The Laughing Wolf

Old Media: Specialization

This was supposed to be a part of my Do They Want Us To Lose? (Yes) series, but fate delayed it a bit. The rather abysmal coverage of SpaceShipOne yesterday reminded me that it really needs to be done. So, it is time to take a look at specialized/expert coverage in the Old Media.

The idea of such coverage is not new. From the earliest days, publishers would invite various experts – or at least big names – to come in and write about their areas of expertise. After all, the publishers were often the writers, and even when not it just made sense to have someone knowledgeable do the writing.

Yet, this state of affairs diminished for two reasons. The first was the cost of writing, and the second was the need to write for a mass audience.

The cost of writing/coverage has always been a factor in the business that is the media. Publishers, and I use this term to include those that own broadcast facilities, have always looked to maximize profit, since despite the tattered trappings in which it tries to cover itself, journalism is in the end nothing more or less than a business. So long as big names and experts were willing to do the work for free or a token, they were used. The big names/experts often were glad to do it as it gave them a forum for shaping politics and governmental actions.

As a veneer of ethics and such came into being, this incestuous relationship came to be questioned. The net result was that the relationship was moved to the editorial pages and out of the news – for the most part.

Economics, however, was also a major factor in this. Experts posed two problems for the publishers. First, they could, would, and did write for themselves and their purposes. This did not always translate into stellar prose, or even scribbling that would entice a reader. Second, publications had evolved to staffs, and staff tends to resent those that do the work for free. It infringes on their job, and contributes to lower standards – and most importantly – to lower pay. Unions and the workers as a whole helped put a stop to this, leading to requirements that everyone be paid the same. So, while “ethics” provided a pretext (and I have no doubt that some of it was sincere), economics was a strong driver in removing experts/big names out of the news pages.

Generalists were and are the better bargain. They are willing to write in the style of the publisher, willing to work hard for that byline and the chance to advance, and they work cheap. Such is not just a salary issue, but in how you can use them. A general writer can and will cover the PTA one day and a mayoral debate the next. They can be given almost any assignment and if good at what they do, provide coverage that sells at the lowest possible cost.

Now, contrast that to a specialist. A specialist or expert has extra training in regards their area of expertise. They most likely have extra time/experience in that area. All of this translates to a higher salary cost, and you lose the ability to use them in a general manner. After all, you are paying them more so you want to get more out of them, so there is a tendency not to want to “waste” them on general stories. There is also the consideration that while they are an expert in one area, they may be hopeless in others. This leads not merely to bad coverage and writing, but to “inappropriate” questions and speculations that can bite the publication badly.

The latter, however, is also true. When you send a generalist to cover a specialty story, bad things happen. The reporter can be out of their depth, miss what is obvious to someone in the field, and otherwise get the story wrong. Sometimes, this can be humorous. For example, an early radio gig I got came from hearing a reporter refer to Zero-G as an exercise being done by the astronauts. I called up, politely informed and explained, and offered my services. Sometimes, however, it can have can have catastrophic effects. A good example of this was the breast implant scare, which resulted in something close to mass panic and the bankruptcy of a major company.

Breast implants and Alar are just two of the bad science stories out there. There are many more, and that is just one area. When you look at all the specialty areas, the scene is dismaying if not devastating. One factor that usually binds these stories together is the fact that they came from general reporting: the Old Media often deliberately bypassed its own staff experts to go with the sensational and wrong.

Why?

Ignorance and Economics are my stock answers to this. The root cause of both lie in the media education system and pecking order. Until fairly recently, those in higher positions in the Old Media might or might not have a college degree. Publishers wanted those that would work cheap, and this tended to exclude those with lots of formal education. This changed over time, but you need to take a hard look at the degree.

