The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy
Tyler Cowen’s piece on the Weigel case is superb. Excerpt:
At a more general level this is a tax on journalists, who now have a greater fear of being fired for past actions. It’s also a tax on the moody, the volatile, the web-savvy, the non-mainstream, and a subsidy to in-control smooth talkers and careful writers.
This is similar to what Julian Sanchez wrote about incentivizing a world of Tracy Flicks.
Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias has expanded on his “Dave Weigel will outlast the Post” thought of yesterday. I want to push back just a little on the idea, common in some ways to all three links, that some kind of blog-reporter ethos is dumbfounding institutions like the Post because it’s such an unpredecedented challenge to traditional newspaper ideals of objectivity, while at the same time confuting the stereotype of blogging as mere pontificating about other people’s work. Blog-reporter ethos appears to consist of
* original reporting on first-hand sources
* a frankly stated point-of-view
* tempered by a scrupulous concern for fact
* an effort to include a fair account of differing perspectives
* ending in a willingness to plainly state conclusions about the subject
I submit that this is just magazine-journalism ethos with the addition of cat pictures. If you think about what good long and short-form journalism looks like at a decent magazine, it looks like the bullet-points above. I’m not just talking about ideological organs. The writer who sells to Harper’s or The National Geographic or even Runner’s World is going to tend to show a personality and take a definite perspective, while at the same time doing fresh reporting from primary sources, whether human, documentary or physical. The writer will make sure to include a substantial account of challenges to her perspective, if only to knock it down later.
If you were a magazine editor and knew Paul Theroux hated the English because he wrote an entire book about how much the English suck, you might still send him to write a big piece on England for your monthly because you expected it to be interesting, and because the ethos of magazine journalism would make it “fair.” If you knew that William Greider hated economic conservatives, or Tom Wolfe hated social liberals, you would still buy factual pieces touching economics from the one and cultural folkways from the other: their very names constitute warning labels; their strong viewpoints sharpen their writing; and because they’re professionals, they’ll put in the work.
What blogging does is enable the magazine-journalism ethos to meet a frequent publication schedule – even more frequent than the newspaper’s traditional daily schedule. That’s probably why magazine journalists like James Fallows and Marc Ambinder understand best what the Post didn’t get about Dave Weigel; but it’s also why so many at the Post don’t get Dave Weigel, (and to a lesser extent, Ezra Klein). The newspapers aren’t merely confounded by a new thing in journalism. They’re confounded by a new form of the thing they consciously set themselves in opposition to decades ago: the standards of magazine writing. The magazine ethos turns out to be better suited to the internet age than the newspaper ethos, provided you add pet pictures and music videos and push new content hourly rather than monthly. This is newspaper standards losing out to a very old rival as much as to a new one.
Comment by highnumber —
June 26, 2010 @ 10:35 am
All the supportive pieces I’ve seen so far make me think that Dave is going to walk away from this with a de facto promotion. Surely his profile has been raised. His detractors on the other hand have never sounded more shrill and partisan.
Pingback by Bringing Magazine Ethos to Newspapers —
June 26, 2010 @ 11:08 am
[...] Jim Henley makes a provocative point about the Dave Weigel kerfuffle that’s not only managed to embroil the blogosphere the last 24 hours but even made it into the opening minutes of NPR’s “Weekend Edition.” If you were a magazine editor and knew Paul Theroux hated the English because he wrote an entire book about how much the English suck, you might still send him to write a big piece on England for your monthly because you expected it to be interesting, and because the ethos of magazine journalism would make it “fair.” If you knew that William Greider hated economic conservatives, or Tom Wolfe hated social liberals, you would still buy factual pieces touching economics from the one and cultural folkways from the other: their very names constitute warning labels; their strong viewpoints sharpen their writing; and because they’re professionals, they’ll put in the work. [...]
Comment by max —
June 26, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
And a darn fine example of magazine-style blogging this was Jim.
m, i can’t believe they were dumb enough to fire him
Comment by Mona —
June 26, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
i can’t believe they were dumb enough to fire him
Technically, Dave resigned.
Good post, Jim.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 27, 2010 @ 2:55 am
And flat out stupid, to be very blunt.
Comment by digamma —
June 27, 2010 @ 10:52 am
The magazine journalism comparison is brilliant. I’m amazed it took so long for someone to come up with it. With that comparison I might actually be able to explain blogs to my parents.
Comment by Karen —
June 27, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
As a newspaper journalist now trying to make it in the freelance world – where what little money there is to earn is in magazines or blogging – I totally agree with you about the style differences. I’m having a challenging time learning to write with so much opinion and attitude, because it’s been drummed out of me by 20 years of daily journalism. I’m going to use your bullet points for inspiration in making the shift – so, THANKS!
Comment by joel hanes —
June 27, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Jim misses the crucial advantage that blogs have over magazine journalism: blog commenters can responed with evidence supporting or falsifying the ideas in the posting, and argue the merits immediately, and in the same forum as the piece to which they are responding. This puts the readers on an almost-even footing with the writer, and makes the writer accountable in a way that no newspaper or magazine journalist is held accountable.
