Moralism and Nichepapers

By now everyone knows that I'm not a great fan of Umair Haque. To me, he is the tech industry's version of Thomas Friedman. However, I thought his "nichepaper manifesto" was an interesting look a the changing dynamics of the media. He's right that small-start up and scaled-down ventures are increasingly driving coverage and content, especially stuff that eschews the dominant 20th century journalism model of "he said, she said" objectivity. This is hardly an original observation, but it's reminiscent of the early days of the press, with bloggers substituting as pamphleteers and the new "nichepapers" mirroring the somewhat sensationalistic and partisan tone of the 19th century press. The problem, of course, is Haque's enthusiastic over-selling of nichepapers and niche forms of media.

These forms of media simply do not have the resources to attract the kind of comprehensive coverage of say, CNN or the Economist. The business model for nichepapers is also somewhat underdetermined as well, although larger agglomerators certainly derive profits from ads. Writers are usually not paid and staff pay (if ever offered) is minimal. While the news industry as a whole is likely to see dramatic reconstruction, it's likely that nichepapers and mainstream journalism are going to increasingly blend together in "hybrid" forms amidst crowdsourcing and localization. Some big establishment newspapers will dramatically pair back coverage and distribution and basically become lifestyle newsletters for elites (which many of them are to some extent regardless).

Haque, however, substitutes moralism for analysis when he blames newspapers' decline on their moral failings:

"Newspapers are bleeding profitability — but nichepapers are gaining it. Why? I outlined eight principles in the Manifesto, that nichepapers are utilizing to create goods and services that people value. ... Where was the fourth estate when our political, economic, and social institutions were being systematically dismantled? What has happened to our economy parallels what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe. Was the fourth estate asleep while this happened? Like other power brokers, it was negligent — and, perhaps worse, complicit. If newspapers had protected the public interest like they were meant to, they would be more profitable. Everyone would be better off today — including newspapers — if newspapers had chronicled this transfer of value. Yet, by failing to protect the public interest, they helped create the conditions for the transfer of value away from people who do stuff, to people who speculate on stuff."

I understand Haque's rage. I myself have a complicated relationship with media. I am addicted to it. I have 600+ RSS feeds, subscribe to two newspapers, and read (online) at least thirty many magazines and journals. And as a blogger I am dependent on media to create content for my blog through comment/analysis and linking. But at the same time I cannot help but be disgusted by the vapidity of much of today's media, it's refusal to confront and challenge, and it's mindless transmission of mistruths.
Haque would have us believe that the decline of the mainstream media is a kind of righteous punishment for their sins, and the rise of his "nichepapers" will correct these sins. But however attractive the notion may be, the world does not run on karma. For one, the media has always had a complicated relationship with power and private interests. There was no golden age of journalism when the reporter spoke truth to power. I think it's fair to point out that today's media is more timid than it used to be, but the relative independence of media is cyclical. Yes, Woodward and Bernstein couldn't have broke Watergate today. But it's likely that they also couldn't have done so in the turn of the century's industrial era either, with private political machines and millionaire industrialists twisting "yellow journalism" to their ends.
Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the media's decline is due to public distaste. Polls have consistently shown that the public has distrusted media for decades but still consumes it. Rather, the problem seems to be more an issue of new organizational forms and the inability of the establishment to adapt to it. I understand Haque's raging against the machine, but substituting moralism for analysis will not help us better understand the changing nature of today's media.
I do, however, view nichepapers as a positive trend, especially in driving political debate and investigative reporting that mainstream venues have long since shunned.