the death of the scoop

Jon Friedman of MarketWatch writes here about one of the (many) changes in journalism wrought by the internet age: the end of the scoop, or the short shelf life of the "great get".

He also has a prediction about the fourth value the digital bosses may soon use to measure the worth of individual news stories. Could be chilling: all celebs, all the time?

From his column:

In the old days -- way back in the late 20th century, before the Internet took hold -- a newspaper could celebrate a scoop for 24 hours. No more. Today, it lasts as long as it takes for an editor in another newsroom to press the "send" button, immediately matching the exclusive.

Then there is the business consideration. For many newsrooms, the process of getting a scoop may no longer be cost-effective. On the Web, a scoop may not be the most widely read piece on a site. That matters, as we move more toward a world of accountability. Often, media bosses determine an online story's success by how many clicks it attracted.

The Internet makes it possible for publishers and editors to measure a story's worth according to three criteria: most read, most emailed and most reader comments generated.

As if this new reality of digital publishing isn't unsettling enough for a reporter or a columnist to ponder, coming soon to a Web site near you: The powers-that-be will clamor to add a fourth variable. They'll be measuring precisely how much time readers/consumers are spending on each individual story.

on interviewing. and other stuff.

This is mainly (but not only) for the mag class:

Go here for a thoughtful look at the tricky ethics of the Q-and-A by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times. Make you uncomfortable?

Go here and here for some background info on Gary Smith, whose work we will be discussing this week. The first is a piece by Marketwatch's Jon Friedman, who writes that smith is the journalist he would most like to meet. The second is a Q-and-A with Smith posted on Mediabistro. You can also read more about him via a search on jlinx.

Go here for a link to a compelling obit for Studs Terkel, who died this past fall, and who is the master of the oral history. Go here for a sample oral history (you can find others, from several of his other books, thanks to amazon online reader) from "American Dreams: Lost and Found".

If you need a refresher on John Sawatsky's interviewing techniques, go here.

And finally, to continue the riff on Cecile's micro-discussion from Friday: where does a journalist draw the line when it comes to either rescuing a source or observing illegal activity? When do you step in -- or do you? This question could certainly apply to Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's "Trina and Trina", yeah? Comments? bk

Running against the press, redux

Ever since the RNC closed up shop on Thursday, one of the prime players in the inchoate campaign continues to be the "elite media". Check these links, and let me know what you think. bk

Jack Shafer writes about the way Sarah Palin will run against the press.

Howard Kurtz writes that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are out as news anchors for live political events at MSNBC because of their lack of neutrality.

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman interviews CNN's Campbell Brown on the aftermath of her questioning of Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain's campaign, about Palin's qualifications shorty after McCain chose her to be his running mate.

Finally, in a public editor column in the New York Times, Clark Hoyt defends and explains much of the media vetting of Sarah Palin. He writes:

"The drip-drip-drip of these stories seems like partisanship to Palin’s partisans. But they fill out the picture of who she is, and they represent a free press doing its job, investigating a candidate who might one day be the leader of the Free World."