Television executives have figured out that people watching their shows via TiVo-delay is a good thing.

Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer. According to Nielsen, 46 percent of viewers 18 to 49 years old for all four networks taken together are watching the commercials during playback, up slightly from last year. Why would people pass on the opportunity to skip through to the next chunk of program content?

The most basic reason, according to Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media, a media buying firm, is that the behavior that has underpinned television since its invention still persists to a larger degree than expected. “It’s still a passive activity,” he said. And those passive viewers are watching in numbers big enough to turn some hits (“House” on Fox) into even bigger moneymakers, some middling successes (“How I Met Your Mother” on CBS) into healthier profit centers, and some seemingly endangered shows (“Heroes” on NBC) into possible survivors.

Two years ago, in a seismic change from past practice, Nielsen started measuring television consumption by the so-called commercial-plus-three ratings, which measure viewing for the commercials in shows that are watched either live or played back on digital video recorders within three days. This replaced the use of program ratings.

At the time, network executives fiercely resisted the change, fearing that they would never get credit for recorded shows because viewers would skip through all the commercials. But the figures show otherwise. “It’s completely counterintuitive,” said Alan Wurtzel, the president of research for NBC. “But when the facts come in, there they are.”

Almost across the board, the gains for playback are growing. The best preseason estimate for the current season, said David F. Poltrack, the chief research officer for CBS, was about a 1 percent increase from playback over the live program for the networks combined. Instead, many are in the range of 7 to 12 percent, with some shows having increases of more than 20 percent when DVR ratings are added. The four networks together are averaging a 10 percent increase.

There are two major reasons for DVRing a program:  Time shifting and commercial skipping.  Almost all of us do the former whereas not all of us do the latter.  So it’s only logical that the addition of DVR viewers who don’t fast forward through commercials to the live viewers would be a good thing for the networks.

I’m a pretty aggressive commercial skipper.  For that matter, I’ll fast forward through boring segments of shows (notably, non-political segments of “Saturday Night Live” and the non-roundtable portion of “This Week”).  But even I’ll occasionally forget to grab the remote and accidentally sit through a commercial.   Beyond that, I’ll intentionally watch commercials that may be of interest:  promos for movies that look interesting, funny commercials that I haven’t seen, or products that I’m thinking of buying.

Moreover, with the DVR, I watch far more television than I otherwise would.   I record numerous shows that wouldn’t be appointment viewing “just in case” I have time to watch them.  I also record several shows that are on during hours when my schedule doesn’t allow me to watch television.  And, of course, skipping commercials for products I wasn’t going to buy anyway allows me to view more shows because it’s easier to find a 40-minute window than a 60-minute window.

Individual shows have gained substantially. “House,” second among all shows in its live program rating (to “Grey’s Anatomy” on ABC), became the top show in terms of commercials viewed within three days with a 5.68 rating (about 6.53 million), gaining almost 18 percent. NBC’s comedy “The Office” had one of the single biggest gains — 26 percent from its live program rating — to 3.92 (4.5 million) for its rating including playbacks. The supposedly struggling NBC drama “Heroes” jumped 22 percent, as did another apparently flagging drama, “Fringe” on Fox. And a new ABC drama, the appropriately named “Flash Forward,” looks even more like a hit than it did with its original rating because its rating increased 14 percent with playbacks.

Many serial shows like “Lost” and “Heroes” would be unwatchable as a live show because of annoying and complicated plot twists and an erratic schedule.  But the DVR allows me to get several episodes queued up and watch them in bunches.  (Of course, that doesn’t fit into the 3-day window for the ratings companies.)

One other obvious reason why some shows do better on DVR than live is that the networks often idiotically run their most popular shows against other networks’ most popular shows, forcing live viewers to chose.  DVR viewers can either watch one live and record the other or record both and watch when convenient.

Nell Scovell, one of a handful of women who has ever worked as a comedy writer for David Letterman — or any of the late night comic talk shows — contends that an atmosphere of sexual harassment routinely exists on those shows:

Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let’s address the pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no.

Here’s what I did: I walked away from my dream job. The show picked up my option after 13 weeks; then, about two months later, while looking for a nicer apartment, I realized I didn’t want to commit to a yearlong lease. I’d seen enough to know that I was not going to thrive professionally in that workplace. And although there were various reasons for that, sexual politics did play a major part.

