Twitter  Thought Catalog acknowledges that giving contributors the ability to publish and tweet offensive content is risky  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

The end of big (media): When news orgs move from brands to platforms for talent

“What if news organizations confronted the reality that nearly all media will be ‘social media’ a decade hence?…What if news organizations acknowledged this — or even got out in front of it, ahead of the curve this time — and organized themselves as platforms for talent?”
nicco-mele-the-end-of-bigEditor’s note: On April 23, Nicco Mele’s new book The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath will be released.

Nicco — a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, a political and digital strategist, and the Internet operations director for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential race — argues that digital technology empowers individuals over organizations and that the companies that succeed going forward will be those who embrace that trend.

(You can see Nicco discuss the issue with Clay Shirky here.)

Here, he — with Kennedy School colleague and Nieman Lab contributor John Wihbey — makes the argument for a new, networked journalism that serves as a platform for talent.

The data behind Pew’s State of the News Media 2013 are the latest terrifying signs of the decline of the news industry. With three of America’s most esteemed papers for sale — The Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times — it’s time for a reboot to the fundamental business model for news. News revenue remains overwhelmingly dependent upon advertising, but the radical connectivity of the Internet has greatly diminished both the scale of newspapers’ reach as well as the value of advertising. John Wanamaker famously observed, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.” It turns out it is not a matter of which half your advertising is successful; it’s a matter of which one percent is successful.

But same digital dynamics that have created a crisis also offer an emerging and still under-appreciated set of solutions. For all the talk about the importance of social media, it is striking that few news organizations have thought to leverage the people and personalities inside them in a bold, strategic way.

What if journalists became like your doctor, dentist, or teacher — people who provide a valuable service to you, and whose name, voice, and personality are more intimate? The question then becomes how to create a social presentation layer that wraps around news — preserving the integrity of the product but updating its interface to fit with human behavior in the digital age.

The rich, wonderful, but also deadly combination of aggregators, blogs, newly ingrained information-seeking habits, and social media streams has destroyed the idea of brand recognition or audience loyalty around a masthead or single news “entity” (a few exceptions notwithstanding). Without an identity, much journalistic content will increasingly be swept around the Internet in an anonymous blur of sharing and finding through networks, with little regard for the source or the labors taken to produce that news. Many legacy news outlets have, in the Internet world, become a bunch of increasingly empty, faceless brands invoking ancient words like “tribune” or “herald” or “gazette.” What are these weird archaic cults? the public wonders. What strange medieval guilds still work at them?

At the same time, technology radically empowers individuals. Institutions are rarely successful on social media; it is a profoundly intimate medium that is for individual persons, and as such opens up new opportunities for journalism.

Talent and new revenue possibilities

Future success requires deploying reporters and editors in ways commensurate with the radical shift in digital technology itself. That’s why the new potential owners of the Globe, Tribune, and Times might be well served to consider a wholly different way of thinking about their purpose and operations: re-design the newspaper to be a platform for talent across multiple media.

A key advantage of organizing around talent — reimagining the news organization as a platform for outstanding individuals — is that it opens new revenue opportunities. A principal problem of the news organization online is that the existing models are still too advertising centric, and advertising doesn’t pay the bills online. As Felix Salmon of Reuters points out, “By the time you’ve paid for your content and for your ad-sales infrastructure, the chances that you’ll have any money at all left over for your shareholders are slim indeed, and getting slimmer year by year.”

The future of news organizations is a lot of revenue sources — maybe as many as 30 or 40 — and none of them account for a substantial stake of the organization’s income. John Thornton, founder and chairman of the nonprofit Texas Tribune, uses the language “revenue promiscuity.” By combining the fundamental individual-oriented nature of the web with the advantages of a publishing platform, we can develop a range of new revenue streams. The grand retreat behind paywalls may work for a select few, but praying for a kind of collective Miracle at Dunkirk is not realistic — and such moves may result in miniaturizing outlets, making them isolated and increasingly irrelevant to broad public discourse.

On Election Day 2012, more than 20 percent of traffic visited Nate Silver’s blog. At the same time, his book had just been released. The Times had little role in Silver’s book. But imagine it had a big one; imagine the way it would open revenue possibilities, taking advantage of the giant platform the Times provided Silver. Publishing books, hosting events, and public speaking are just the beginning. Among the 30 or so contributors to Quarterly Co. are at least three regular writers for The New York Times. What is Quarterly Co., you ask? It is a subscription service that lets you “receive awesome things in the mail” curated by your favorite writers. Enjoy the work of Maud Newton, a regular contributor the New York Times magazine? For $25 every three months, she’ll send you a box of things she likes.

