A pea of news in a mattress of words

Every minuscule development in politics is treated as a big, breaking event and is analyzed exhaustively. Analysis is substituting for reporting.”

Tell Us What You Think

Readers are invited to write us at yourvalley.net/letters or AzOpinions@iniusa.org to share your thoughts on journalists’ exhaustive, over-analyzing minuscule developments. Please limit your letter to 300 words or less, and include your name, city and contact number in your email.

We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines, which can be found at yourvalley.net/civility-checklist.

OPINION — Journalism is choking on the low-hanging fruit.  

Every day, hundreds of newsletters and podcasts flood inboxes. These are almost entirely concerned with political goings-on in Washington. 

This isn’t to say that journalism is alive and well. In fact, this is a symptom of journalism’s straitened times. Mostly, there is just a pea of news in a mattress of words. 

The web has made the delivery of journalism cheap and easy, but it hasn’t helped with the high cost of covering the news, of sending reporters to see what is happening in the courts, the state houses, and overseas, or in science and technology, which so affect modern life.  

It also hasn’t enabled news organizations to spend months on an investigation that may or may not pay off. Instead, every minuscule development in politics is treated as a big, breaking event and is analyzed exhaustively. 

Analysis is substituting for reporting. The actual reporting snippet is often attributed to a newspaper such as The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, or to a news service, say, Reuters. 

Analyzing nothing much doesn’t change it into something.  

Much of what is rushed out as news wouldn’t get past an old-fashioned editor like Jim Michaels of Forbes, who, I am told, in that magazine’s print heyday would chide reporters, saying, “You’re telling me things I already know.” 

The ease of distribution and recording has also led to blogs and attendant webinars sprouting across the news ecosystem. Much of it is in the form of analysis, more and more analysis of less and less. 

The big new entry in my inbox is magazines that were once monthly or weekly, but have joined the frenzy with daily newsletters. These include The Economist, The New Yorker, The Spectator, The Atlantic and even Vanity Fair. 

I subscribed because they were weekly or monthly, I didn’t want a daily gusher. 

There is also a plethora of digital-only publications. The best in my inbox is ProPublica, which manages original reporting.  

The big ones that are almost substitute newspapers but are heavy on political coverage include Politico (which is broader) and Semafor. A new entry, NOTUS, is staffed by former Washington Post reporters. So far, it is heavily political. I remember when people bought the Post for the Style section and its other goodies, not just its hometown industry of politics.  

A further indication of the news drought, despite the torrents of words, is how many of the new dailies are quoting what was said on television. Time was when no print outlet would deign to do that. It was expected that television would pick up from the newspapers, not the other way round. 

There was a reason for the old pecking order: Broadcasting requires people to say things in front of a camera or a microphone. By contrast, print’s best stories come from sources who are keen not to be identified, let alone go on television or radio. 

In today’s vengeful times, unidentified sources are essential, to be used sparingly, but nonetheless essential. The reader has to rely on the platform’s high standing and the integrity of the byline to judge its truthfulness. 

There is no doubt that the tumultuous politics that began when Donald Trump entered the arena have been good for cable news stations, which have morphed into political channels, shamelessly partisan. Politics has also been good for newsletters and blogs.  

Will that be true after the Trump era? The strictly conservative New York Sun reports traffic to MAGA websites is down dramatically. 

To escape the virtual political overload, I reach for the three heavyweights among newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and, though diminished, The Washington Post. 

What the bulk of the press, from weeklies to big-city papers to the new digital entrants, needs is a sound source of income so that they have the money to do the job, to weed out local scandal, corruption and abuse, and to develop entertaining writers. 

You get what you pay for, and in the news business, since it lost its advertising revenue to the likes of Google, you are getting political froth: opinions about the news, most days the same opinion with shadings of difference from many publishers.  

Yesterday, I counted 19 of these offerings in my inbox. I gave up on the breathlessness and read a book. 

Llewellyn King is the executive producer and host of “White House Chronicle” on PBS. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.