As Rachel Sklar points out, Scovell isn’t some unsuccessful woman blaming her woes on her sex: “She created the TV series Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and has written for Coach, Murphy Brown, Monk, N.C.I.S., Charmed, The Critic, The Simpsons and Newhart. And Late Night with David Letterman.”   Indeed, as Scovell notes in her piece, she was the story editor for Newhart when she was hired to write for Dave.

Melissa McEwan, Don Surber, and Ed Driscoll all bring different perspectives on this but still agree this was sexual harassment.  So do I.

But here’s the thing:  I don’t know what you do about it.

Letterman controls these people’s careers, so for him to have sexual relations with them is problematic and opens him and his company up for lawsuits. Sexuality creates incredible tension and problems in a workplace.  Ideally, then, we would just treat each other as colleagues rather than as potential romantic partners.  But people like this spend an inordinate amount of time at work and attraction does happen. Supervisors and subordinates not only become sexually intimate but fall and love and build lives together. It happens all the time.

In larger offices, this is reasonably easy to fix.  People can move laterally to avoid senior-subordinate relationships.  But in a small team like a 14-person comedy show staff?

Scovell’s solution is to hire more women.  She reports that there are currently zero women working on any of the major shows (Letterman, Leno, and O’Brien — no mention of Colbert and Stewart).   But, as a practical matter, having zero women markedly reduces the chance of sexual harassment!  With more women on the staff — something that otherwise seems a no-brainer given the number of women in the audience — there’s more chance for relationships to form and resentments to foster.

So, there’s the law, human decency, and the way things ought to be.  But there’s also human nature and the power of romantic and/or sexual attraction.  These things often conflict.

Time for the Monday OTB Caption Contest^TM

(AP Photo/Ben Curtis)

Winners will be announced Thursday PM

Last Thursday Contest winners will be announced Tuesday PM

What you’ve missed the past week if you’re not reading Manzine:

Features:

• Mad About Mad Men (James Joyner) – “Mad Men” is the hottest show on TV, having somehow captured the zeitgeist with its meticulous portrayal of early 1960s Manhattan.

• Guide to Homebrewing Beer (Tim F) – Brewing your own beer is pretty easy. Here are answers to questions would-be homebrewers often ask.

• The Chrome Dome (Jon Stonger) – A masculine approach to baldness.

• Great Potatoes For Great Steaks (Matt Mehaffey) – Because you need a side dish worthy of your great steaks. And nothing goes with meat like potatoes.

Shorts:

• World Bartender Championships (James Joyner)

• North Korean Compensation? (Jon Stonger)

• Quote of the Day – Drinking Edition (James Joyner)

• Prostate Cancer: Get Checked (James Joyner)

• The Benefits of Starting a Side Business (Alex Knapp)

Harlan Ellison’s rant “Pay the Writer” is getting some favorable linkage, notably from Max Boot and Michael Totten.

He vows that “I don’t take a piss without getting paid.”  Which, I suppose, is good work if you can get it.

Ellison is an all-time great and he’s been getting paid to write — and been famous — since before I was born.  So, his, um, output is worth more than most. But the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do all kinds of writing without getting paid.   Most op-eds you see in the major papers are published free or for an insultingly nominal fee.   Most blogs don’t generate enough to pay for operating expenses.

Ditto TV talking heads.  Yes, show hosts get paid; some handsomely.  But the guests who appear seldom do.  It’s supply and demand: There are a bevy of attention whores out there who will, at a moment’s notice, drop whatever it is they’re doing and take three hours out of their day in order to get 7 minutes of air time on a cable news show no one is watching.

Good luck getting paid in that climate.

UPDATE:  Over at his other blog, Dave Schuler offers his thoughts on “The Perversity of the Publishing System” and draws commentary from Michael Reynolds of Sideways Mencken, a quite successful author of children’s books under various pseudonyms, notably Michael Grant.   Let’s just say that great literature and massive book royalties are not necessarily overlapping categories.