Bloggers who post misinformation and don’t retract lose credibility. Magazine “journalists” such as Jeffery Goldberg believe their credibility is inherent in their being, and beyond challenge; their employers are even more fond of this idea.
Jeffrey Goldberg and Jim Risen wouldn’t last a month aa bloggers, because they seem to find it intolerable to be immediately confronted with facts and arguments that undercut the narrative they’ve spun, and to have to treat with mere readers as near-equals. Apparently, it offends their sense of entitlement.
Comment by Kolohe —
June 28, 2010 @ 4:17 am
Jeffrey Goldberg and Jim Risen wouldn’t last a month aa bloggers,
Isn’t Jeffrey Goldberg one of the bloggers at the Atlantic? Or was that part of your point?
Comment by Barry —
June 28, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Max: “i can’t believe they were dumb enough to fire him”
Mona “Technically, Dave resigned. ”
Technically, when an officer is told of disgrace and court-martial, goes back into his quarters, and finds a revolver with one bullet in it, he then commits suicide.
Comment by Barry —
June 28, 2010 @ 11:17 am
Joel: “Jeffrey Goldberg and Jim Risen wouldn’t last a month as bloggers,”
Comment by Kolohe —
“Isn’t Jeffrey Goldberg one of the bloggers at the Atlantic? Or was that part of your point?”
Well, Megan McArdle is a ‘blogger’ at the Atlantic (and columnist, editor, etc.). And if you’ve tried using their comments systems, you’ll know that frequently commenting ability there is only theoretical.
Comment by albatross —
June 28, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Huh? Megan and Ta-Nehisi both have pretty vigorous comment threads. Megan’s in particular often includes pretty direct attacks on her intelligence, decency, etc. from readers, as well as challenges to her ideas or claims.
Comment by joel hanes —
June 28, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
I don’t think Goldberg blogs. I don’t think he has the temperament, the chops, or the required intellectual honesty.
Here’s the list of Atlantic Blogs from their web site. (It’s amusing that Yglesias is still listed.)
Andrew Sullivan
Matthew Yglesias
Ross Douthat
Megan McArdle
Marc Ambinder
James Fallows
Clive Crook
Comment by Emma —
June 29, 2010 @ 12:32 am
Goldberg ‘blogs’ for the Atlantic here, but he doesn’t allow comments. For obvious reasons. A bunch of other blogs (often from his stablemates at the Atlantic) usually have his stuff shot down in flames almost before he hits ‘Publish’.
Comment by Neil B 23 —
June 29, 2010 @ 7:24 am
As was expressed in discussions at WaMo, Brad DeLong etc: if having strong opinions is an intrinsic problem affecting a reporter’s objectitiy, then whether they expressed their views or not isn’t the criterion that matters.
Comment by Kaleberg —
June 29, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
So, by way of contrast, is the newspaper journalism ethos? Having been reading newspapers for years, I noticed a major change in the 1980s in that prior to then their ethos seemed awfully similar to what you call the magazine journalism ethos. Then, it became all about supporting the conventional narrative and maintaining one’s access. Was I just young and naive? Was television journalism always so god awful?
Comment by joel hanes —
June 30, 2010 @ 10:12 am
Was television journalism always so god awful?
No. Huntley and Brinkley were journalists, as was Eric Sevareid.
Pingback by This Week in Review: Weigel and new journalism values, Google News gets personal, and Kos’ poll problem » Nieman Journalism Lab —
July 2, 2010 @ 9:02 am
[...] the Post has created a type of writer that it doesn’t know what to do with, while Jim Henley offered a helpful definition of the “blog-reporter ethos” that those writers [...]
Pingback by This Week in Review: Weigel and new journalism values, Google News gets personal, and Kos’ poll problem | This Is An Awesome Web Site —
July 3, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
[...] the Post has created a type of writer that it doesn’t know what to do with, while Jim Henley offered a helpful definition of the “blog-reporter ethos” that those writers [...]
Pingback by This Week in Review: Weigel and new journalism values, Google News gets personal, and Kos’ poll problem | This Is An Awesome Web Site —
July 3, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
[...] the Post has created a type of writer that it doesn’t know what to do with, while Jim Henley offered a helpful definition of the “blog-reporter ethos” that those writers [...]
Pingback by Wangowango » Friday Lazy Linking —
July 5, 2010 @ 3:37 am
[...] The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. Unqualified Offerings (2010-06-30). This is actually not primarily about taxes. Or about destroying. Or about Dave Weigel. But it is an interesting point from Jim Henley about what’s new — and what’s not new — in the ethos of journalistic bloggers, and why newspapers don’t understand it. (Linked Wednesday 2010-06-30.) [...]
Comment by Jay Rosen —
July 8, 2010 @ 11:41 am
I think you will find this post of interest. It is about the same events and tries to puzzle through some key concepts at stake in those events. I also linked to your piece here.
Objectivity as a Form of Persuasion: A Few Notes for Marcus Brauchli.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/07/obj_persuasion.html