Twitter  "Algorithms have consequences." Zeynep Tufekci on Ferguson and net neutrality:  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

WikiLeaks and continuity: What if we had a news outlet exclusively focused on follow-up journalism?

In his assessment of the journalistic implications of the WikiLeaked Afghanistan War Logs earlier this week, Jay Rosen made a provocative prediction:

Reaction will be unbearably lighter than we have a right to expect — not because the story isn’t sensational or troubling enough, but because it’s too troubling, a mess we cannot fix and therefore prefer to forget…. The mental model on which most investigative journalism is based states that explosive revelations lead to public outcry; elites get the message and reform the system. But what if elites believe that reform is impossible because the problems are too big, the sacrifices too great, the public too distractible? What if cognitive dissonance has been insufficiently accounted for in our theories of how great journalism works…and often fails to work?

It’s early still, of course, but it’s all too likely that Rosen’s forecast — the leaked documents, having exploded, dissolving into a system ill-equipped to deal with them — will prove accurate. I hope we’ll be wrong. In the meantime, though, it’s worth adding another layer to Rosen’s analysis: the role of journalists themselves in the leaked documents’ framing and filtering. If, indeed, the massive tree that is WikiLeaks has fallen in an empty forest, that will be so not only because of the dynamic between public opinion and political elites who often evade it; it will also be because of the dynamic between public opinion and those who shape it. It will be because of assumptions (sometimes outdated assumptions) journalists make about their stories’ movement through, and life within, the world. The real challenge we face isn’t an empty forest; it’s a forest so full — so blooming with growth, so booming with noise — that we forget what a toppling tree sounds like in the first place.

Publication, publicity

It used to be that print and broadcast culture, in general, offered journalists a contained — which is to say, automatic — audience for their work. When you have subscribers and regular viewers, their loyalty insured by the narrowness of the media marketplace, you have the luxury of ignoring, essentially, the distribution side of journalism. The corollary being that you also have the luxury of assuming that your journalism, once published, will effect change in the world. Automatically.

And investigative journalism, in particular, whether conducted by Bly or Bernstein or Bogdanich, generally operated under the sunshine-as-Lysol theory of distribution: outrageous discoveries lead to outraged publics lead to chastened power brokers lead to social change. (For more on that, give a listen to the most recent Rebooting the News podcast.) Journalism was a lever of democracy; publication was publicity, and thus, as well, the end of an outlet’s commitment to its coverage. The matter of distribution, of a big story’s movement through the culture, wasn’t generally for journalists to address.

Which was a matter of practicality, sure — as a group, reporters are necessarily obsessed with newness, and have always been stalked by The Next Story — but also one of design. There’s a fine line, the thinking went, between amplification of a story and advocacy of it; the don’t-shoot-the-messenger rhetoric of institutional newsgathering holds up only so long as the messengers in question maintain the appropriate distance from the news they’re delivering. And one way to maintain that distance was a structured separation from stories via a framework of narrative containment. Produce, publish, move on.

The web, though, to repeat its ur-observation, is changing all that. Digital platforms — blogs, most explicitly, but also digital journalism vehicles as a collective — have introduced a more iterative form of storytelling that subtly challenges print and broadcast assumptions of conceptual confinement. For journalists like Josh Marshall and Glenn Greenwald and other modern-day muckrakers, to be a journalist is also, implicitly, to be an advocate. And, so, focusing on the follow-up aspect of journalism — not just starting fires, but keeping them alive — has been foundational to their work. Increasingly, in the digital media economy, good journalists find stories. The better ones keep them going. The best keep them burning.

And yet, to return to the WikiLeaks question, that ethos of continuity hasn’t generally caught on in the culture more broadly — among journalists or their audiences. And one reason for that is the matter of momentum, the editorial challenge of maintaining reader interest in a given subject over a long period of time. Political issues caught in congressional inertias, military campaigns that stretch from months to years, social issues that hide in plain sight — their temporality itself becomes a problem to be solved. There’s a reason why, to take the most infamous example, political campaigns are so often indistinguishable from an episode of “Toddlers and Tiaras“: campaigns being year-long affairs (longer now, actually: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are probably digging into Maid-Rite loose-meats as I type), journalists often focus on their trivialities/conflicts/etc. not necessarily because they think that focus leads to good journalism, but because they think, probably correctly, that it sustains their audiences’ attention as election season slogs on.

Which is all to say — and not to put too expansive a point on it, but — time itself poses a challenge to the traditional notion of “the story.” Continuity and containment aren’t logical companions; stories end, but the world they cover goes on. The platform is ill-suited to the project.

While addressing that problem head-on is no easy task — it’s both systemic and cultural, and thus extra-difficult to solve — I’d like to end with a thought experiment (albeit a small, tentative, just-thinking-out-loud one). What if we had an outlet dedicated to continuity journalism — a news organization whose sole purpose was to follow up on stories whose sheer magnitude precludes them from ongoing treatment by our existing media outlets? What if we took the PolitiFact model — a niche outfit dedicated not to a particular topic or region, but to a particular practice — and applied it to following up on facts, rather than checking them? What if we had an outlet dedicated to reporting, aggregating, and analyzing stories that deserve our sustained attention — a team of reporters and researchers and analysts and engagement experts whose entire professional existence is focused on keeping those deserving stories alive in the world?