News organizations as platforms for talent

Decades ago, many newspapers had not yet fully adopted the convention of the byline — the journalist’s name at the top of the piece. Broadcast media, of course, focused their brands around the “talent” — news anchors and correspondents. Broadcast outlets made sure their signature voices and faces were a comfortable presence in citizens’ lives. (Talk radio, including NPR, capitalizes on these same dynamics.)

Newspapers and magazines walked tepidly in this direction, allowing pictures for columnists and the like. Consumers often associate the news brands with these columnists; they are the people many have woken up to, had coffee with, and yelled at over breakfast, lunch, or dinner. There is power in this idea.

But the reporters and editors mostly still remain faceless, locked behind an iron curtain of another age that was built to produce the veneer of objectivity. How many citizens can name the bylines of people they read? Vanishingly few. These journalists are like commodity producers on some outsourced, remote factory floor.

The social media era has brought about the beginnings of a new press ethic. Though there have been screw-ups, embarrassments, and lots of consternation about evolving newsroom norms, for the most part it’s been a net positive for the public to see journalists as human beings in the social sphere. Jay Rosen’s famous “view from nowhere” critique is still largely valid, but incrementally the digital age has started to change things, as more journalists move out from behind the curtain and become public figures in their own right.

Consider what it would mean to accelerate this trend, and to bring it fully in line with the logic of a Web 2.0 world in which social networks are paramount. There has been much talk about the need for journalists to establish a “personal brand” that transcends their outlet. Some news personalities now play a strong role on Twitter and Facebook, but they often get little institutional support for this, and such participation and engagement remain merely part of a narrow web traffic strategy.

But what if news outlets decided to flip their model, so that the editorial staff was not subservient to the brand, but the “brand” became a platform for talent? What if news organizations confronted the reality that nearly all media will be “social media” a decade hence?

How the logic of “small” might save the news

Andrew Sullivan’s decision to create his own, self-branded news organization caused ripples across media circles. Many have wondered if he’s an outlier, sui generis, and whether his model, even if successful, might not be replicable. What he may do, in any case, is give more journalists a permission slip to create a bolder role that is more in keeping with the web future.

Other outlets, like Boing Boing, are making money largely based on the brands of several smart, interesting personalities. Many of the “blogging networks” are built around aggregating traffic across different online personalities. One could name dozens of examples where a single blogger or news personality is driving substantial traffic. And at the local level, there are always excellent reporters who could easily become the face and driving force behind news organizations, if fully empowered to do so.

As Ken Doctor has written here at the Lab, we’re already likely to see a “new dance between top talent and media brands,” with new revenue and distribution possibilities of all kinds. “If brands are successful at assembling enough talent,” he notes, “they’ll succeed because they provide easy entry points for us consumers.”

The overriding goal must be audience loyalty, and with it, the willingness to pay for work. Talented people — their voices, personalities, tastes and ultimately news skills and judgment — are the filters that digital era consumers want, not archaic, anonymous news brand names. In March of 2008, Kevin Kelly famously put forth the theory of 1,000 true fans as a potential future for music. Find 1,000 dedicated enthusiasts willing to pay you $100 a year for your music, and then you don’t have to worry about selling albums. To some extent, Kickstarter is build around this idea. Josh Marshall effectively utilized this approach to build a real news organization, and it provides a model that has seen remarkably little experimentation and deserves more attention.

NPR may have a lot to teach other news orgs: Tune into any public radio station during pledge week and “trusted” reporters, hosts, and producers cross the traditional “church-state” editorial line and ask directly for money. Why are more journalists not doing the same — and creating more kinds of editorial products to sell — while cultivating a paying fan base?

With the decline of trust and loyalty in large institutions, it is increasingly hard to imagine people in the coming decades subscribing because of loyalty to an institutional Big Media entity. Yet it’s easy to imagine them wanting to fund several people whom they trust to bring them information they care about.

