Ask HN: Good idea to save journalism?

You aren't talking about Journalism you're talking about research and you can already hire a researcher.

Journalism isn't about finding answers it's about finding truth. Despite what people think of him now Richard Nixon was a tremendously popular President (the electoral vote count in '72 was 570 to 17) so most were not asking for him to be exposed. But Journalists did and it was exactly what they should have been doing.

The problem with Journalism now is it's been corrupted. Now we have Liberal MSNBC and Conservative Fox News and they both are just spin machines for their side's agenda. That's where tech comes in because people simply don't trust Journalists anymore so they are looking more and more to other sources.

As for saving journalism I don't think true journalism needs it. My favorite modern example of true journalism is Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack". During the 2004 election it was recommeneded by both the Bush and Kerry camps and it was a best seller because of it.

Because truth appeals to everyone.

Do you know of a market place for researchers? I'm thinking of something like elance or crowdspring for research.

Here's some perspective on the topic of research for hire in the stock market: http://www.sism.com/independentresearchagrowingindustry.htm?...

If it's something you need regularly I strongly suggest looking for someone locally. It's easy to find a research assistant but much harder to find someone who will take intuitive leaps and search out stuff that you didn't know you wanted. If you are working in a specific field you should try finding a University in your area and e-mailing the head of that dept.

That said, before I developed a relationship with the guy I use I generally had good luck with Guru.com

True Journalism - Because truth appeals to everyone.

I think it's marketable. The only problem with it is that the powers that be will bury it with noise, as described in _Manufacturing Consent_. People eat up the spin because people like their own ideas confirmed.

Great point.

I don't think the truth does appeal to everyone. If it did, then most people would view a mix of media from different viewpoints.

But that just isn't what people do. Most liberals read the NYT and NPR while conservatives watch Fox and listen to Rush. I think most people just want their viewpoints confirmed.

I don’t think that’s true. To give an example of what I mean look at Fox News. FN maintained their support for George W. Bush throughout his Presidency. But most Conservatives started to turn during the last half of his fourth quarter. That wouldn’t happen if people weren’t looking for the truth beyond their bias.

As a matter of fact, if you got the Fox News viewership together I think you’d find most would say they seek out FN because they feel the regular media is biased and want to hear the other side of things (they might subconciously be seeking out like minded news but at least their concious mind is looking for unbiased news). The fact that they need to seek out another biased source to get information indicates to me that they’re seeking truth and just can’t find it.

you are right in marketing its called selective retention and attention. In terms of beliefs people will only pay attention to and remember things that support their current beliefs and values. Most people are like this. Only a small portion of the population are able to critically think and come up with unbias opinion on things.

I admit to liking to hear viewpoints that echo my own beliefs. Thanks for reminding me to listen to far polar voices and do my best to extend my perspective to listen rationally and with minimal bias.

I think journalists should be treated like most other professions and have certificications and standards that must be maintained. I'm sick of turning on Fox News (or CNN, for that matter) and watching their anchors spew out factually inaccurate commentary that gets passed off as "news". I think that if journalists make false statements then they should get "disbarred" or lose their license to practice journalism.

I'd define journalism (not cynically at all) as having the objective of filtering through all the stuff that is going on and telling us what is important AND what is not important.

In essence it's not what was not in the paper at all but what was in the 2" article on D4 that makes the strongest statement about journalistic values. We know what's on page A1 -- it's the big story that everyone would hear about even w/o journalists. But the stuff that is buried is where the paper pats us on the head and says "let someone else worry about that little detail".

I'm thinking of trying to figure out a way to make some sort of tag cloud view based on the above -- maybe showing "important" stuff on the left and "unimportant" stuff on the right. Both statements are equally significant and subject to the same editorial discretion.

IMHO, the way to "save journalism", for journalists to make money, is for journalists to actually do good, unique, and valuable. (Yup, all three. If they can't do all three, then the last two.) You know, the stuff that chin-tuggers always talk about but rarely do.

