I appreciate Eamonn Fingleton’s post in James Fallow’s blog on the quality of most newspaper’s coverage of East Asia:
Our English-speaking media, with few exceptions, have never taken more than a superficial interest in East Asia — or any other part of Asia for that matter. Yes, I know that there is plenty of coverage of the region in “serious” newspapers. But few correspondents stay long in the region and those who do often end up becoming mouthpieces of the local establishment. As East Asia is hardly a free-speech zone (pace all talk during the Cold War of how certain nations in the region had embraced Western values), much press coverage is propaganda in disguise. This is difficult to illustrate in a few words but anyone who studies — really studies — the long term record can identify major problems with the way the press approaches the region.
I really wish he suggested alternative news sources to follow, however. And I hope his answer isn’t just to read his book.
While driving back from Tahoe with Daniel, we discussed the most recent Carnival of Journalism prompt. Daniel argued that news organizations are missing out on a huge opportunity to serve as data providers, rather than journalism providers–that their role in aggregating and explaining stories is important, but they’d probably be better served by making as much of the underlying data as possible available.
This makes some sense to me. I can imagine lots of organizations that would love reasonably organized data–particularly the more human and local data that news organizations could lead in. Nearly every study I’ve worked in at McKinsey would benefit from this kind of intelligence–trying to discern trends in consumer behavior is a huge part of being successful in businesses these days.
However, in the vast majority of situations, the real problem for companies isn’t having too little data. Big databases like StatsCan provide fantastic and detailed data sources. NPD, IPR, and a host of other data-gathering organizations compile and measure reports on huge numbers of subjects. And companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to get access to this information. But once they have it, many of them don’t use it in an effective manner.
I think that the rise of internal consulting / biz-ops groups is an effort to make use of the huge amount of data out there, but it seems that (even when these groups exist) this role is passed to external companies. It used to be that McKinsey was hired to find and compile data–these days, we’re just given access to massive internal databases, and have to make and find meaning.
This kind of work can vary radically from business to business, so I can imagine how it would be very difficult to create some kind of standardized process for finding useful information.
I’m not clear how newspapers can create useful meaning from their data sources for people willing to pay for it without becoming more like consultants than journalists–and I find it hard to imagine my local newspaper acting as a businesses advisor for a small-town pizza shop, even if they have information which could, with the proper presentation and data-mining, be pretty useful in guiding decision making.