That’s true of the arts-pop culture nexus, generally.  There are some magnificent singers and actors who earn their living doing something else, practicing their crafts as hobbies or for their local church or community theaters.  And some mediocrities who have multiple mansions and a fleet of exotic automobilies.  As has oft been noted, life ain’t always fair.

Friday, noting that President Obama was costing the television networks millions by constantly demanding prime time for news conferences, I mused, “given the availability of a half dozen cable news channels, I’m not sure why the networks don’t just go with original programming.”   Someone must be reading because Fox will be running “Lie to Me” instead.

Now there’s an opportunity for some clever marketing!

“The Fox Broadcasting Company will not air the Presidential News Conference,” Fox said in a statement. “Fox’s sister networks, Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, will air the press conference in its entirety. Fox will be alerting viewers with an onscreen graphic at the top of the 8:00 PM (ET) hour that the press conference is available on Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network.”

That strikes me as quite reasonable.  As James Hibberd notes,

Fox carried the president’s two other post-inauguration news events, and even moved TV’s most popular show, American Idol, to make room for Obama’s most recent telecast. The network has rejected presidential requests for primetime coverage from previous administrations of both parties in the past.

Obama’s request falls inconveniently in the middle of sweeps, though his choice of time periods has improved. Aside from Fox, the other major broadcasters have low-rated programming in the hour, so the press conference shouldn’t prove too disruptive, and might even give 9 p.m. shows on NBC, ABC and CBS a better lead-in. Fox won 8 p.m. with Lie to Me last week, and the show might see a bump Wednesday since competitors will not air their usual entertainment programming.

According to one report, the nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs found that evening newscasts have covered Obama more than both Pres. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms — combined. The study also found the media’s coverage of Obama was generally positive.

This is a political speech, aimed at taking advantage of the silly “100 days” meme and spinning it to the administration’s best advantage.  There’s no reason the networks — or the public — have to go along.   Something like 90 percent of Americans have cable or satellite now, so they have a plethora of news channels available to them.  As noted, Fox has two channels which will air the event.  For the unfortunate few who have to rely on over-the-air reception, there’s always PBS.  Or the radio.

This was inevitable:

Singing sensation Susan Boyle — whose dowdy image contrasted so greatly with her angelic voice that she became an instant Internet celebrity — has gone in for a makeover.

Boyle, 47, had her graying, frizzy hair dyed chestnut brown and styled in what The Sun tabloid says was a 35-pound ($50) makeover. And instead of the old-fashioned dress she wore on the TV show “Britain’s Got Talent,” the Scottish singer was photographed wearing a stylish black leather jacket with what looked to be a Burberry scarf.

Asked if she would change her looks on CNN’s Larry King Live, Boyle replied “Why should I change?”

Because she looked dreadful and is now going to be continually seen by millions?

The problem, of course, is that her fame was largely sparked precisely because of how un-starlike she looked. People were prepared to laugh at her, presuming that she was one of the pathetic figures these shows trot out in the opening weeks of new seasons for comedic effect, only to be shocked at how amazing her voice was.

Then again, that surprise was a one-shot deal.

President Obama’s constant news conferences are costing the television networks big time, Lisa de Moraes reports for WaPo.

President Obama might take an additional $9 million to $10 million out of the purse of the broadcast TV industry when he stages another of his news conferences next week to talk about his efforts to bail out the banking and automotive industries. In fairness, he’ll probably talk about heath care, Iraq and Bo, as well.

Obama’s camp is asking for the 8 p.m. hour this coming Wednesday. That date, not coincidentally, marks his 100th day in office. He is expected to use the news conference to take control of the inevitable 100-days-in-office news-cycle blather — first-100-days navel-gazing being a time-honored journalistic tradition.

Sadly for broadcasters, April 29 — Wednesday — also falls in the May sweeps ratings derby, which started last night. In honor of the sweeps, networks had scheduled actual original episodes of scripted shows Wednesday at 8 — except NBC, which had planned to air a “Law & Order” rerun. Fox, on the other hand, had planned to air the freshman drama series “Lie to Me,” which has already been whacked so many times by Obama’s image-polishing machine that it’s starting to look personal.

In fairness, there’s a lot going on, most notably the economic crisis.  But he’s overdoing it a mite with these prime time appearances.   Frankly, given the availability of a half dozen cable news channels, I’m not sure why the networks don’t just go with original programming.

