HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Complicating the network: The year in social media research
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Aug. 28, 2009, 1:53 p.m.

An extremely expensive cover story — with a new way of footing the bill

The cover story in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine is a 13,000-word investigation of the New Orleans hospital where patients were euthanized in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It’s a remarkable and tragic story that may also represent the most expensive single piece of print journalism in years.

This is the new economics of news production: The reporter, Sheri Fink, began working on the project in 2007 as a fellow at the Kaiser Foundation and stayed on the story nearly full-time after joining ProPublica, the non-profit, investigative-journalism outfit, in 2008. Later that year, Fink and her editors began collaborating with the Times Magazine, which did not pay for the piece. It’s also available on ProPublica’s site, and anyone is free to republish the article in full beginning on September 29.

Gerald Marzorati, editor of the Times Magazine, caused a minor stir this week when he estimated that the article cost $400,000 to produce. That turns out to be an exaggeration, but the order of magnitude is correct.

Every once in a while we get a new datapoint about the cost of quality journalism. The relevance of those figures is debatable at a time when we’re rethinking the how of journalism as much as the what, but they’re good to know, and I’ve filed away a few. Among them: The New York Times’ Baghdad bureau costs $3 million a year, while The Washington Post’s drains $1 million; The Miami Herald’s audit of the 2000 presidential election results in Florida put the paper out $850,000; The St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact project has been estimated in the high six figures; and Marzorati has previously said that his average cover story runs “north of $40,000.”

In this case, Fink was paid $33,000 plus $10,000 in expenses for her Kaiser fellowship, according to Steve Engelberg, her editor at ProPublica, where she’s been for 14 months. Engelberg, who was kind enough to go through these figures with me, said, “Fourteen months of salary plus benefits for us easily gets you north of 100 plus, 100, 150 or something.” He threw in another $20,000 to $30,000 for travel expenses, in addition to three months of editing and lawyering at ProPublica and the Times, which also spent $25,000 to $30,000 on photographs, he said.

Grand total: a lot of money.

Marzorati told me his estimate of nearly $400,000 considered what the piece would have cost had it been produced entirely by Times staffers. He wrote in an email, “My point, really, is simply this: Investigative reporting is very, very expensive.” And no matter how you crunch the numbers, that’s certainly true.

These sorts of calculations inevitably lead to impossible cost-benefit analyses. It would be even more difficult this time: What was the actual cost to the Times? Does cost mean the same thing to nonprofits like Kaiser and ProPublica? And do you measure benefit in impact, pageviews, or what? (A Times memo this morning happened to note that last week’s cover story, an excerpt from Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s new book on global oppression of women, topped a million pageviews.) There are no answers, and I’m just filing away this datapoint with the others.

UPDATE, 3:13 p.m.: Fink emailed me to note that, in addition to what I noted above, she spent four months in 2007 covering the story at her own expense. And in the comments, Stan Alcorn of the Dart Center points to their video interview with Fink. So you’ve got Kaiser, ProPublica, Dart, and Fink on her own as a freelancer — all contributing without compensation to the final product here. New economics, indeed.

POSTED     Aug. 28, 2009, 1:53 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Complicating the network: The year in social media research
Journalist’s Resource sifts through the academic journals so you don’t have to. Here are 12 of the studies about social and digital media they found most interesting in 2014.
News in a remix-focused culture
“We have to stop thinking about how to leverage whatever hot social platform is making headlines and instead spend time understanding how communication is changing.”
Los Angeles is the content future
“Creative content people are frustrated with the industry and creating their content on their own terms. Sound familiar?”
What to read next
500
tweets
Complicating the network: The year in social media research
Journalist’s Resource sifts through the academic journals so you don’t have to. Here are 12 of the studies about social and digital media they found most interesting in 2014.
339Finance media’s hottest club is Ello
Business reporters flocking to the platform won’t radically change journalism, but it’s worth asking why users gather where they do.
305Why Google is taking another shot at helping readers pay for news
Google Contributor is the latest tool the company has designed to help readers pay for what they read online. But its previous experiments in supporting paid content have had limited success.
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Fuego is our heat-seeking Twitter bot, tracking the links the future-of-journalism crowd is talking about most on Twitter.
Here are a few of the top links Fuego’s currently watching.   Get the full Fuego ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
San Francisco Chronicle
Reddit
PubliCola
Tampa Bay Times
Instapaper
Quartz
ESPN
Seattle PostGlobe
Global Voices
DocumentCloud
SeeClickFix
The Orange County Register