The coming tide of networked news

Sure, the research to date shows that the average news consumer is a creature of habit, circling back to the same two to four big websites to get their news. But this will not continue in perpetuity, given the rising importance of social media. “Elite” news consumers — the people who today already read The Economist, the Times, The Atlantic, and niche sites like this one — already organize their consumption this way, around key Twitter and RSS feeds, following lists of personalities they like or admire. The broader public will ultimately begin to shift in this direction.

Pew’s 2013 report illustrates the fact that news consumers are increasingly getting their news through social sources.


What if news organizations acknowledged this — or even got out in front of it, ahead of the curve this time — and organized themselves as platforms for talent? Pew’s data suggest that 15 percent of people now report getting most of their news through social media. The news business should proactively plan for a day when that number will be 95 percent.

This means that were you to buy the Los Angeles Times, you might reorient it as 50 to 100 blogs that all have a common institutional home but are driven by news talents who convene discrete audiences. They could be armed by their news institution with video, audio, data visualization, research resources, and support.

At the organizational level, this would mean undercutting the corporate models and news managers and flattening organizations; there would be very little “brass” and manager class left, as organizations become ultra lean — stripped down to the raw talent.

To many, this would be scary: The traditional configuration of editorial layers and safeguards would change. As Bob Garfield notes at the Guardian, most new revenue stream ideas carry with them the potential for compromising “editorial integrity.” But the answer here is not to eschew new revenue ideas but rather to find new ways of ensuring standards. Smart, ethical journalists can handle this. And it is worth acknowledging that in a networked world, the prevailing ethic is to post news quickly, update, and iterate as new facts arrive; and the community audience often does much of the fact-checking, which is then folded into updates.

True, at an organizational level, this is not a wholly novel approach. Many outlets are getting their “talent” out there increasingly, having them do more media to help promote company brands. And there are already collaborative teams across news organizations involving reporters, videographers, researchers, and data visualization specialists. One example of an outlet already going in the direction of the talent platform might be Forbes. And “newer” outlets like TechCrunch or Gawker furnish interesting models.

That said, the bigger question is how to preserve those who will do the lion’s share of accountability and public interest reporting in America; and this means thinking about the legacy media itself in a more disaggregated way, as a hive of individual talents.

The future problem: Retaining the 30,0000

At about the time the Berlin Wall fell, there were roughly 56,000 editorial jobs among American newsrooms. That number is now likely below 40,000, according to Pew, and one can imagine it falling further. Let’s say it might stabilize at some point to about half its historical high, around 30,000.

The first thing that should be stipulated is: If that number ever fell to zero, it would be an unmitigated disaster for American democracy. Review the finalists for the Pulitzer, Peabody, or Goldsmith prizes in any given year, and you’ll see the litany of ills — corruption, waste, abuse, crimes of all manner — that would not have been exposed were it not for reporters patiently carrying out document requests, making phone calls, and doing accountability journalism.

The civic, and monetary, value of all this is immense. To take just one concrete example: How much is it worth to have a couple Los Angeles Times reporters save taxpayers millions by exposing municipal corruption in Bell, Calif.? Having more individual journalists convey this value directly to their audience will, in the digital age, be much more powerful than having corporate brands publicize their own importance.

Digital news organizations empowered by radical connectivity have made up some of the ground lost by the legacy media, but the achievements of most great accountability journalism are a function of both skill and time. And though a new generation of journo-coders, hard-hitting bloggers and transparency organizations have abundant skills and do admirable work, few people have hundreds of hours a month to pursue leads.

The question then becomes how those important few — the 30,000 or so serving this essential public purpose in the future — can be cultivated, empowered, rewarded and ultimately retained over many years to perform this vital role. Implicitly, then, the question about “saving the news business” is not about the businesses, but about the individuals who constitute them.

How can we best frame each journalist as a public good with huge intrinsic market and civic value? The answer begins with making his or her identity, voice and importance clear in a social context.

At a larger level, this is an issue of how to preserve institutions with core public-interest values in the Internet age. Journalism stands as the great test case, with much riding on its outcome.

Nicco Mele is the author of The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath. He is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, and a consultant and strategist on digital technology for politics and business.

John Wihbey is editor of Journalist’s Resource at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy. He is also a lecturer in journalism at Boston University.

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.
  • Peg Achterman

    While there are those who argue that TV news is “not news” anymore — just like to point out that it has been a “talent platform” for years. Just look at Q ratings.