Sure, you could say, bloggers both professional and amateur already do that kind of follow-up work; legacy news outlets themselves do, too. But: they don’t do it often enough, or systematically enough. (That’s a big reason why it’s so easy to forget that war still rages in Iraq, that 12.6 percent of Americans live below the poverty line, etc.) They often lack incentive to, say, localize a story like the War Logs for their readers. Or to contextualize it. Or to, in general, continue its existence. An independent outlet — and, hey, this being a thought experiment, “independent outlet” could also include a dedicated blog on a legacy outlet’s website — wouldn’t prevent other news shops from doing follow-up work on their own stories or anyone else’s, just as PolitiFact’s presence doesn’t preclude other outlets from engaging in fact-checking. A standalone shop would, however, serve as a kind of social safety net — an insurance policy against apathy.

As Lab contributor C.W. Anderson remarked on Monday: “I wonder what it would take for a story like the ‘War Logs’ bombshell to stick around in the public mind long enough for it to mean something.”

I do, too. I’d love to find out.

Photo of U.S. soldiers in Pana, Afghanistan, by the U.S. Army. Photo of Jay Rosen by Joi Ito. Both used under a Creative Commons license.

What to read next
Peter Van Laer's Magic Scene with Self-portrait (better) via Shi-Chi Chiang
Caroline O'Donovan    Aug. 12, 2014
A new voice on social platforms helped Mother Jones beat its traffic records.
  • Pingback: Wikileaks: when it’s not a scoop but it’s still news — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard

  • Matt

    This is a terrific, terrific question/idea, Megan. I’ll risk the chance that you accuse me of just dropping in occasionally with links to past Snarkmarket posts, but there’s at least one I think is relevant.

    I’ll try to add more thoughts, ’cause I think there’s really something to this. I would love to quickly drive a stake through the practice of using the Web to drop a giant depth presentation at the end of our investigation and basically wash our hands of it.

  • Adam O’Kane

    Great idea. Just snatched up

  • Ted McEnroe

    I love the idea of this – I see one issue for, though. Time. We’ve all seen that doing the follow up often takes longer than the life cycle of a juicy salacious tidbit allows. By the time thoughtful insight can come together, the genie is out of the bottle.

    But it seems worth the shot. And maybe the media have been chastened enough our shortcomings in following up that we would report on the follow up if someone else did the heavy lifting.

  • Pingback: (Open) What if we had a news outlet exclusively focused on follow-up journalism?

  • PlebisPower

    I think ProPublica comes closest to the model that you’re proposing/advocating. That well-funded nonprofit has used its considerable support and talent to drill down into stories too complex for traditional outlets. They provide useful data tools that allow (like the tools now emerging around the war logs) for enterprising readers – and not just enterprise reporters – to dig deeper. By involving readers this way, I think, ProPublica successfully sustains interest, which is often rewarded by follow up stories.

  • PlebisPower

    I should say not too complex for traditional outlets exactly, because there is wonderful enterprise reporting that keeps the faith in establishment media organizations. I meant they couple enterprise reporting with sustained attention to the story, and use organized data to add value.

  • 66

    Wikileaks is basically ID theft with deadly consequences. Journalism is protective and respects confidences. The leaked documents were stolen and that is receiving stolen goods. Wikileaks is a anti-privacy criminal terrorist network with a tip jar. People are going to die or get hurt, but it’s a rough game. You’ll end up being guarded by a bunch of DOD jar heads.

  • Pingback: Following up on the need for follow-up » Nieman Journalism Lab

  • Megan Garber

    @Matt: I just replied to your post. Epically. In the form of another post. It’s here.

    And for the record, I have yet to encounter a Snarkmarket post I haven’t liked. Which is to say, by all means keep dropping by, and keep those links coming!

    @Adam O’Kane: Right on!

    @Ted: That’s a great point. But it’s also why I think a separate, dedicated outlet could (maybe) be helpful. If its very mandate were to live outside the traditional news cycle (more on that here), such an outlet wouldn’t have to be concerned about catering to the “life cycle,” as you rightly put it, of that salacious little news nugget. Because the outlet itself, in theory, would dictate what that life cycle would be.

    @PlebisPower: I agree — ProPublica is a good example of an outlet that’s doing a great job with sustaining interest in stories, promoting and provoking follow-ups, etc. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Your example also raises an important point about funding: ProPublica is a nonprofit. So, I’d wager, are most of the other outlets we’d classify as “doing a good job keeping stories alive.” And I’d think, if the whole follow-up-focused-outlet idea were to transition from “thought experiment” to just “experiment,” it, too, would have to live outside the marketplace — via foundation funding or patron funding or what have you. The ability to step back from the fray — to have the patience and courage and, frankly, luxury to tell stories that might not get tons of page views, but that sustain memory over time — is something that a purely market-based funding model likely wouldn’t afford.

    I’d love to be wrong about that; but I think ProPublica and their counterparts, in the great work they do keeping important stories alive, are actually the exception that proves the rule.

  • 66

    The whole system is set up to keep you in motion. Right or wrong that’s how the military functions. The leaker is now like the gladiator making his last stand against the lions. The lions are both moving out and moving in for the kill. That’s continuity. You might be better served taming the lions than getting them angry to keep staying alive.

  • Pingback: This Week in Review: Newsweek’s new owner, WikiLeaks and context, and Tumblr’s media trendiness » Nieman Journalism Lab

  • Pingback: Now that’s engagement: Cal Watch offers lead screenings » Nieman Journalism Lab