CQ – The End Of The World As We Know It

It’s the end of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine …
An alert CQ reader pointed out an op-ed in yesterday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution that used Captain’s Quarters as an example of how the media faces destruction in today’s new market. Did Conrad Fink, a professor of journalism at the University of Georgia (go, Bulldogs!), talk about how blogs discovered the truth about the Killian Memos? Did Professor Fink review the Eason’s Fables episode, where the vice-president of a major American news organization got caught committing slander on multiple occasions overseas? How about Newsweek’s false report on Qu’ran flushing at Gitmo, and the role that bloggers played in forcing Newsweek to address its faulty editorial policies and reviews, let alone its inherent bias?
Er, no. Instead, he lionized the journalism industry for — get this — actually reporting on Kyrgyzstan and criticized me for reporting on Adscam testimony:

First, in late March, a street revolution overthrew the government of Kyrgyzstan — one of the “stans” carved out of the old Soviet Union’s eastern empire. The United States has a military base there — big surprise to many Americans.
And, Washington has staked out Kyrgyzstan, along with Afghanistan and the other “stans,” as a major battleground against terrorism — and oh, by the way, as a major sector of American influence in one of the potentially most explosive challenges ahead in this new century: Our guarded relationships with China and Russia.
A street revolt in a small, far-off, unheard-of Asian nation is important to us? You bet, and the mainstream media were on the story.

Fink argues that the AP covered this because it has the resources to do so, a point that seems rather obvious and unremarkable. Most of the Exempt Media reporting on Kyrgyzstan came from the AP and Reuters; perhaps the New York Times has a reporter in Bishkek, but I rather doubt it. But bloggers have reported directly from Kyrgyzstan and surrounding territory as well, and places like Registan aggregate the best of them.
Why is Fink so concerned about this? He believes that bloggers like me and Registan will attract so many readers that we will drive newspapers into collapse, and uses Adscam as an example of the evils of the blogosphere:

Now consider a possible news industry of the future, perhaps reduced to delivering sparse headline-coverage on Palm Pilots. Would such a news industry maintain correspondents in the Bishkeks of the world? Where, in this worst-case scenario, would we get news?
My second example might offer clues: There has been under way in Canada a hugely important federal investigation into charges — I emphasize, unproved allegations — of money laundering and kickbacks in government. The federal judge leading that investigation banned publication of details on grounds that potential jurors might be prejudiced.
Enter the new media.
A blogger in Minneapolis — a self-described conservative, amateur blogger — began posting details he said he obtained from an anonymous source in Canada who approached him with the story. The blogger cautioned that, yes, his reporting was based on that single source and, no, he had no corroboration.
Established mainstream newspapers in Canada were prohibited from reporting details, but Canadians, hungry for those details, flocked to the blogger. He reported 400,000 hits a day from Canadians. Indeed, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported traffic was so heavy one day that his Web site crashed.
Just think: Uncorroborated information from an unidentified source relayed by an amateur blogger with no journalistic training made allegations reaching into the highest level of the Canadian Liberal Party, to people close to the prime minister.

Of course, Fink leaves several points out of this frightening scenario. First, the Gomery Inquiry was a public hearing. The politically connected could watch or hear the testimony, and people lucky enough to get seats could see it as it unfolded. The Canadian media had TV feeds in some locations. The only thing the publication ban prevented was the information getting to the true victims of the corruption. Second, as Fink notes and unlike the practice of Exempt Media outlets, I informed my readers of the nature of my source up front. Third, I confirmed the veracity of the source within 24 hours of publication through a number of contacts I made in the Canadian press, who had seen the testimony firsthand.
Oh, and unlike Newsweek — I got the story right.
I don’t know how Fink comes to the conclusion that I have had no journalistic “training” whatsoever, or why that’s germane to a story that gets reported correctly and in a timely manner. In fact, I majored in communication at Cal State Fullerton (when I bothered to attend), and while I didn’t finish, I did take one or two classes in journalism, both there and in high school. It probably won’t surprise anyone to learn that journalistic “training” is overrated, especially at the college level. Most real journalists, as opposed to self-righteous journalism professors, will tell you the same thing; journalism is a craft learned by practice, not a science taught through lecture.
Besides, the industry is a market, just like any other. If people want reports from Krygyzstan, the market will drive resources there. The AP and Reuters make their money precisely because newspapers won’t pay for bureaus in Bishkek. The broadsheets pay the AP and Reuters to do the reporting for them. If Professor Fink had paid a little more attention, he would have noticed that bloggers like CQ and Registan noticed the Kyrgyz activity from the wire reports and stoked interest in the story. Advertisers, which pay for bloggers as well as broadsheets, respond to readers in the same way regardless of the medium used. The real issue isn’t whether that kind of reporting will disappear — it’s whether the broadsheets, with their clunky 24-hour news cycles, will ever adjust to the AP’s pace in order to stay ahead of its readers. Obviously, we know where to look for the news as it happens.
Professor Fink claims in his conclusion that he holds no brief for the newspaper industry, but then states that the broadsheets have stood watch over this nation’s interests like no other medium has or ever will. That’s the cri de coeur of the dinosaur, and it will be the echo of the paper medium as it disappears into history. It reveals his essay as nothing more than a self-serving rant, trying desperately to discredit bloggers and anyone else who dares to report and comment on current events without a diploma from dear old Georgia or a similar member of academia.
UPDATE: The inestimable Victor Davis Hanson weighs in on this general topic in today’s Washington Times.
UPDATE II: I had the lyrics slightly incorrect, but Hoystory straightened me out.