voiceofsandiego.org: Editorials... Feeling Good About the Future of Journalism

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 | Lately, it seems that not a week goes by when local news media professionals aren't brought together in some type of forum to discuss the future of journalism.

The forums -- whether on a local university campus or on public television -- are an outgrowth of a national conversation.

As they watch the circulations of newspapers decline, many people have rationally begun to worry about the future of the news media. Even those who are sometimes frustrated with journalists recognize the importance of having a vibrant and dynamic press.

And so, many of these discussions about the future of the industry are burdened with profound worry.

But there's something else happening, too. Veteran journalists and their financial backers from Baltimore, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Corpus Christi, Texas have all recently contacted voiceofsandiego.org asking about what we've done here.

Why call us? They are all considering starting their own version of what we've been doing. For two years, we've been pioneering a new media model and providing in-depth news coverage and fact-based commentary to a region with too few voices. There was a stigma about the credibility of Internet-based journalism. But we've held to traditional ethics and standards of journalism but in a new form.

We've had successes -- and the people just starting out want to learn about them. We've made mistakes -- and they want to learn from those as well.

A remarkable transformation in the delivery of local news is taking place. voiceofsandiego.org has provided a model for how to start an online daily news source that focuses on local news and commentary. It's a model that's beginning to gain the attention of the nation.

On April 12, the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Foundation announced that it had given voiceofsandiego.org's Andrew Donohue one of journalism's most prestigious awards for investigative journalism.

The New York Times called us "feisty." And in December, Governing magazine credited voiceofsandiego.org with having "resuscitated not only news about government but also San Diego's public conversation."

Yes, there has been much natural consternation about the fate of the press in this country.

But many of the biggest worriers have gotten one thing seriously wrong: They have assumed that a drop in the circulation numbers for some newspapers was indicative of the public's lack of interest in the stories that print newspapers have long felt obligated to write.

There are many questions worrying citizens: Does falling circulation at the Los Angeles Times mean that people are becoming less interested in investigative news? Did falling readership of the print edition of the The San Diego Union-Tribune mean that local in-depth news was no longer something people wanted to read?

The answer to both of these is a resounding "No!" While there is ample evidence of a decline in newspaper readership, there is no evidence that people are consuming less news.

In fact, there is ample proof that Americans have merely found more efficient ways to get the news they're interested in.

In the new media world, local newspapers still try to include national and international news in their presentations. However, if you want to read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance, you can easily get on a computer and find news stories published at the source in Israeli or Arab media.

Likewise, if you want to read about the Baltimore Orioles, instead of looking for the one or two lines the U-T might write about the team every day, you can log onto the Baltimore Sun, as if you were there.

There are fewer and fewer people subscribing to the U-T and other local papers but how many of the local daily newspaper's readers subscribed simply to get what they couldn't get elsewhere, like national, international and entertainment news and tidbits on their hometown team? And as the Internet started to give them opportunities to find better coverage of the issues they were interested in, why wouldn't they have dropped the paper?

Similarly, a cultural change has taken place. Now that the newspaper is no longer the central distributor of all the written news a San Diegan can get, it has similarly lost its place as a fixture in the new generation's household.

People are reading news, but fewer and fewer of them are reading newspapers.

Nationally, news websites of all kinds have popped up.

But for those concerned about local news in this country's largest cities, there is a dearth of options. Consolidation gobbled up the old competitive newspaper business in recent decades, leaving most cities with only one choice. The local newspapers have websites but they're still trying to decide whether they cover the world or the city they call home. And even today, 70 percent of a newspaper's costs are related to production and distribution, according to a recent PBS documentary.

It was from this set of realities that voiceofsandiego.org sprung. Several months ago, we celebrated our second anniversary. Since we first put up our site in February 2005, more than 640 San Diegans have given donations and become members of voiceofsandiego.org.

Our dedicated young staff observed the start of our third year as quietly as old bay-front fishermen. It was an anniversary that skeptics had gambled we would never reach.

But we have brought San Diegans an independent online daily unburdened by thuds of heavy paper and smeary ink -- one that can be updated every hour.

As we continue to handle the attention from people across the nation who are wondering how to solve the same problem with which we wrestle, we have not forgotten what our mission is: To provide San Diegans with in-depth news, fact-based commentary and continuous updates throughout the day of the narratives we introduce every time we publish.

This is still a work in progress. We started without committing ourselves to become something specific. As we've learned more about the power of the Internet -- as we've become more technologically adept -- we've innovated new features as rapidly as we could.

With your continuing support, feedback and participation, we'll continue to try to turn this into an immeasurably valuable voice in the community.

voiceofsandiego.org

I generally agree with you. I specifically disagree that you are somehow above pushing your own agenda--you don't say it but you imply it--the difference between your agenda(s) and the mainstream UT is that they usually are worried about their bottom line. You perhaps are worried about offending your large financial patron(s)? In any event, I welcome your arrival and only hope you will one day notice that a significant portion of our region resides "south of 8" and that we have million-dollar homes, paved streets, and in-door plumbing down here. Not everything cosmopolitan is in La Jolla or "The Ranch". We also speak lots of different languages--just like the rest of the world.

