The New New Phrase In Journalism Is "Platform Agnostic"
I heard the phrase "platform agnostic" for the first time late last week when I had lunch with a a former-journalist friend and, the more I think about it, the more it may very well be the future.
"Platform agnostic" refers to the ability of a journalist to have her or his work appear in a number of places at once...and not to care as long she or he gets paid for their work. Instead of writing for the New York Times or being a reporter for Fox News, for example, they would work for themselves. Their reputation would be based on their personal popularity and perceived value rather than on the reputation and value of their employer.
In today's world of blogs and websites, this may not seem like much of a change, but it is actually a big deal. It means, for example, that instead of working for a newspaper or producing a piece for a network or local radio station, the reporter of the future in effect may work for themselves and have their reporting appear in multiple places and mediums.
This is already happening. For example, many op-ed writers for major newspapers are no longer on that paper's payroll because they were let go as a cost-saving measure. They now work elsewhere -- and not necessarily for another paper or media outlet -- but continue to have their work published. The difference is that they get paid per piece instead of with a salary and they are free to publish elsewhere.
Needless to say, this would be a huge power shift away from the newspaper or network to the individual reporter/commentator.
More soon.
It would seem that the major
It would seem that the major impact of this would be a big drop in investigative reporting. A big newspaper like the Globe can afford to let several reporters work full time for several months to develop a story like the one on priest abusing children.
Can independent reporters that have to earn a paycheck every day afford to do this type of deep reporting?
Platform agnostic has been around for a long time
but the term used is "syndicated". Krugman comes to mind . . . yes, he's NYT, but his pieces ultimately run on hundreds of "platforms" (papers).
Deep reporting has gone to the internet (themed blogs). Great blogs follow particular aspects of the financial markets (and the experts go in depth in a way that papers never did -- often these are not "professional" journalists, but experts in their respective fields), politics, economics (this blog), etc.
In fact, I'm now reading about 15 blogs a day, and several "online only" newspapers, and I'm finding them more compelling and timely than the 3 "dead tree" papers I receive . . they also allow for immediate interaction with the writers -- something one just can't get with the old-style media.
getting paid
"Can independent reporters that have to earn a paycheck every day afford to do this type of deep reporting?"
My guess is that they can, though I think the model will be more small groups of reporters with perhaps two or three, perhaps as many as a dozen, forming an operating group. This would let them pool resources for infrastructure management, publicity, advertising sales and so on.
Consider Talking Points Memo and Crooks and Liars. They do a fair bit of in depth reporting, the kind that much of the media has dropped in favor of mergers and acquisitions.
Then again, there is a temptation to idealize the golden days of the press, rather than remembering the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearts and the generally low quality of reporting at all but a handful of outfits.