Let's reinvent journalism

There was another television casualty on Friday night: it was the last episode of NOW. I’m lukewarm on that program, mainly because of one of the hosts, whose sureness of voice and vision grates on my last nerve. But, the show does tackle some topics that the rest of the news industry ignores, confronting officials with cameras and microphones, officials who, on more than one occasion, have run for cover. The program is, or was, a half hour of what I consider investigative journalism, and to me that’s a very worthwhile thing.

Unfortunately, the CEO of PBS does not agree with me. Here’s what she had to say when she announced, sort of, the demise of NOW in a press release titled “Digital Media Platform to Support Innovation”:

Journalism doesn’t need simply a rescue: it needs a reinvention … Forty percent of Americans are participating in the creation of news by posting stories to Facebook, highlighting stories on Twitter and debating the issues of the day through dueling YouTube videos. News has become a social experience and journalism must consider those implications … The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) today announced funding for a major journalism initiative that will increase original local reporting capacity in seven regions around the country, and a planning project to develop an open information architecture to harness the collective power of the public media network.

That’s the primest cut of bullshit I’ve seen dumped on the platter in quite a while. Personally, I am so looking forward to the day when I simply surrender and no longer want to hurl heavy objects through large windows – my own, by the way – when I hear vacuous people regurgitating social media hype words to propel their agenda of mediocrity. Don’t the terms ‘reinvent’ and ‘innovative’ cancel one another? What exactly is ‘information architecture’? And YouTube and Twitter are part of reinventing journalism? Who raised these people? And when are they going to go away? Soon, I hope. Speaking of architecture, the shoddy construction of the release is only the second most offensive thing about it to me: the most offensive part is its familiarity. Clearly, it’s the handiwork of the marketing team. It’s the oldest trick in the PR playbook: ‘announce’ something, usually a discontinuation or cancellation (of warranties, for example) by burying it beneath a bunch of nonsense about something new, which is inevitably in response to some sort of new market demand, some sort of new reality, something so riveting that it inspires them straight into their laboratories for some good old-fashioned reinvention. Bless them.

Which brings us, of course, to the empty air time left behind by NOW and Bill Moyers. PBS is rolling out a new show called Need to Know. The host of NOW, in a wonderfully pissy way, I thought, wrote on the show’s Web site simply “I’ll be watching.” I will as well, and I’ll wait to use the show as my personal piñata until I’ve seen it. In Portland, however, this show won’t come on until 10. At 9 – Bill Moyers’ slot – we will all get to watch Lark Rise to Candleford, a series based on novels set in 19th century Oxfordshire. I am not a member of the local PBS affiliate, OPB, but if I were, I’d cancel the membership for that reason alone.