It's one of the biggest conundrums in the media industry, and one we regularly scratch our heads about in this network: what is the future of journalism? Where do we go when everyone wants access to great reporting, but no-one wants to pay for it? Murdoch's experiment with the paywall may or not hold the answer. If it doesn't, and if online content cannot be made to pay for itself through advertising (as Alan Rusbridger at The Guardian hopes it will) then the first type of journalism to be lost will be investigative reporting.
Over at God's Politics (the Sojourner's Blog), Duane Shank has been lamenting the possible demise of this vital method of holding governments and organisations to account. He cites the example of a recent Washington Post investigation which uncovered the prolific expansion of counter-terrorism bodies since 9/11.
"More than 20 people, headed by veteran investigative reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin, worked on the project for two years. According to The Post, these included cartography experts, database reporters, video journalists, researchers, interactive graphic designers, digital designers, graphic designers, and graphics editors. They did not say how much it cost.
This type of investigative journalism is what we are losing as newspapers in the U.S. are slowly dying. It is the lengthy, detailed research, interviews, putting the pieces together that cable talk shows and blogs that increasingly pass as journalism can never duplicate. In a news world dominated by the demands of the 24-hour news cycle, producing what is largely entertainment and rumor journalism is losing the capacity for this type of careful work"
Is it though? Doesn't the fact that the example used is so recent argue that some, at least, is still going on. In the UK I can think of the expenses scandal uncovered by the Telegraph as a recent example. What IS changing is an increased collaboration with 'citizen' journalists and the public through sites like WikiLeaks. Duane, though clearly feels pretty concerned about the problem:
"What does this mean for us? Finding out what our government is doing, often behind our backs, and with unlimited amounts of our money will become a thing of the past. Scandal and malfeasance will go undetected. And our democracy will be diminished because of it".
I am not in a position to say wether investigative reporting is indeed diminishing (input appreciated!) but I do think that keeping secrets is getting harder. The comments thread following the blog is interesting for the contrastingly positive tone of many of the posters- they actually see more potential for transparency in the digital sphere. What do you think?