Timothy Sandefur is embarrassed:

So I was watching this insane video of Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie discussing the War on Terrorism with Mos Def. And it’s amusing to laugh at the utterly hapless ignorance of “Mr. Def,” as he is repeatedly called—until you stop and wonder. Why is the black community not outraged by this? Bill Maher hosts a talk show to discuss the threat of Islamic terrorism and the Middle East, and he invites two world-renowned white male intellectuals and Mos Def? If this show had been choreographed by the Ku Klux Klan it could not have been more infuriating. Did Maher not have the phone number of a black intellectual? Were Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Orlando Patterson, Julian Bond, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter all busy?

Here’s the video:

While I agree entirely that this is an absurd pairing, it’s most definitely not a racist one.  Sandefur has apparently never seen “Real Time with Bill Maher.”  The premise of the show, from its inception more than six years ago, has been to pair politicos and pop culture figures in discussion.  (Whether the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the latter are morons or that their opinions are equally valid, I could never determine.)

Here are the seven season openers.

February 21, 2003. Guests: Author Ann Coulter, actor Larry Miller, writer, radio host and professor Michael Eric Dyson, comedian Sarah Silverman, comedian Chris Rock.  Topics: The UN, Affirmative Action.

January 16, 2004. Guests: Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark, artist Moby, Rev. Al Sharpton, actor Ron Silver, Rep. Darrell Issa. Topics: American values, Iraq, MoveOn.org, environment.

February 18, 2005. Guests: Correspondent Lesley Stahl, actor Robin Williams, former H&HS Sec. Tommy Thompson, Sen. Joe Biden, and actor Don Cheadle. Topics: On protecting sources, Jeff Gannon, on Interrogating prisoners, Iraq elections, Darfur.

February 17, 2006. Guests: Sen. Russ Feingold, commentator Fred Barnes, actor Eddie Griffin, reporter Helen Thomas, Iraq advisor Dan Senor. Topics: Cheney shooting, on the Patriot Act, Bush, Mohammad cartoons.

February 16, 2007. Guests: Fmr Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, fmr Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, TV host Craig Ferguson; via satellite, fmr Sen. John Edwards and basketball player John Amaechi. Topics: Developments in North Korea, Iran, and Iraq; global warming; Mitt Romney and Mormonism; Al Franken Senate campaign.

January 11, 2008. Guests: Entrepreneur Mark Cuban, fmr Court TV anchor Catherine Crier, fmr Bush Press Secy Tony Snow, Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi (election correspondent); via satellite, humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Topics: New Hampshire primary, electronic voting machines, Iraq troop surge, subprime lending and prospects for economic recession.

February 20, 2009. Guests: Financial Times editor Chrystia Freeland, journalist Tina Brown, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA); via satellite, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), journalist Brigitte Gabriel The economy, President Obama’s first month in office.

See the Wikipedia episode guide if you fear the season openers are not representative.

The pairings are, in most if not all cases, patently absurd. They include plenty of famous white guys who would, on the face of things, seem to be woefully out of their elements and plenty of black guys who would seemingly mop of the floor with the competition.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Def was really good in this week’s “House.”

Justin Fox gets it just right on the current flap between Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and CNBC’s Jim Cramer:

Even with the best of intentions, you can’t be on the air live for 17 hours a day and only broadcast intelligent things. And CNBC’s intention is not to do good, but to get as many affluent people as possible to watch it for as long as possible. So despite the fact that it employs lots of smart people, and they’re not out to do evil, the bulk of what CNBC produces is worse-than-useless noise. Now the bulk of what the news media as whole (myself included) produce is probably noise, but it’s on cable TV news that mismatch between time on air and useful information imparted is most dramatic. Producing 17 hours of live TV a day takes flaws inherent in the way we do journalism here in the U.S. (for more on that, see Poniewozik’s take) and magnifies them 100-fold.

