart folks about the future of
journalism. My specific slant is the video part, but I'd love to hear from
smart folks thinking about all angles.

~~~
brandnewlow
Problem with your idea: "a place to find out about quality things happening in
their community" is not something normal people actually want.

It's something HNers and a small subset of news consumers want, but not the
general public. They want to be entertained, even while watching "the news."

Normal people never want something to be "longer" and more "in-depth." That's
a niche.

~~~
randall
Looks like we'll have some data to back up these assumptions. That's all
they've been in the past.

Who says entertainment and quality have to be mutually exclusive? I don't. I
think the counterpoint to this is what got us in this situation where people
are turning off the tube en masse.

------
dasht
Analysis reporting (making educated guesses and telling stories) has valuable
functions. It "shakes trees" in the sense that sources sometimes come forward
to confirm or deny an analysis. It promotes skepticism by providing
alternative to controlled press releases and controlled leaks. It also is a
dog in the fight to influence the "commonly accepted narrative" of events -
the interpretations about the uncertain aspects of reality that dominate our
collective response to the present and near future.

If you eliminate all of these functions and just let a few official sources
fill the news-hole, it is not as though non-objective analysis will disappear.
Far from it. Instead, all non-objective but authoritative-sounding analysis
will come only from those with the greatest economic and political power. In
short, you will have a fascist propaganda machine.

(There is constant rebellion against the tendency of the press to enrich its
pockets by turning away from the wild speculation and radical analysis. Uh...
Hunter Thompson was one symptom of that rebellion a few years back. More
recently, I suppose that the "right wing talk radio" crowd is another symptom
of the same tendency to rebel against simply receiving truths and their
interpretation from the powers that be. Tech is a microcosm different in
topic, not kind from the general field of national news reporting: people
fight over which facts to highlight and how to interpret them. Some reporters
are supposed to be in there slugging it out.)

------
dstein
Techcrunch is what I imagine it would be like if Perez Hilton blogged about
technology.

~~~
protomyth
Nah, TechCrunch is newsweek - Valleywag was Perez Hilton

~~~
rickmb
I suspect you haven't read TC in a while...

~~~
protomyth
I'm thinking you haven't read Newsweek lately....

------
Bud
One reason is, the New Yorker pays real editors.

~~~
noibl
Another reason is that it's written by a guy who has studied this company for
years, interviewed Schmidt eleven times and links to his own Google book in
the body of the article.

Freelance tech journalism, this ain't.

~~~
ErrantX
Indeed. Also, this is traditional journalism, done in a new medium.

TechCrunch is the new medium (Blogging) with a rough journalism slant.

There is a real life comparison too; TechCrunch is like the tabloid papers -
they have all the content, plus the biases and the speculation and a bit of
trash. The New Yorker content is like the Business dailys - curt, to the
point, aimed at people who want to know the facts, plus sensible analysis from
people who understand the context in detail (and are writing from academic
interest as much as commercial).

~~~
w1ntermute
> this is traditional journalism

The fact that this style of journalism is considered "traditional" is itself
quite lamentable.

------
jeromec
Wait a minute. The TechCrunch coverage on Larry Page replacing Eric Schmidt is
a simple 4 paragraphs of editorial. It also simply states facts and doesn't
include conjecture or spun opinion. See for yourself:
<http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/google-ceo-change/> It may not contain the
same level of information potency, but it's not drawn out gossip either.

Also, the other post sort of on the topic simply includes the author's account
of development of the story, about how he was going to break it beforehand.
Similarly, it's pretty straightforward without a lot of unnecessary fluff.
It's here: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/techcrunch-interview-
with-e...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/techcrunch-interview-with-eric-
schmidt-larry-page-and-sergey-brin/)

~~~
rsingel
Thanks for noticing that Kottke's post is really an epic troll.

------
logicalmoron
As a newbie in the blogging culture in Silicon Valley, I honestly can't agree
more. I want to see more of this style of reporting and I try pretty hard to
do it myself.

I guess I'm what you'd call a "classically trained" journalist. So maybe I'm
just feeling a little pretentious or annoyed at the state of things out here.
But 99 percent of the time it feels like people are too damn lazy to pick up
the phone and call their sources — or even shoot them an email and ask for a
quick comment. I _almost_ fell into that trap when I first joined the
technorati out here but have since reverted to my own personal instincts of
actually talking to people for stories (I know, what a concept, right?)

For a new face in silicon valley it's honestly extremely discouraging and
frustrating — not only seeing it in other blogs but from my co-workers from
time to time at VentureBeat as well. It's even more discouraging to be
encouraged by my editors from time to time to simply bust out a story without
any additional reporting. I feel pretty proud that I have not done a straight
reblog without additional reporting in more than a month when it's merited.

Naturally, some stories don't demand that kind of additional reporting. So
there's a place for analysis, commentary, and the like. I'll be damned if I
end up as an MG Siegler-type reporter that injects opinion/praise/vitriol in
every single article I write, though. I don't really see that opinion changing
any time soon, either.

(Edit for quick background: former Reuters reporter, graduated in 2010.)