Posted by South of 8 | reply to this comment
May 1, 2007 10:30 am

Keep up the good work. Kelly Bennett spoke with my classes a few months ago, and she shared with us your approaches - not being beholden to advertisers, etc. Stay independent. You are truly the future of journalism, and papers like the UT are dinosaurs.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
May 1, 2007 10:35 am

I'm tried of your agenda-driven reporting, with its obsessive focus on City government. I appreciate that you want to be a watchdog (while chastising the U-T for advertising their journalism as such), but there's more going on in San Diego than local government and real estate! Why not focus on the mess going on at the San Diego Unified School District, or the interesting things taking place on the campuses of local universities? How about more culture?

Posted by S&T | reply to this comment
May 1, 2007 11:27 am

There's plenty of voices South of 8 and up the 15 corridor, and north of 52, that need to be amplified. The only "voices" we seem to hear are the stereotypical downtown and politico elite (some who are voice's supporters). Diversify your coverage so that readers get to hear new things that have an impact in their communities. While there are some newspapers and media outlets in town who are "beholden to advertisers" not all of them are. And they make that painfully clear. However, we all know that advertising revenue helps newspapers and online news sources increase resources to help expand coverage. I don't see too much advertising and sponsorships on your site, so I guess we won't see an expansion in coverage? Maybe implying through public speaking engagements and commentaries that advertisers are a bad influence is detrimental to voice's fundraising efforts?

Posted by South of 8, north of 52 and I- | reply to this comment
May 1, 2007 9:17 pm

National Enquire is all this is

Posted by Please | reply to this comment
May 1, 2007 9:42 pm

The Voice may have been "feisty" at one point in time however, it's now nothing more than a smaller version of the UT with its addition of union-shill reporters and its growing fear of taking on the Civic Establishment. The lack of high quality investigative journalism willing to report the truth about the pervasive corruption still existent at City Hall and among the Civic Establishment has once again left our community exposed to continued breach of the public's trust. Unfortunately, in the case of the Voice, this was not a missed opportunity, it was an opportunity consciously lost.

Posted by Questioner | reply to this comment
May 2, 2007 12:51 am

To be sure, Voice has contributed greatly to important discussions in San Diego, most of them related either directly or indirectly to goings-on downtown. For a newspaper born in the Murphy/Strippergate era, that focus made perfect sense. But it seems early to tout the Voice model as The Future — and eulogize the for-profit, print daily — when Voice doesn't come close to covering all the important mundanities of life for most residents of the region. Voice seems more interested in hotshot investigative work and snore-inducing wonkiness than the unglamorous, high-quality community reporting the region really needs. The site frequently reads like a specialty publication for the connected elite, not a public trust that can communicate to the average person the importance of events surrounding them. The Voice reporting style is great, and the region needed it. But only covering the rest of us will prove your model's strength.

Posted by Well, sort of | reply to this comment
May 2, 2007 1:00 am

As long as you are looking for input... A) There is more going on in the business/economic area than real estate. Indeed, editorially it sometimes sounds like the Voice is the "voice of the non-homeowner" looking for the bubble to burst so you can buy. I am sure it is tempting but resist that. B) Couldn't agree more with South of 8. I would also add in North of 56 and East of I-15. Think about how you can efficiently add staff to soon get outside of 202 C street. C) I also think that it would be good to think about how you could cover military. Death of the UT's Local DOD coverage misses a big story in the region.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
May 2, 2007 1:01 am

Disregard the naysayers who object to your attention given to city hall. Far too many issues that will impact all our lives are quietly working their way through our local governments without sufficient public awareness or voter oversight. Every day, elected officials are selling land use zoning to real estate developers in return for fat campaign contributions. Someone has to blow the whistle on these activitiees, and the Voice has done as good a job as any so far.

Posted by Wolfie | reply to this comment
May 2, 2007 2:02 am

While you are a very welcome addition to the news scene, let's be real, guys; if you have "patrons" you have the same monkey on your backs that too many other news perniciously adopt. Few are the newspapermen who don't have to worry about ad pressures, political payback, competitors and unions. All those things color news coverage though they shouldn't, and some of your editorial choices show it. Others have posted reprimanding you for your narrow focus and they're right to do so. Your impov in delivery is good, but you still need to hone the approach. And for the love of God, fire the sumbitch who dares to refer to the public as "news consumers". People need information and education and your choice of terms is not only degrading, but shows the lack of appreciation for the Final Editor that the rest of the quidnuncs express.

Posted by ESPRESSO | reply to this comment
May 2, 2007 8:42 am

To the Voice staff: I enjoy reading the Voice daily and find it refreshing that your on-line newspaper doesn't censure opposing opinions and controversial editorials. However, it seems your journalists' viewpoints don't represent a diverse age group. Instead you cater to the under-30 crowd with no realistic perspective on retirement, employee benefits, or unions. That's my major complaint. Otherwise, keep up the good work!

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
May 6, 2007 6:38 am

I totally agree with Erik above, when he said: "As long as you are looking for input... A) There is more going on in the business/economic area than real estate. Indeed, editorially it sometimes sounds like the Voice is the "voice of the non-homeowner" looking for the bubble to burst so you can buy. I am sure it is tempting but resist that.

Posted by Frank | reply to this comment
May 24, 2007 10:41 pm