Cramer’s own trajectory makes this case pretty well. He was a newspaper journalist before he went on Wall Street, and in the 1990s he confined his market musings to paper (and then to pixels), and most of what he wrote was pretty smart. My introduction to him was his column in SmartMoney in the early 1990s, and I remember really liking it. He remains an engaging writer: Just check out his autobiographical New York magazine cover story from two years ago. But on CNBC he’s on air so much and is allowed such free rein that he ends up spouting a huge amount of nonsense. Too much even for Rick Santelli, whose silly housing rant a couple weeks ago is what sparked Stewart’s current obsession with CNBC: Santelli went on an anti-Cramer rant one day last year. I think the biggest weakness of TV star Cramer is that he’s unwilling to acknowledge that he’s become a loudmouth entertainer who shouldn’t be taken very seriously. If he had admitted such a thing to Stewart, the conversation would have been a lot less painful.

But the unavoidable truth here is that a large percentage of cable-TV news is really stupid. It can be useful and sometimes even smart when actual big news is happening—CNBC got almost every important bit of news first during the TARP drama in September and October. But when nothing big is going on the need to (a) fill airtime and (b) keep viewers watching leads to the production of hours and hours of mind-rotting junk.

The same is true to a lesser extent of print media and (goodness knows) blogs as well.   There’s exactly as many pages in the paper every weekday and not exactly the same amount of newsworthy material.  Newspapers can fill space with evergreens or by simply not chopping as much off the end of each story.  Bloggers can theoretically post less when “there’s nothing to write about,” but we often don’t.

But at least written media is edited.  Even bloggers, who famously have no editors, are are own editors.  While I sometimes write and publish things that I wouldn’t upon further reflection, at least the craft of writing causes some introspection.

Live television, by contrast, is stream of consciousness.  Good hosts are prepared by good staffs but that only takes you so far if you’re on the air for several hours straight.

Steven Donegal has achieved what I’m pretty sure is an OTB first: An InstaLink to a comment, for this entry in yesterday’s Obama as Jackie Robinson discussion.

There’s only one way to resolve this 3 am thing: reality TV. Set up a TV program where each candidate is called unexpectedly at 3am and tell them of some impending crisis in their campaign and see how they react. That would be much more revealing than any debate.

Says Glenn, “Why not? It seems like everything is turning into reality TV anyway.”

Indeed.  Why, even Pajamas Media is getting into the act.

A plurality of Americans want “government [to] require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary” and nearly a third believe even privately owned blogs should have that requirement, Rasmussen reports.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.

At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

This is a shocking finding in a society founded on a disdain for government control and a demand for free speech.  And he pro-censorship numbers are likely understated slightly, since this is a poll of likely voters, which skew wealthier and more educated than the public at large.

The Fairness Doctrine made made some sense when it started in 1947.  After all, broadcast was new and people had very limited choice in radio and, later, television stations.  There was a real danger that the political conversation could be stifled, or bent to the whims of one or two wealthy individuals, for any given local audience in that environment. Given that “the public owned the airwaves” and station licenses were a public trust, requiring something like “equal time” for opposition viewpoints was a reasonable safeguard.

Fast forward a few decades.  Most people have access to dozens, if not hundreds, of television channels, few of which are under the control of local ownership.  Radio is mostly an entertainment medium, with political talk relegated to NPR and the AM dial — unless you’re a subscriber to satellite, in which case the choices are legion.  Talk radio, in particular, is dominated by nationally syndicated programs.  There’s an endless supply of political sites on the Internet, political commentary magazines, and other venues for mass political expression.

What’s the justification, now, for government’s controlling speech?

Beyond that, surely “liberal” and “conservative” inadequately represent the spectrum of opinion.  Indeed, for true believers, Barack Obama isn’t liberal enough and John McCain isn’t a conservative at all.  Do we have to give equal time to the fringe?

Michael Arrington previews what purports to be a prototype of a new Google search experience, incorporating user commenting and voting such as we see on Digg and other social media sites:

The video above shows a user interface being bucket tested by Google to select (probably randomly determined) users. Earlier today we showed a screen shot of the interface and a video of the search history, recorded by Adrian Pike, the CTO of startup Tatango. This new video, however (also recorded by Pike), shows the full Google search experience with a very Digg-like interface. Users vote search results up or down – a down vote makes it dissapear with a “poof,” an up vote moves the result to the first page.

I’m not at all sure this is a good idea.  What we’ve seen repeatedly at Digg-type sites is that a handful of users — fewer than 100 early adopter power users — will band together and dominate the voting.  Indeed, as few as 10 users can totally skew the results if they know what they’re doing.  Surely, we don’t want the same thing to happen to search?

