Tapas Journalism...Pt. 1

As the exponential growth of blogs illustrates, anyone can become a published commentator, if not an outright source of news. The major proliferation of these news streams--many of them unedited and playing fast and free with facts--have been flowing through the Web. Commercial media enterprises, not to be outdone by these upstarts, have been issuing their own Web-based content, most of it free.

For-profit media have felt they've had to post free content--as a sort of loss leader. They want to look hip, for want of a better term. They also pray, with an almost religious fervor, that their freebies will lure in readers, convincing them that their site is worth revisiting regularly. Their hidden agenda: To eventually convince these readers that the content is so valuable that access to it is worth paying for. Or, if the visiting netizens won't pay, but there are zillions of them returning on a regular basis, that perhaps well-healed advertisers will offer to pay for the privilege of erecting the electronic equivalent of billboards on their site.

The idea is a reasonable one.

The problem: The money just hasn't followed.

In some sense, the idea has actually backfired, because the more content that is given away free on the Internet, the more browsers come to expect that all content should be free. Yet producing quality content not only is time consuming and but also benefits from having experienced newsgatherers.

Which raises the question: How do you remunerate newsgatherers for providing that free content?

I ask the question because the venerable newsweekly that I work for--now some 85 years old--is in the throes of reinventing itself. No one on its staff knows how this will play out--yet--although within weeks that should sort itself out. In the mean time, there have been discussions by our outside consultants that perhaps we should at least run the financial numbers to see if cutting back on the frequency of print issues will make us more economical. In doing so, we'd move increasingly more content to the Web--and deliver that electronic news stream more frequently. Most of our Web content is now updated weekly. Should that go to daily? Hourly? By the minute?

Will visitors to the site--and there are already a steady stream of devoted ones--be willing to pay for the extra content? And how will--or should--stories presented on a Website differ from those archived in print?

Some of the "experts" we've heard from argue that Web news accounts should be short, pithy, and lively--in keeping with the short attention spans of multi-tasking teens and 20-somethings. That's the demographic all news organizations salivate over--but seldom capture.

My worry is that such stories could create a culture of what I'm calling tapas journalism. Little bite-size news nuggets or insights. Each a taste of something new and interesting. Appetizers that allow a sampling of diverse and totally unrelated topics.

While that may be appetizing to the Web visitors, it may not offer the balanced diet of well-researched, contemplative, and integrated information that has traditionally been the output of print news operations. In other words, who will reach for the news equivalent of meat or peas and carrots when they can have little tastings of prosciuto-wrapped ham, almond-stuffed olives, curried meatballs, or a few pieces of veggie sushi?

I'm concerned that what would contribute to an informed citizenry could be lost if all we go for is the "interesting."

Don't get me wrong, I love tapas--short, quirky news items. But I also depend upon heavily researched and investigative journalism--the type that draws connections between disparate events or concepts, ones that would not be intuitively obvious. Journalism that documents the facts underlying arguments or charges, so there can be no doubt what is fact versus supposition, inference, or off-the-cuff intepretations by nonexperts.

In theory, the Web could get us all of this and more. And there are some great sites out there--buried within the growing universe of mediocrity and the journalistic equivalent of fast food. What I want to know is: How do we make the Web the destination for serious, responsible, trustworthy journalism--and how do we help readers/viewers on the Web identify this from rehashed or poorly researched drivel?

Can we develop the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for solid and reliable Web news and informed opinion? Can we develop Web organizations that help us find these sites?

Care to weigh in?