  • Reykjavik

    Talent is the news business is overestimated. Until recently, you reached the top by paying your dues at the bottom — an incremental succession of slightly larger outlets (unless you went to Harvard, in which case you were hired directly into The Times, The Post or Time Inc.). Talent definitely had something to do with it, but so did luck to a large degree. All reporters start out as recently graduated know-nothings in some small to midsized market anyhow — how can any news organization rightly claim there’s a high value-add with these folks?

    Now that the Internet has democratized information, news outlets are finding that great talent is everywhere — content creation is more or less fungible. The only advantage that large news organizations had was access, distribution and the lack of connection between content and revenue generation. Now, two of those three are gone, and remaining — access — is evaporating quickly. The economic premium that news organizations exacted for decades will be much slighter in the future. And this is a bad thing?

  • RobinGood

    What a fantastic article! Nicco and John, I am really short of words to express the enthusiasm that reading your great reporting piece has provided me with.

    I am enthusiastic because this is the first time I see clearly depicted, a full synthesis of what the future of news (and online independent publishers) may very likely look like.

    In support of your vision I can only say that I, nonetheless I am a minuscule social entity and independent web publisher, I have had myself to go this very transformation. Starting in 2008 I have radically changed my business model, from being totally advertising-centric to becoming almost completely built around Premium information products and services designed around a specific personality, just like you describe.

    Thanks again for pulling together this vision in a way that many others can understand.

  • ranjanxroy

    Forbes has not only embodied this ethos, but amazed at how well Lewis Dvorkin and team have actually executed on it. It’s amazing how well each contributor individually acts as a distribution node, effectively doing the content marketing for the larger organization for near nothing (they do, however, pay their contributors something in many cases).

    Not only has this not diluted the Forbes brand like many predicted, but I’d argue that it’s strengthened it. Even while working in finance during the mid-2000s, I viewed Forbes as a staid, old brand of the likes of a Barrons. Now, I associate them with even the young entrepreneurial types of my generation who are proudly writing for them and pushing their articles on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

    You can even see institutions like the WSJ trying to catch up with their Accelerators contributed blog. Perhaps in the end, like a few have said, a news organization will effectively be a CMS with a brand (and hopefully a bit of centralized editorial oversight).

  • Len Feldman

    Congratulations–you’ve just discovered how broadcast journalism has worked for the last 50 years. While he was the anchor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite probably had more influence with the American people than the top ten newspapers combined. Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Dan Rather were enormously popular in their time. The only reason that NBC has the most-watched nightly news program is Brian Williams. The morning news and entertainment programs live and die on how audiences perceive their hosts. Fox News and MSNBC are both built almost entirely on personalities rather than their newsgathering capabilities.

    I won’t even begin to go into the era of newspaper columnists, from Walter Winchell and Hedda Hopper to Jack Anderson. The point is, personalities with strong identities have been a part of journalism for most of the last century.

  • Darren Johnson

    I read so many of these articles — what will newspapers turn into?

    Let’s compare this to TV a bit, as we all understand TV.

    1. There are BROADCAST channels, which one can get with an antenna for free. They support themselves with ads. They also get money from other sources (rebroadcast rights from cable, the Dish, etc.).

    2. There are the COMMERCIAL CABLE channels, like TBS, AMC and scores of others, which support themselves via ads and licensing fees from cable, the Dish, etc. They are not available for free, per se, but as part of a package the consumer pays for. (Pay $100 for cable and TBS gets 50 cents, for example.)

    3. Then there are the PREMIUM CABLE channels, like HBO and Showtime, which only people who already have a service, such as cable or the Dish, could subscribe to for an added fee. There are no ads.

    Now, 1, 2 and 3 all put on programming. The programming on 1 seems the most mainstream, trying to reach large, raw numbers, and is the least critically acclaimed.

    No. 2 has a lot of content, most of which is junky reality TV, but the occasional big hit, such as “The Walking Dead,” that wins over fans and critics alike. Advertisers are looking to hit a niche demo usually on these channels; less Burger King, more University of Phoenix.

    In both 1 and 2, there are national ads and local ads, sold by the national company and then local entities.

    No. 3 has a lot of high quality programming and people are willing to pay $17/month or so for it. There are no real ads and no local affiliates.

    Perhaps newspapers can break down into similar categories.

    The New York Times would clearly be a No. 3, but most of the rest of the newspapers would be No. 1 or 2. Maybe there will be a national company that will open affiliates in each city so there will be a combination of national and local ads.

    So newspapers thinking of going to expensive pay walls (most like Option 3) really need to assess themselves.

    Is your paper really the equivalent of HBO or Showtime, with world-class sports, award-winning documentaries and movie-like shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Dexter?” Do you have the equivalent of a dozen channels of 24/7 content?

    If not, options 1 and 2 may be more realistic.

    No. 1 would include going completely free and hoping the raw numbers bring in the ads.

    No. 2 would be a soft pay wall, but you’d make less money on the ads and have to give a bit more effort to have a lot of content.

    Like the TV version of No. 2, perhaps 100 or so media entities should unite to form the equivalent of Cablevision — a person could pay one fee a month and get all of these web sites.

    Personally, this is all too complicated for me.

    I may go the PBS route… Go nonprofit and hope for grant money!

  • John Wihbey

    Thanks, Len. We say exactly that in paragraphs 10-11 (third section), but you certainly spell it out even more clearly in your note. The idea would be to get all journalists in a position to leverage this power, taking lessons from both the broadcast and print columnist precedents but also modifying it for the digital age.

  • John Wihbey

    Thanks for reading it, Robin, and for sharing your experiences here. Good luck!

  • mstockinger

    The legacy media fails, not just on the collapse of the revenue model, but on the more fundamental proposition of value. Not a few on-line properties have taken to integrating soft-porn, in a pathetic effort to keep readers engaged.

    There is virtually nothing I can read or see in the mainstream media that I couldn’t get from a press release. The Benghazi affair is a case in point. Only Fox News deigned to do any reportage on a truly unprecedented event–the U.S. government abandoning it’s personnel to their grisly fates.

    The legacy media effectively has no product to sell and the new media offers nothing but meaningless prattle designed to mirror their audience’s own attitudes and prejudices.

    I have been a relentless and passionate consumer of news for decades. Now I watch and listen to nothing, and my reading is confined to scanning headlines. Am I uninformed now? Hardly. Take for example the current furor over gun control legislation. The way Congress is comprises, means there will be no gun control legislation–that is the only news worth anything and it is in fact ‘old news’, which means all the tens of thousands of words devoted to what is going on now has absolutely no really news value.

    Real ‘news’ has value, often tremendous value, which is why nations spend billions on spies and spycraft. However, this kind of news will never have mass appeal.

  • Evan Plaice

    I’m no news/journalism buff but I’ve always viewed the advantage of the large news organizations to be access to information where the barrier of entry is either too high or simply inaccessible to the general populace.

    We need organizations that have access to the higher tiers of government to keep the checks and balances in place. We need organizations that can send people out to collect first person perspectives on topics that affect the greater whole.

    Instead, we now have a bunch of mindless aggregation mills that forward everything coming through Reuters and waste time on TV reading twitter feeds. The value comes from in-depth investigation. Unfortunately, 24-hour ‘fluff’ coverage and speculative political rhetoric has taken over.

    September 11th is a distant memory, the war is drawing down, crime is decreasing. Aside from a poor economy, the world is becoming a better place. I think I can confidently speak for the majority when I state that, we’ve had enough sensationalism.

    The last time I can remember the news actually reporting anything that had a positive and/or direct impact on my life is – never. ‘Tuning in’ does more harm than good these days so I choose not to.

    Maybe if the history channel talked about history, the learning channel had something to teach, and the news had facts to report I’d have reason to tune in again.

    Pitching up-to-the-minute coverage (read speculation) as a platform no longer holds any value because for every ‘breaking story’ there are 50 other media outlets pitching the same garbage altered just enough to pass the copyright infringement filters.

    The media outlets that have ‘real’ potential are those that push a healthy balance of ‘featured’ content mixed with a little but of current events filler in between. By ‘featured’ I mean content that has a shelf life measured in years as opposed to minutes, content where people can learn or at least take something away from.

    For the baby boomer generation that has been glued to the boob tube since the day the attack on Pearl Harbor was reported will continue to do so until the day they die – the fear and uncertainty is simply too ingrained into their day-to-day routines. For the younger generations, we’re tired of living every day on the edge of our seats feeding off of over-exaggerated drama and culture-specific political rhetoric preached as fact.

    The systemic downsizing of the news media is something we look forward to. Maybe it will help restore some sanity and balance. Maybe one day the industry will rediscover the ethical foundations that it was supposedly founded on. Maybe not and maybe the news media’s origin stories about the muckrakers and the fight against political corruption were just the result of another successful marketing campaign.

  • Alzaimer

    Excellent radiography, ( ) touch keys and neuralgic points of the subject.

  • davegehring

    Excellent piece!

    The web is a platform for asynchronous conversational engagement. So the audience expects to engage with the content, not just consume it like we do when reading a paper. This engagement requires that the content feel like a conversation, and conversations feel more real between people than with an abstract brand. But if the Brand makes the person I’m engaged with more famous or interesting, then even better.

    I totally agree with the vision you outline here for the structure of a news org in a digital landscape. This is probably the most clear description I’ve seen so far! good job!

  • KellyMarkk

    No doubt, introduction of internet has changed the way of advertisement as news organizations have moved from brands to platforms of talent and use of internet has greatly diminished the scale of newspapers’ reach and the value of advertisement. This helps in getting yourself updated in form of blogs and destroyed the idea of brand recognition. But, radically it empowers the individuals.

  • John Brian Shannon

    LOL! Great quip at the end.

    But what you portray, may indeed happen.

    In fact, I have been thinking along these lines for some time and agree that some exclusive information IS worth going through a paywall for.

    Most of it is not, however, which leaves a lot of room for competition in a newly forming-up media world.

    Personally, I am thrilled at all of this potential. And it was heartwarming to read this excellent post today. Now that is the kind of reading material that is worth paying for!

    The question is, how will we always know that? How will we know what is on the other side of the paywall? Will it be worth it, or not?

    There will have to be a rating system…

    Cheers, JBS

  • John Brian Shannon

    “All reporters start out as recently graduated know-nothings in some
    small to midsized market anyhow — how can any news organization rightly
    claim there’s a high value-add with these folks?”

    Just FYI. You started out as an infant, a relative know-nothing. How can any organization rightly claim there’s been a high value-add to you?

    Coming up through the journalistic ranks actually means something. Icons such as Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame and Walter Cronkite, did not end their careers having learned nothing at all, along the way… they learned, they added to their skills and broadened their knowledge.

    Just like you did! And everyone else, too.

    Cheers, JBS

  • John Brian Shannon

    And you said you were no news/journalism buff…

    Nice post.

  • John Brian Shannon

    To Nicco Mele and John Wihbey,

    Congratulations. This is a wonderfully written piece and paints a realistic look at where we are and were we are most likely headed.

    I agree with your general theme, that these are welcome developments in the worldwide media and will even say that this change is overdue.

    It is time for a more responsive and interactive journalism, one which reflects our interests instead of projecting onto us what our interests should be.

    Rather than fighting over the pie, how much pie, who gets which slice and when — I feel that the ‘pie’ is in the process of becoming much bigger than we could imagine.

    The potential audience is presently 7 billion. Traditional journalism is reaching a fraction of that.

    There is no longer any reason to fight over the pie, there is so much more than enough for everyone! If we can just appeal to them.

    Again, highest compliments. Finding this in my inbox, just today, was a gift!

    Cheers, JBS

  • Reykjavik

    The difference is that the infant me (or even toddler me) didn’t claim to my parents that I had a high value add other than my natural good looks.

    Quite frankly, the news industry isn’t the only one to do this bait and switch. Just look at the general uselessness of first and second year associates billing clients $300+/hr for being trained as lawyers, because law school certainly doesn’t do that. Or big consulting firms that drop of newbies by the busload on engagements when clients were sold on experts. Having been someone who’s been part of and run major media operations, the news media is being more than disingenuous when they claim their unique ability to produce impactful journalism. The fact is, the skills to produce 70%+ of what is done by the average newspaper, magazine or local TV station doesn’t require a heck of a lot of training for a good-writing liberal arts grad. But just like any industry, it’s always good to inflate your own self worth in the face of external threats.

  • Andrew Brown

    I agree with Nicco, Digital news organizations empowered by radical connectivity have made
    up some of the ground lost by the legacy media, but the achievements of
    most great accountability journalism are a function of both skill and
    time. Today to handle the increasing demand of growing business we need good telephone answering services like this company

  • Deepa Nora

    I am pretty interested in journalism. Can anyone tell me how it will contribute to young minds?