The decision of a Pasadena, CA publisher of a hyper-local website to have the local city council meetings covered by a pair of journalists in India (meetings are webcast) has caused a stir in the mediasphere.
Mark Potts, who generally sees no problem with outsourcing some newspaper publishing activities, is among those who don’t like this at all:
This is ridiculous, and not just because every locally televised city council meeting I’ve ever seen is a hard-to-follow broadcasting travesty. As any journalist knows, there’s just no substitute for firsthand experience, actually being in the room, sensing the tenor of the audience and, most importantly, being able to buttonhole players in the story for interviews. It makes no sense. Would anybody even think of covering India from Pasadena? I think not. It won’t work in the other direction, either.
It’s pretty easy to get outraged at the idea. I don’t think much of it, either. But a couple of commentators have dug a little deeper.
Doug Fisher (who doesn’t like the idea):
But on a more abstract level, I don’t totally condemn the concept. We have too many high-value journalists doing to much scut work. If that kind of mindless transcription stuff (and that includes the standard mindless meeting story I read too often) can be outsourced, good. But only if that they frees up resources for local reporters to actually dig behind the scenes. The overall result might be fewer reporters, but if the ones that remain are used to the best of their training and abilities, then there might be some benefit.
Can’t disagree with that at all. The news that comes out of city hall is somewhat essential (although, I would argue, not as essential as a lot of newspapers consider it to be), and the easiest way to get it is to lock a reporter into the room for two, three, four or even five hours a week. The ratio of cost-to-benefit of meeting coverage may be high when it comes to newspaper-filling copy, but I’m not sure it’s as high when you consider quality and depth of coverage of the actual stories (as opposed to the debates.)
Another blogger who can’t totally condemn this is Andrew Grant-Adamson, who writes:
I agree with Potts. The people who report on a community should be part of that community, sharing its culture and values.But another side of me says I have come across many good Indian journalists who could just pull this off. Shudder!
This isn’t going to be last bit of experimentation with ways of covering community that we’re going to see. Outsourcing editorial isn’t new, of course, although it’s never been called that. Newspapers have always used stringers and freelancers for aspects of community coverage and they are increasingly giving over their own coverage of provincial/state and national politics to wire services or shared freelancers and columnists. The wired, wired world we live in is expanding the potential for experimentation.
But what makes this version of that typical practice such a wobbly idea is the distance/separation involved, and the close association between city council and covering community.
Note: Alan Mutter has a great overview of outsourcing and newspaper economics.
TAGS: NEWSPAPERS, REPORTING, OUTSOURCING, JOURNALISM
