This is spot-on, Dick. And I +1 what you’re saying about the independent creator class. We’ve got to continue to widen how we think about journalism and our partnerships in journalism. Not everybody wants “a job” in a newsroom. Doesn’t mean newsrooms can’t or shouldn’t partner with them. When I was executive editor of the LA Times we partnered with V. and their “Under the News Desk” brand. They grew our TikTok audience 12 fold in like six months. And V brought new ideas and energy to our thinking around social content. The lesson of now is: if someone is reaching a large audience, pay attention to that.
Great post thanks. The only area I can comment on with a smidgen of credibility is AI, an important area for journalists to cover as it develops. There is an enormous amount of creator content, more than a little quite interesting. There is the 'big' AI story which involves talking to famous people who proclaim. But there are tons of interesting 'small AI' stories, much of it from the lived experience of people trying to actually build stuff. In my limited experience, the NYTimes prefers the big names and sweeping pronouncements and is missing a lot of the story on the ground. The Times for example could have a guide to all of these sources that maybe uses AI (!!) to summarize interesting themes. In this way, the Times could complement its big story stuff with voices from the field. That would help readers understand AI both thematically and dynamically. Dick's call to take creator content seriously could vastly improve the public's understanding of this one important story.
Thank you, Dick, for writing this. It’s heartening to see such a clear, generous call for institutional newsrooms to take creator-model journalists seriously – and to move past the false binary of “real journalist” vs. “content creator.”
At Project C, we’ve been working with dozens of independent journalists who are building sustainable reporting ventures outside of traditional newsrooms. Many are reaching underserved audiences, innovating in distribution and earning trust in ways legacy models struggle to replicate. The opportunity here isn’t just to acknowledge this work, but to learn from it, support this growing part of our ecosystem and, as you wrote, collaborate.
I mostly want to echo Liz -- this is a really heartening post to read.
Lots of great insights and perspectives about how to build journalism projects of the future by looking at what's working among entrepreneurial independents and listening to why they're capturing so much audience attention.
Thanks for taking the time to think on it and write it up!
One of the reasons so many newspapers crashed and burned is because beloved, quirky, satirical, angry--and more--columnists were the first to be let go, even though readers liked them more than the news. Boring journalists and even more boring, sphincter-controlled editors believe readers read newspapers for the news, not as a place to go and enjoy an experience. Naturally, subscribers and paying readers have migrated by the millions to Substack, for instance.
As to your comments on editors, spot on. Older readers and young fans may recall an opinion piece or two by none other than Hunter S. Thompson in the New York Times. The words were insanely over-edited, wrung free of any personality until they read like the usual drivel by Rus Baker or David Brooks, forgive me.
Third, in these perilous wild times, the pearl-clutching and oh-my's! at the legacy press simply do not address the reality obvious to most readers, who have to pay Substack writers from Sy Hersh to Jeff Tiedrich to get their dose of what-the-fuck!
Luther Nichols, the legendary West Coast editor of Doubleday in more writerly times, once told me, "Writers can't spell, editors can't write, and publishers can do neither."
This is spot-on, Dick. And I +1 what you’re saying about the independent creator class. We’ve got to continue to widen how we think about journalism and our partnerships in journalism. Not everybody wants “a job” in a newsroom. Doesn’t mean newsrooms can’t or shouldn’t partner with them. When I was executive editor of the LA Times we partnered with V. and their “Under the News Desk” brand. They grew our TikTok audience 12 fold in like six months. And V brought new ideas and energy to our thinking around social content. The lesson of now is: if someone is reaching a large audience, pay attention to that.
Thanks so much for this, Kevin. Means a great deal coming from you, and important to hear if your own experience.
In my world of fundraising for journalism, there are early inklings that foundations are getting in on the creator game more seriously. To wit, RWJF and sports. https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2024/05/developing-a-narrative-change-infrastructure-through-sports.html?channelid=xgo&cid=1004117
Great post thanks. The only area I can comment on with a smidgen of credibility is AI, an important area for journalists to cover as it develops. There is an enormous amount of creator content, more than a little quite interesting. There is the 'big' AI story which involves talking to famous people who proclaim. But there are tons of interesting 'small AI' stories, much of it from the lived experience of people trying to actually build stuff. In my limited experience, the NYTimes prefers the big names and sweeping pronouncements and is missing a lot of the story on the ground. The Times for example could have a guide to all of these sources that maybe uses AI (!!) to summarize interesting themes. In this way, the Times could complement its big story stuff with voices from the field. That would help readers understand AI both thematically and dynamically. Dick's call to take creator content seriously could vastly improve the public's understanding of this one important story.
Thank you, Dick, for writing this. It’s heartening to see such a clear, generous call for institutional newsrooms to take creator-model journalists seriously – and to move past the false binary of “real journalist” vs. “content creator.”
At Project C, we’ve been working with dozens of independent journalists who are building sustainable reporting ventures outside of traditional newsrooms. Many are reaching underserved audiences, innovating in distribution and earning trust in ways legacy models struggle to replicate. The opportunity here isn’t just to acknowledge this work, but to learn from it, support this growing part of our ecosystem and, as you wrote, collaborate.
Appreciate you pushing this conversation forward.
I mostly want to echo Liz -- this is a really heartening post to read.
Lots of great insights and perspectives about how to build journalism projects of the future by looking at what's working among entrepreneurial independents and listening to why they're capturing so much audience attention.
Thanks for taking the time to think on it and write it up!
One of the reasons so many newspapers crashed and burned is because beloved, quirky, satirical, angry--and more--columnists were the first to be let go, even though readers liked them more than the news. Boring journalists and even more boring, sphincter-controlled editors believe readers read newspapers for the news, not as a place to go and enjoy an experience. Naturally, subscribers and paying readers have migrated by the millions to Substack, for instance.
As to your comments on editors, spot on. Older readers and young fans may recall an opinion piece or two by none other than Hunter S. Thompson in the New York Times. The words were insanely over-edited, wrung free of any personality until they read like the usual drivel by Rus Baker or David Brooks, forgive me.
Third, in these perilous wild times, the pearl-clutching and oh-my's! at the legacy press simply do not address the reality obvious to most readers, who have to pay Substack writers from Sy Hersh to Jeff Tiedrich to get their dose of what-the-fuck!
Luther Nichols, the legendary West Coast editor of Doubleday in more writerly times, once told me, "Writers can't spell, editors can't write, and publishers can do neither."