Since I last wrote about Lippmann in my blog, I’ve read two of his books (in the middle of a third now), and three books about him. My view of Lippmann has become much more nuanced.

Yes, he was an elitist, possibly the first Eastern Media Liberal Elite.

But he was also very concerned about the future of democracy when public opinion could be so easily swayed.

He wanted to see a professionalized media not so much, however, that they might join the elites, but so they might be smarter about their work.

He wanted a more objective media, but not objectivity as we know it today. He would be appalled at the idea that reporters can’t express opinions and all sides must be presented. To him, objectivity meant the scientific examination of facts and evidence and drawing educated conclusions.

What I’ve learned about Lippmann, in fact, is that he would very much agree with our journalistic goals with The Batavian (I’ll leave it to others to judge how well we execute in that model).

To my friend and colleague Ken Johnson’s point — Lippmann remains very much relevant to journalism today. He is profoundly the most influential thinker on modern journalism. While many blame/credit him for today’s objective journalism, and as I point out, what we have today isn’t what he meant at all, he is the one most responsible for raising journalism from a craft to a profession (for good or ill). His influence on political thinking in this country is so vast that it largely goes unnoticed today.

As for the issue of making money: I’m optimistic about the plan and model we’re developing. I think we have a great chance to be profitable, but it’s going to take work to get there.

Echoing BJ’s comment, there are constraints on how much text/commentary any audience will read ordigest (time/interest especially), on the audience itself, on access to the technology. And maybe it’s just me, but the annonymnity of screen names is a tad scary. That is not a constraint exactly, but is a barrier to participation for some, and a way of lowering the bar on discourse that could undercut the whole point of the experiment.

Certainly this format could be a much more interesting job for reporters – to not be tied to the news hole, to engage directly with the community in new ways. And people do love to see themselves published… will that be enough to create the level of engagement needed to succeed?

There is one more big question that needs to be answered – how does it make money? People would be far more likely to have an expectation of compensation for contributions than to have to pay for the privlidge of participation, yes? And even a couple of staffers and computers would need funding, and at some point would have a responsibility to become a contributor to EBITDA. We have a responsiblity to do more than just build it and hope they will come… how could a site like this serve the other, and equally important, constituency – local advertisers? The paper has been the meeting place for the community and local businesses for 125 years. We will need to be just as innovative in creating, er, fostering, the buyer/seller community as we are in creating new forms of journalism.

What fun we are going to have in the next few years making these things happen!

Ken Johnson
Online editor
The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, Mass.
The Enterprise, Brockton, Mass.