~~~
wyclif
_I'll be damned if I end up as an MG Siegler-type reporter_

Turns out that guy isn't a reporter, he's a blogger. That's why TC is light on
journalism, analysis, and cogent commentary.

------
lenley
Unfortunately, Internet journalism has become primarily about speed -- so the
fastest to report or even speculate wins on aggregation services -- thus the
lions share of the traffic.

~~~
Semiapies
Speed has its advantage, as in the case of this story posted here a mere four
hours after what it reports about:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2128825>

------
petercooper
"according to associates" and "According to close advisors" isn't the
strongest I've seen in the "properly sourced" department.

~~~
jonknee
It wouldn't be if it was Tech Crunch or Mashable, but it's The New Yorker and
they have real reporters, editors, fact checkers and standards.

~~~
Semiapies
In other words, people are far more impressed with this article because of the
newyorker.com in the URL than they would be if it appeared anywhere else.

~~~
jonknee
Sure. But that's because the one with newyorker.com in the URL has a 85 years
of credibility behind it. TechCrunch and similar are concerned with speed, not
quality. The New Yorker would rather be a day (or week/month!) late and have
the full story than be first and have the most re-tweets.

~~~
Semiapies
Credibility is important, but credulity is always a risk.

People would be cautious and skeptical if these exact words were posted on
TechCrunch. Instead, we're hearing how awesome and correct this article _must_
be because it's posted on newyorker.com.

~~~
tptacek
I think that in its length, this thread has attenuated reality a little bit.
The reality is, the New Yorker piece _was_ more spare, less breathless, and
better reported than a typical TechCrunch posting. The New Yorker byline is
not the _only_ thing that makes Kottke think the article is awesome.

The other side to your argument is, yes, the New Yorker byline does make
Kottke think it's "correct". It does the same thing for most people, probably
including you. _It probably is correct_. You said it yourself: credibility is
important. TechCrunch has done a lot of stuff to burn credibility instead of
building it.

~~~
Semiapies
Or perhaps shorter: people should be reasonably skeptical in approaching
articles like this. That they should be much _more_ wary of a tainted source
like TechCrunch does not change that first fact.

------
verysimple
The sad thing is that "tech" journalism is amongst the least biased out there.
I have come to hate watching the news (blogs included). Journalism has become
a relentless quest to instill emotions rather than just inform. Blogs
originally appeared as an opportunity for journalists to throw in facts up top
and let opinions brew down bottom, so that every one could find what they were
looking for, but how many times have you found yourself infuriated by some
idiotic speculations mingled with half truths posted by a "respectable" source
in the blogosphere?

------
spenrose
Ken Auletta got outstanding sources at Google because he had already climbed
his way to the top of the journalistic food chain. If he hadn't, his sources
would not have spoken with him. See also: why can't all students with decent
grades get into Harvard, why can't all soccer teams starting with my child's
under-8 squad win the World Cup, why Warren Buffet returns Barack Obama's
phone calls but not yours, etc. People at the top of one hierarchy want access
to the tops of external hierarchies they deal with.

------
edw519
"I would have written a shorter letter but didn't have time." - Blaise Pascal

------
trotsky
If "we" didn't click on the TC stories or vote them up, they'd probably get
the idea pretty quickly. Just sayin'.

~~~
jokermatt999
I don't. Unfortunately, TC's style sells, and they're quite popular. The loss
of traffic from me and similar is less than the gain of traffic from others.

------
dholowiski
That's awesome. The way it's described, that's something most of us have run
into in our careers, and it makes Eric sound like a real person.

------
Semiapies
Actually, the only difference here is a semi-clear narrative and decent
writing. What indication is there that this is any less off-base than a
thousand other speculations?

