A little late to the party, today’s New York Times bemoans the mass closings of Washington news bureaus. There’s not much new here, except updated numbers. And not much insight into the underlying problems afflicting Washington journalism, or speculation on what might fill the information breach left by all that vanished reportorial power.
For instance, the incoming Obama administration promises a veritable revolution in government openness, and there are already a number of organizations in place that plan to build on that. Bloggers and citizen journalists are also in this picture. What will this transparency really mean for understanding how government works? After all, government is still government. Which means it will spend a lot of time covering its a**, no matter how much raw data it puts out there. There are a lot of rich questions here. Alas, the folks at the Gridiron Club are still in mourning, and probably will be for some time.
On the other hand, this response by Henry Blodget gives new meaning to the word “cavalier.” Most DC coverage is/was duplicative and thus unnecessary, he writes. In general terms, of course he’s right. But by Blodget’s standards, the McClatchy bureau’s distinctive, path-breaking coverage of Iraq and other issues — in substantive terms, not duplicative at all — clearly falls into this category, and thus belongs on the chopping block with no second thoughts.
Here’s what he says about regional/local bureaus:
One area where coverage may actually suffer is that of the Washington-based activities of state senators and Congress-people: New Yorkers may not care much about how much pork, say, Wayne Allard of Colorado is stuffing into the latest bill, but folks in Aspen might (might–although if it is really tasty pork, we expect Wayne himself will rush to tell them about it).
Even this lament, however, is misplaced: If there is truly a need or hunger for news about the Washington-based activities of local representatives, it can and will be filled by Politico or some other organization that has some economies of scale. Then local newspapers can reprint or aggregate it.
OK, let’s let Politico handle it. Problem solved!
Seriously, the relationship between citizens and government has been sorely strained over the past eight years, and most of the real business of government goes on at precisely this regional or local level, below the radar of the Politico or the Washington Post. Blodget obviously doubts it, but I do think there is “truly a need or hunger” for this type of information that must be satisfied somehow, by organizations that a) exist and/or b) have real plans to pursue it.