I recommend www.buzzmachine.com for discussion on this topic.

BTW - Journalism isn't suffering from a shortage of ideas. It's suffering from a shortage of folks willing to actually do. (Part of the problem is that many of the powers that be "paid their dues" during a golden age as far as money and power goes.)

Niche journalism. I like it.

I'm not an expert on journalism, but I think this is happening to some degree already. Major TV stations have industry analysts covering their industries. I suspect that any more drilling down would result in journalists not having enough 'good' stories to be economical for them. Journalism works for the journalists because they can gravitate towards the stories wherever they are happening. Journalism for hire is probably closer to private investigators, corporate spies, or market research firms.

That's right, niche journalism. Could be called research. Perhaps a community of people could ask questions and they could contribute a certain amount of funds to the answer. When the amount of money people are willing to pay for the answer gets to the right amount, then a journalist "adopts" the question and finds the answer.

The community who wants the answer could evaluate the truthiness of the article/research and the article writer could gain credibility. Perhaps they could even leave the article up and people in the future could pay to see what was written.

It's not unlike the situation now with custom web development. Hackers are paid to write code. These journalists would be paid to write articles. Similarly, lots of problems the Hacker will solve require research and analysis becore the problem can be solved effectively.

Seems like a marketplace problem.

The problem that journalism is facing is that their market is over saturated. You can get the same news from thousands of sources

There'll be huge consolidation in the "generic" news market that's for sure.

But there IS still a market for in depth quality journalism, you just have to pay for it. The atlantic, new yorker are examples. People will pay for high quality journalism. The problem is that most journalism is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

To give an example of high quality journalism Here's what I subscribe to: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/

- Laphams quarterly. Quarterly journal that covers a topic through essays/letters/speeches of those from the past. The war issue has churchill, patton, george orwell, sun tzu, etc. The money issue henry ford, aristophanes, jane austin. The insight is excellent.

http://www.economist.com

- The economist. A classic that covers business and the world in a no bullshit way. They. Don't. Do. Gimmicks.

http://www.monocle.com

- Monocle a briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design. This magazine has me addicted and paying $150/Yr. Why? The first issue had an interview with the ceo of lego on innovation. Every single issue there's thoughtful intelligent reportage on some interesting but non-obvious subject. (Like Lego, or japanese retail, or the falkland islands). There's something intangible about the magazine, it deserves a look.

In summary, is journalism dead? No. Most are just incompetent at it. Become competent at creating a quality product and you can make money.

The economist. A classic that covers business and the world in a no bullshit way.

I have to say, the podcast "Global Forecast from the Economist Intelligence Unit" is insightful, dares to make predictions, and seems to know what the heck they are talking about.

(BTW: "speeches" - no 'a')

And those news come from... journalists who work for news websites, right ? There's no problem with journalism, there is a problem with old-fassioned mass media, which are no longer "mass". And yes journalism generally has nothing to do with news.

A journalist could go do the research and compile an article that answers my question.

I think the position you're looking for is "librarian"

A librarian is close and I love them and use them a lot. It still takes time for me to read the books and comb through that info to find what is relevant to the particular question.

Why save journalism at all? It's not in any danger. Some big companies that used to have monopolies on journalism are in danger, that's all.

It's not journalism I'm trying to save, but rather the journalists. I suppose in any industry, the cream of the crop will always have jobs. I was trying to think of a way to help journalists continue doing what they love: writing, researching, finding truth... while aligning that desire with something of value to the world.

I think the value of traditional journalism is declining. What we traditionally label journalism is actually just entertainment these days. Their goal is lots of eyeballs, not truth or any of that.

But there are people who do need truth or answers and would be willing to pay someone to help them find it. I saw a "Market Research" category at elance, that might be the ticket...

http://spot.us is trying something interesting but I simply dont know if their scope is large enough

I think this is quite in line with the idea actually.

the problem with journalism is the disruptive technology of the internet to its old distribution system and how it changed the way we consume news.