Few, if any, journalism schools require any mathematics, science, philosophy, or other outside coursework. Any such courses are those mandated for undergraduates by larger institutions. Specialized institutions rarely offer such, and journalism schools can be specialized. Even when a part of a larger institution, the core curriculum is narrow and insular and not designed to encourage forays beyond the borders. Even if completely unintended, this results in a lock-step mentality that is further fostered by the need to move up the chain. The chain and the coursework tend to weed out those who think differently, so that the result is a large group that tends to think alike. Hence the unintended conspiracy of the many.

You also get a leadership cadre that is woefully ignorant about things outside their area of journalism and any hobbies. As a general rule, they have little or no knowledge of the military, history (other than journalism), mathematics, statistics, business, law, regulations, or science. The insularity fostered by the Old Media system also means that they see themselves as representative of the “average” person, so that their ignorance and biases are the ignorance and biases of all. Since they are rarely interested in, and sometimes intimidated by, science, business, etc., it means that “everyone” else is as well.

While economics contributes strongly towards the problem, it also provides some mitigation. Publishers tend to pay attention to things that can get them money, and specialized coverage can do this on occasion. Thus, larger publications began to develop specialized areas of coverage. This includes everything from the social pages to business coverage. So long as it pays for itself, there will be sports, social, and business sections to the larger papers. Yet, that need to maximize the profit also means that there will be a tendency to try to use general assignment reporters in such and to use true expert reporters sparingly.

Look at the masthead of any major paper. When you go through it, you will find that there are usually only one or two specialized reporters in any given section. This also tends to hold true at magazines as well. Broadcast outlets of any type rarely have even that many, unless it is a major network operation. If you want a really eye-opening experience, check out any local television news operation and see how many – if any – experts there are outside of the sports desk. Check the total number of members of the Society of Professional Journalists, and then compare that number to the total membership of the National Association of Science Writers. To make it even more interesting, contrast the number of freelance members between the two.

Insular is the polite term, but the culture of the Old Media is truly incestuous. The inbreeding is tremendous, and while many deficiencies and problems in the journalism education process have been identified, there is not a strong requirement to change. That said, however, economics provides hope.

Within traditional print and broadcast media, the specialization curve offers some solutions. In the print world, you get specialty publications, ranging from the Wall Street Journal, which covers the world from the business perspective, to special topic magazines such as Military History. In the broadcast world, cable television has allowed this to flourish, with networks ranging from the History Channel to Food TV. Satellite radio will offer the same opportunity in that media.

My own anecdotal observations have shown that specialty reporters tend to leave the traditional Old Media and migrate towards the specialty publication market. Why waste time working at low pay in an often frustrating environment, when you can go work at a publication devoted to your area? Add in better pay or related circumstances, and it makes it even more attractive to the true subject matter expert. As staff positions dwindle, this accelerates and brings more people into the freelance market as well.

And staff positions are dwindling. Why buy a paper to wade through it to find that what coverage there is of the story of interest to you is poorly done? When you don’t buy, that paper cuts back on staff because profits are down, and people aren’t reading a given section. There is some circularity of logic/causality here, but it is a real artifact. Publishers see diminished demand for particular types of coverage because they can’t compete with a publication devoted to that area. That publication has no need to hire a large staff, since freelance writers can and do provide most of the copy. Since they aren’t on staff, you don’t have the huge regulatory burden of staff, and can pay more per word or assignment than a writer would get otherwise. Or, rather, they should but that is a rant for another day.

The New Media is also providing strong competition that will shape this as well. Many experts are starting their own blogs. Sometimes this is to provide commentary, sometimes to write stories that would not otherwise get published because they are too specialized, and sometimes it is just because they are tired of the games that have to be played in the publishing world. In many respects, these reasons really don’t matter. What does matter is that even more specialized coverage is emerging, and it is already having an economic impact. As more and more people come online, this is going to increase.

Ultimately, it will be for the good in that the public can be as informed on any given subject as they care to be and have the wit to compare and contrast the different information provided. Meantime, it will be a rocky ride as things shake out, from the coverage to the attempts to regulate and eliminate this threat to traditional media. So, hang on and enjoy the ride.

-30-