PressEthic

Two of the Washington Post's top political reporters announed several weeks ago that they are leaving the Post to start a new "multi-platform" web site dedicated to "the next generation of political journalism." In the days immediately following this annnouncement, Jay Rosen posted a piece on his PressThink page questioning some of John Harris' and Jim VandeHei's stated goals in the venture. The press release stated,

"The new platform will be anchored on the web, pushing the next generation of political journalism: more conversational, more interactive and more transparent in taking the audience behind the scenes of how news happens and how it gets reported. “We believe many of the old ways of journalism do not fit the new demands of modern media,” said Frederick J. Ryan, Jr., President of Allbritton Communications."

Now we’re getting to the part I don’t get. I get that by starting from scratch on the Web you can correct for all the legacy thinking built into a newspaper organization, despite the best efforts of people who clearly see that their future is online. By pouring a new foundation you can design a better house. In Katharine Seelye’s story for the New York Times...Ryan said the future was in a multiplatform approach to news, “without the baggage of a long-term print institution.”

If I were an investor in this deal, I would want to know way more about the baggage Ryan has in mind, and why being free of it matters to the new site. The part I don’t get is the “next generation” talk. Political news that is “more conversational, more interactive, more transparent.” Okay, but how?

To gain more insight into this website, Rosen interviewed John Harris (former Post political editor) and posted the Q&A on his site. Harris expanded on their plans to partner with CBS, thus giving them more visibility and authority, as well as their goals in terms of illuminating political news.

(Reporters) tend to be more interesting in conversation than they are to read in the paper. I think one reason for that is that the typical newspaper story continues to be written with a kind of austere, voice-of-God detachment. This muffles personality, humor, accumulated insight—all the reasons reporters tend to be fun to talk to. When it’s appropriate...we’ll try to loosen the style and in the process tell readers more about what we know, what we think, and why we think it.

...

I have had this experience during campaigns when I show up as an outsider on the campaign plane. It turns out all the reporters have certain understandings—who is really running the campaign, for instance, or the fact that the candidate has a thick book of policy proposals that he has not read, and staff members all hold their breath every time he gets a hard question. The natural question is to wonder why more of this insight is not getting into stories. There are probably lots of reasons, but I think the biggest is the constraints of traditional story-telling. Those are worth pushing up against, and we’ll do it. In the bargain, I think we’ll have more fun covering the campaign and be more fun to read.

While Rosen still seems to have doubts about how this venture will play out, the aims of the website, and of Harris and VandeHei, are certainly admirable and come at a time when the public seems ready to receive less conventional political news. The convergence of traditional stories, videography, blogs and radio will be readily apparent in this new collaberation and its success could further determine the future of viable political reporting on the web.