New Media Moguls: Trust and Twitter Can Save Journalism

"Trust is the new black," declared Craig Newmark at a new media summit on Wednesday, predicting that more reliable, fact-checked journalism will excel in the new media environment.

As the founder of Craigslist, of course, Newmark is often blamed for sinking American newspapers by decimating their classified ads – a charge he dismissed as an "urban legend" – but he says he is very concerned about the state of journalism. "We need tough-minded journalism to survive and do well as a democracy," he said, speaking on a panel of Internet entrepreneurs and journalists at NYU's Journalism School, one of the more high profile events at "Internet Week" in Manhattan.

Nick Denton, the Internet mogul behind Gawker and a raft of profitable blog sites, was more bearish on the prospects for traditional newspaper journalism. While it would be "tempting" to hire laid off journalists to blog, he said, "a lot of those people don't adjust well to working online." Instead, Denton expects that Internet niche media will continue to flourish, as the value of targeted, original reporting rises.

Turning to the ultimate niche "media," the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray credited Twitter as his key news source. "As a news consumer," he said, Twitter is a "much more satisfying way of filtering news" than aggregation sites like Huffington Post or the Drudge Report. (Murray also relayed his employer's frustration with the ultimate aggregator, Google, for shortchanging media content providers, even saying that "maybe" the Journal would sue Google, in response to a question.)

One of the brains behind Twitter was on hand to hear about the site's media footprint, which turned out to be a surprise. Co-Founder Jack Dorsey volunteered that he had not expected the site would play a big role in journalism. Twitter has swiftly emerged as a reporting and promotion tool, from providing crowdsourced reporting to virally spreading articles. (For a fascinating account of how citizens shared real-time information on last year's Mumbai terror attacks, check out this Times article by Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter.) Dorsey said those trends, just like "reply" and "search" features on the site, simply bubbled up from the user community. And Denton made Twitter sound like a competitive edge, noting that smart young journalists on his staff, like Gabriel Snyder, have swapped RSS feeds for Twitter to see stories and trends moving in real time.

Finally, Murray argued that social sites like Twitter have not only shifted reporting and promotion, but upended how journalists understand their relationship with their readers. "Reporters who are good at this understand that they have to cultivate" their own audience, he said, which is actually the "biggest change in journalism."

Comments (21)

1. MELBER: ...Craig Newmark...predicting that more reliable, fact-checked journalism will excel in the new media environment.

   ....Newmark is often blamed for sinking American newspapers by decimating their classified ads...but he says he is very concerned about the state of journalism. "We need tough-minded journalism to survive and do well as a democracy,"...

   Nick Denton....was more bearish on the prospects for traditional newspaper journalism. While it would be "tempting" to hire laid off journalists to blog, he said, "a lot of those people don't adjust well to working online."

   Ari, you may want to reconsider part of your title, "Can Save Journalism"; unless your intent is purely SPIN....like the spin you folks love: Gubbers "Save" Chrysler/GM....LOL!!

   Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 3:24pm

2. >>>"Reporters who are good at this understand that they have to cultivate" their own audience, he said, which is actually the "biggest change in journalism." <<<

   Bingo!

   Even so-called "aggregators" like the Huffington Post have "followers" of specific journalists. They just don't organize their website around followers like Twitter.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/03/2009 @ 3:28pm

3. I consider this all unsustainable, the interest level, the substance or lack thereof, and the ability to digest all of this information. People want to talk with you as a friend would now but out of their mouth comes an exploding galaxy of mixed emotions and it's best for me to stick with hard hitting critical theory, to somehow keep my philosophical mind in tact, but then again, I did end up seeing what Twitter was so there was a draw but in some cases the lack of a third ego and self-awareness of the writer is preventing me from learning anything. Therefore I have wasted valuable time that I could be using to finding moral/religious truths about our society or Europe as my only interests. I care nothing for popular culture and feel thankful for not knowing what people are talking about because I don't care, unless it's deep.

   Posted by baggins25 at 06/03/2009 @ 5:05pm

4. People will always seek out accurate information. We are still in a transition period with regards to online journalism. Eventually, the cream will rise to the top and important, fact-checked, accurate stories will survive. What form the new, serious journalism will take is yet to be determined, but it will happen.