Google’s electronic algorithm is too subject to gaming and the splogs are showing up far too much in the results.   But it’s basically an excellent search engine that needs constant tweaking to combat these moves.  Moving in a totally different direction, especially one proven to be even more easily gamed, would be a major blunder.

Not our standard fare but a hard one to resist:

A man from Oakland County [Michigan] has been arrested and charged in an Internet sex sting.

Daniel Everett, 33, of Clarkston was talking online with a 14-year-old girl who he met in a chat room. The two had graphic sexual conversations and Everett propositioned the teen to meet him for sex. But that teen was actually an undercover agent from the Attorney General’s office.

Everett was arrested Tuesday afternoon in Novi where he and the teen were to meet. He was wearing a T-shirt with the words, “Worlds Greatest Dad” on the front, when he was taken into custody.

Everett has now been charged with one count of child sexually abusive activity, a 20-year felony, and one count of using the Internet to commit child sexually abusive activity, a 20-year felony.

Less amusing and not clear from the report:  Did the Oakland AG’s office hire a 14-year-old and subject her to sexual advances?  Or was this an adult pretending to be a 14-year-old?  In which case, where’s the crime?

Photo by Michigan Attorney General via AP  courtesy USA Today.  Story via Drew Curtis’ FARK.

Stilgherrian has attended one too many Future of Media conferences and he has a long tirade for Old Media journalists whining about bloggers and professional standards.

What’s tiring about this false dichotomy is that it compares the highest ideal of journalism with the lowest grade of personal blogging about what the cat did yesterday and — lo and behold! — they’re not the same. Gosh.

How much everyday journalism actually conforms to the high ideal? Not much. For every Walkley-nominated episode of Four Corners there’s a hundred tawdry yarns about miracle fat cures or shonky builders with a camera shoved in their face. For every investigative scoop there’s a thousand mundane little 5-paragraph yarns that merely quote what someone said at a press conference, and then quote their opponent. Or recycle a media release, putting the journo’s byline where the PR firm’s logo used to be. Or misappropriate statistics to beat up some shock-horror non-existent “crime wave”. Or either fawn or tut-tut over some “celebrity” and their antics — more often than not because that same celebrity is appearing in a TV show or movie that’s completely coincidentally owned by the journalist’s employer.

[...]

The shape of your craft and the form of your stories was determined by the technology used to deliver those stories. Newspapers, for instance, worked to their daily cycles, and stories had the length and structure they did, because of the physical and operational constraints of putting ink onto paper. Some bloke called McLuhan said something about this, ages back — but I wouldn’t know for sure, because I’m not a proper journalist. Still, it strikes me that the very industrial scale of printing a metropolitan daily or producing a 6pm TV bulletin also shapes the way you go about making your stories: all that mechanism between you the journalist and your audience.

[...]

There’s still a role for Real Journalism, of course, with your research and storytelling skills and, yes, with your Code of Ethics too. No-one’s saying there won’t be. And you know what? You too can use all these wonderful new tools to create wonderful new forms of Journalism — if only you’d stop whinging about how your world’s falling apart and actually learn to use them. A hint: You don’t have to wait for your grumpy old chain-smoking editor to show you, either, because he’s a dinosaur and will soon be dead.

I’ve left out most of the good bits of the rant — click the link for entertainment value — but that’s the essence of the argument itself.  And he’s right, of course.

The need for professional, full-time journalists isn’t going away.  But we no longer need them simply to spread easily-obtained information; there are just too many faster, less filtered ways of doing that nowadays.  Nor do we need them anymore as opinion shapers; there are simply too many outstanding pundits out there to read them all, so people can pick and choose based on their interests and tastes.

We do, however, need pros to do longer form journalism.  Sure, there are blogs and bloggers who do that (Josh Marshall and TPM are an obvious example) but they’re simply independent professional journalists. The beauty is that this is precisely the kind of work that most journalists worth their salt want to do.  The trick now is to persuade their editors, producers, and publishers that letting them do that is the future of their business.

Story via Duncan Riley. Cartoon via  Dana Blankenhorn.