I’ve been surprised at the reaction on the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting listserv the past few days to Howard Owens’ post “Twelve things journalists can do to save journalism.” These are reporters and editors who signed up for an e-mail list to discuss topics such as statistics, SQL, Perl, GIS, social network analysis, etc. In other words, people you might guess would be generally forward-thinking about the state of our industry and the need for change.

Yet the reactions to Owens’ post have been full of negativity and, most strikingly, denial. Lots of whinging, but no ideas, creativity or alternative viewpoints that form anything resembling a coherent strategy for the survival of the news business. “More of the same while the suits work out the business model” doesn’t even come close to cutting it. Surviving the storm, as a public service ad here in hurricane-prone Florida puts it, is everyone’s responsibility.

(By the way, why is it that just about every dinojourno rant about those infernally shallow, non-journalistic blogs reads every bit as reasoned and well-researched as the latest screamer from Perez Hilton?)

Say what you will about Owens’ views, but the fact is he at least has a strategy, based on over a decade in the online news game, which he’s putting into play in his day job as director of digital publishing at GateHouse Media. You certainly don’t have to agree with him, but the NICAR-L haters haven’t offered much in the way of contrasting prescriptions for ensuring that they continue receiving paychecks and retirement payments.

One last thing that bugs me about the exchange on the listserv. A couple of people have dragged out that old favorite of print journalists hoping to continue ignoring their readers: “All they want is Paris and Britney.” Here’s an example:

Well, guess I’ll drop this investigative project I’m doing, because bloggers aren’t telling me it matters. Matt Waite shouldn’t have wasted his time with his GIS analysis of vanishing wetlands, because Britney’s custody battle gets 1000x the web hits. And so on.

Seriously, we need to put that straw man to rest. I’ll give a crisp Andrew Jackson to anyone whose local newspaper site generates anywhere close to the traffic for celebrity wire stories that breaking local news draws. Here’s a random snapshot from my employer’s site: The top local news feed on July 30, about a controversial deal to turn an oceanfront trailer park into a top-dollar housing development, tallied 852 percent more page views than the top national celebrity story from the AP, a Tom Snyder obit.

So, enough with this “all readers want is tittle-tattle” flapdoodle. Readers want a steady stream of local news from their local newspaper and local newspaper.com. Is it really so bad that we give our audience more of what they want online (More news, for Pete’s sake!) in exchange for audience growth that just might allow us to continue giving them the investigative projects we know they need?