   For one, I still see local print journalism surviving and world, national, and political reporting going digital and remaining financially competitive. The only question is- what form will this take?

   Posted by erazma at 06/03/2009 @ 8:11pm

5. Journalism limited to 140 characters is stupid journalism. Next.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:20pm

6. Although, blog responses limited to 140 characters might increase the intelligent commentary.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:21pm

7. Ari, take a week and offer up twitter sized blog posts. Let's see the future of journalism.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:23pm

8. 140 characters is the Happy Meal of blogland. But, where's my toy?

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:26pm

9. Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:26pm

   SR, gotta remember that Ari Melber is a technophile and gets a little excited over the "Next Big Thing" on the Internet.

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 07:44am

10. "...a lot of those people don't adjust well to working online." So says genius Nick Denton.

    This is one of the great canards in the publishing business today, perpetuated by people like Denton and others in their 20s and 30s to make themselves feel smarter than people in their 40s and 50s, and to justify their hiring of low-cost kids and interns to produce their "journalism."

    If a reporter can write and file a story, it doesn't matter whether that story gets published on paper or on the Web. This idea that there's some special talent involved in posting things online is hilarious. What's this adjustment Denton speaks of? I've written for print and online, and other than deadlines or length of story, I can't see what difference the publishing medium makes. Ink, pixels.... doesn't matter. If you tell a good reporter you want 140 characters posted by 2 pm, that's what you'll get. How hard is it to type text into that little Twitter box?

    When one of Denton's gossip sites breaks a story of national importance, when Web sites are no longer riding on the backs of print newspapers and magazines, then this guy's opinion might be worth something.

    Btw, did anyone ask Denton about all the writers he has laid off?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:47am

11. Citizen54, writing a blog post vs a news article is like the difference between writing for TV and radio. Medium matters.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:18am

12. @Mask - time to move on to the next "big" thing. Or show us how a real twit tweets. I'm doing my part.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:21am

13. @ Citizen54 - The esoteric values of the business are a turn off for me. It's like watching wit be played out for a circle of community that sits in praise of one another. The reaching out to young people becoming interested in politics is being hindered by the insistence that kings, presidents, and business owners have valued insight into our society and the gods that walk among us or the actual people that sit as prophets are certainly turned over in the fire and sand of this narcisstic world of media. The content of reporting and information is about to make all heads spin for the lack of adjustment to the "real" feelings associated with stories, such as crime, terror and war. The pendulum between entertainment and valued news items is blending into a Babylonian secret worth escaping.

    Posted by baggins25 at 06/04/2009 @ 12:03pm

14. Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:21am

    Per "The Nation" poll...I'm betting on Tweeter being the next

    "Betamax".

    Something else comes along and beats it. Just a hunch.

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:06pm

15. Sorry..."Twitter"...or whatever you wacky kids are into today, what with your Hula-Hoops and fax machines!

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:07pm

16. @Mask - Facebook, et al are already moving to eat Twitter's lunch. News at 11. Social nets are here to stay. The question is stickiness.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 12:15pm

17. Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 12:15pm

    Didn't say they'd disappear. Just not so technophilic as Ari Melber on their "Revolutionary" aspects.

    Lot of variables. I remember when folks said VCRs would eliminate theatre movie-going. Dropped some, but not as much as it did when TV was introduced.

    We've got "web cams" and "instant audio" on computers with T-1 or cable modem....but still no "picture phones" or atleast not rampant use of it as such.

    And where's my DAMN MOON BASE AND SPACE HOTEL that Stanley Kubrick promised me!!!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:27pm

18. Certainly the internet has had an effect on journalism/newspapers: turns out people prefer to get their lies for free.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/05/2009 @ 06:43am

19. Here's an idea to save journalism: objectivity.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/05/2009 @ 07:18am

20. @abell12ct - Quite the contrary. Objectivity is what is killing newspapers. Newspapers used to be about presenting a point of view. But, when a handful of companies own all the newspapers, you have to pretend you are "objective" to explain the bland sameness.

    There is a reason why Fox news and right-wing radio have an audience. Opinions are inexpensive and a market differentiator. The main problem we have is that too few have a meaningful share of voice for any given media market.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 07:50am

21. Posted by abell12ct at 06/05/2009 @ 07:18am

    Do you consideer Fox News to be "objective"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:48am