I've changed my mind. Mohr's wrong. Yelvington's right.

OK, I've added more and edited this post.
After reading and re-reading posts and comments by Tom Mohr and Steve Yelvington, I have come to these conclusions:

1. Mohr's vision is too dismissive of local journalism, even dangerously so. If you say, all right, let's pitch local journalism in favor of a broad-based network built and maintained by the big players, then you risk following a model that already has failed. I cite ecountyinfo.com -- which I got flamed for saying was dead almost a couple years ago, but now, it really is dead -- and backfence.com, which, to put it kindly, is not getting anywhere nearly as quickly as it needs to in order to show the kind of business that draws established, big-time support.
I know what the response to that will be. Something like, it's not the intention of the network to replace local media; it's just that local media won't lead in innovation (which breaks down to a matter of semantics, really). So big media has to tackle the job.
Well, if that's so, then where's that $4 billion that Mohr talks about going to come from? Is it just out there, floating around on the Web? Are they going to swipe it from Yahoo and Google? Don't think so. Because 'local is not defensible online' -- which you have to admit is true only because the playing field is so level that national reach really isn't defensible online, either -- the targeted revenue has to be what local media currently takes in.
So, how do they do that? Well, they'll have to succeed where ecountyinfo.com failed and backfence.com isn't doing so well. And I predict the outcome will be about the same.
2. Has anyone given thought to the legal risk of such a strategy? I've been a close witness to a media antitrust action, close enough to learn that even if all parties sign their lives away to swear neutrality, a court might not see it that way if someone decides it's worth filing suit over. And we know someone will. Don't kid yourself on this.
3. If you think there's a lot of controversy over media ownership these days, just imagine what will hit the fan when this idea rises to the level of public scrutiny. I can't think of a politician who's going to get behind it -- and I predict it will suffer without political support. That sounds obtuse, but we know where these things wind up.
4. Steve makes a great point about how the media are responsible for primary customers who are so disaffected they don't trust them, don't read them, don't watch them and don't listen to them. Sure, Mohr talks about 'good journalism,' but he needs to define that and focus on it. Because that's the point at which we're losing people -- the point where we decide what 'good journalism' is, even if it bears no resemblance to the public's definition of good journalism.
Get this and get it good: The public doesn't give a woolly rat's tail what technology we use -- they expect us to use whatever's out there, so quit patting yourself on the back for doing what's expected. They want journalism that's honest, free of agenda, free of spin, detailed, relevant -- and sensationalism lasts only a second. They want the truth, even if you don't like it, because they don't care what you don't like about President Bush or Sen. John Kerry or Hugo Chavez or Tony Blair. They want to know if we have the guts to really go after the facts and tell them what's really going on in a consistent and reliable way. They want context and we are piss-poor at it. They want expert observation, and are not impressed by intrusion for the sake of getting someone on newsprint or tape, just so you can say you did.
I hope it chills your bones to hear this: They're onto us. They know when we're faking it, even when we do our darnedest to make it seem we're not. And they can't think of a reason to pay much attention to a bunch of fakes. And that's from a journalist with 30 years in the business, and who knows what's going on in it. Go ahead. Challenge me on it. I'm locked and loaded.
I ask: Has Mohr learned nothing from the rising levels of public distrust of media?
5. Worse yet, to many of the people who are in executive charge of the media giants who would form this network, it clearly represents an opportunity for further reduction and synthesis. The histories of these executives indicate they will take such an opportunity. I quote Dean Singleton:
'By 2010, we could be generating half our operating profit from online. That will cause us to add to our online resources and shift down on print. That's bad if you're in print and get laid off, but it's not necessarily a bad thing for the paper or the industry.'
That doesn't directly address Mohr's idea, but it does sketch out the attitude the media giants will bring to the table.
6. Yelvington's observation actually takes us back to the roots of journalism -- tapping into the human need for community and dealing with it on an honest and local level. It is from that basis we build good journalism. Not from the 'Big Network.'

Technorati Tags: