David Lazarus talks to people …
By William M. Hartnett on Mar 23, 2007 in newspapers
… and that’s why he’s a professional, while bloggers are primarily “people whose work consists of commenting on the work of others.” In the sequel to his “Pay-to-play is one way to help save newspapers” column, Lazarus points out: “Dozens of bloggers weighed in on my earlier column, and not one — not one — did a lick of original reporting in challenging my ideas.”
That calling a roster of “experts” on the phone, asking them what they think about something, then summarizing their opinions in print next to your own is considered “original reporting” is, perhaps, part of our industry’s problem. It’s not exactly what I’d call precision journalism, anyway, and it certainly doesn’t pass for definitive reporting in the journalism world in which I roll.
Quite apart from the larger implications of transcription reporting, however, exactly what separates the opinions expressed by the subjects of Lazarus’ “original reporting” from the opinions of the well-informed industry observers and participants who criticized his ideas? And how is his original column, which consists solely of his opinion that newspapers should charge for content and his comments on the work of others, any different from commentary written by bloggers?
As Howard Owens has pointed out, “Newspaper subscribers have never paid for content. They have paid for delivery.” They certainly aren’t going to start paying for content now. If any newspaper is willing to embrace Lazarus’ ideas, however, Lucas Grindley will be more than happy to put it out of business.