------
pointillistic
The elephant in the room question is why Kottke never writes anything
original? Every one of his posts (including the linked one) is a quote or an
embed. Yet this hasn't prevented him or TC, etc. from having a widely read
blogs. He is an aggregator or a curator. We need less curators and more
writers.

~~~
celoyd
There’s no reason to see it as zero-sum between writers and curators. One of
the reasons _The New Yorker_ has such good writing is that is has such good
curators, or “editors” as they’re called in publishing jargon. Kottke
(assuming he’s as good as he used to be – I haven’t been keeping up) is a net
benefit to the reading public because he exposes and encourages good writing.

------
InclinedPlane
One could say the same about journalism in any subject. It's cheaper and often
as profitable to pump out shallow celebrity gossip and infotainment than to
put out factual reporting and well thought out commentary.

If you're wondering at a higher level why this is so, the simple answer is
that almost all modern journalism is ad supported. Attracting eyeballs matters
for the bottom line, how much people value or even believe what you report is
irrelevant as long as you can mantain viewership.

------
podperson
The New Yorker is pretty much the standout print publication of our age
(certainly in the US). Expecting everyone to be this good is understandable
but unrealistic.

------
acconrad
Achieving zero bias is among the most difficult things to write in journalism,
even in something as seemingly binary as technology. A bigger question might
be "was the answer any different than what you imagined it would be?"

Even if journalism is far from objective, I think people are good at making
inferences as to what really happened in the articles they read (at least in
this crowd).

------
oemera
This is so true! It happens to on nearly every tech article that the author
just pushed the buttons and turned a three paragraphs info in a murder-tech-
blog-murder-looking-article. The bad thing about it is that you can't more out
of those articles as you could from those "original" three paragraphs.

It's not that article size or letter count matters to all of us. I just want
to get informed the right things. No long history telling, cause mostly I know
it cause I hang around in this area everyday and for more I have Wikipedia. No
long opinions and suggestions, cause most time I don't care or I disagree. No
long mambo-cambo which let's me ask "Wait. What did I just read".

More of those short, quality and informing articles please.

------
grammaton
We should look at ourselves when we ask why. Especially in tech, everyone just
_loves_ to be opinionated. Look at at least half of all the blog posts that
make it onto this site, for instance.

------
kelnos
I don't get it. What properly sourced facts? Since when does adding an
occasional "according to a close advisor," or "according to associates" count
as proper sourcing? Proper sourcing means that an independent third party
could verify the claims. The article is very even handed, and may even be
correct, but at face value it's nothing more than the author's opinion and
unsubstantiated references to unknown people.

------
bane
Most tech journalism is purposefully dumbed down to appeal to a wider
audience. Just like reports on government economic policies don't include
references to specific economic theories and complex equations.

In this case, the article is purely factual, so it's also short. If the editor
has some pages to fill, he wants it long, and to pad out the article, a
journalist will fill it with fluff opinions and emotional statements.

------
pretz
Hiring good writers and good editors is expensive. The New Yorker cares much
more than most web publications about the quality of their output.

------
bdean
After reading that I have no need for more details, where the sources came
from, or what the latest "rumors" about Schmidt are.

------
michaelchisari
While in theory, I support the massive potential for new media to democratize
journalism, right now we're at a point where the standards are simply not yet
in place. Bloggers and online journalists are the cowboy coders of the early
days of the web. A necessary transition, but sweet Jesus, can the results be
ugly most of the time.

------
evbart
Its pulp / fluff reporting, and it distracts a ton of people from doing
something valuable

------
fedd
i like techcrunch. they call it a blog, not a newspaper/journalism.

the cited article contains nothing to read, i think the same: google has
issues, the leadership changes, nothing strange. sure i'm glad that people say
(and print) the same, but sometimes it's interesting to read some contrary,
longer or personalized blog post.

and, techcrunch lets me be closer to the Valley while being far overseas

~~~
absconditus
TechCrunch allows one to view a microcosm of the Valley through colored
lenses.

~~~
fedd
right. especially the comments (which are the part of TC, aren't they?).

for example, the comments to the posts of my beloved Alexia Tsotsis are of a
certain colour! which says much about the microcosm

------
j_baker
This phenomenon is hardly unique to tech journalism. Unfortunately,
sensationalism sells in just about every form of journalism.

------
kloncks
There's a difference between writing with the sole aim of getting it out first
(so that TechMeme gets you first or you get the most retweets) and writing a
good analysis of a story.

That's why, imho, blogs can never replace real publications. Pick up The
Economist or The New Yorker and you still get a lot of added value and
insight, even if the events happened days earlier.

