Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KOPEL: Opinion pays its own way

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 27, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Do you like reading Op-Eds? You may be reading more of them in the news sections of the papers, thanks to the changing economics of journalism.

Consider a typical newspaper opinion section. The section includes unsigned editorials written by full-time staff of the newspaper. Newspaper staffers also may write their own signed columns. The staff-written articles are expensive. After all, the paper has to pay the salary for a full-time employee. So even for a staffer who writes four articles per week, the cost per word for the staffer's output is relatively high.

Other space in the opinion section is filled with material from writers who are not employees of the newspaper. This includes outside columnists who are paid on a per-article basis (such as Paul Campos, Jason Salzman and me). It also includes syndicated columnists, for which a fee is paid to the syndicate. Depending on the particular fees involved, the cost might be comparable to a staff-written article, or it might be considerably less.

Cheapest of all is content for which the writer gets paid nothing. This means letters to the editor and also, for most papers, Op-Eds. The author is someone who is not affiliated with the newspaper. Op-Eds are so named because they originally appeared opposite the page containing editorials written by the newspaper staff.

Only a few papers, such as the Wall Street Journal, pay for an Op-Ed. For Op-Eds and for letters to the editor, the newspaper does have to pay for its own employees to read the submissions, choose which ones will be published and edit them. But even including the production cost, the Op-Eds and letters to the editor are a relatively less expensive way for the newspaper to fill a given amount of column inches.

You obviously can't make a living by writing letters to the editor or Op-Eds. The writers are, in effect, paid for their writing by somebody else - such as the universities, think tanks or interest groups where they are employed. Or they just enjoy "psychic income" because they like to write and have some other source of income.

Can the economic model from the Op-Ed be used in other parts of the paper? In the olden days, the news sections of the papers were generally sacrosanct, reserved exclusively for articles by full-time newspaper or wire service journalists.

The barrier was broken, quite successfully, by YourHub. Most writers for YourHub get paid nothing. Yet the zoned editions of YourHub provide plenty of interesting news regarding activities in local communities. YourHub is not known for the in-depth investigative journalism that might uncover financial corruption in the City Council. But it does at least offer room for citizens to express concerns about local school policies or other local issues that might not get covered otherwise.

Another barrier fell in The Denver Post on Nov. 17. The front page featured a huge, 39-paragraph article titled "Alarm over water supply." The article was an investigative piece about alleged environmental harm caused by a particular process - hydraulic fracturing - involved in natural gas extraction.

Normally, in-depth investigative reporting is very costly for a newspaper. The article may requires days or weeks of work by at least one reporter, and many articles use more than one reporter. But for The Post, the article was free.

It was supplied, gratis, by ProPublica. ProPublica describes itself as an "independent, nonprofit" organization. It is subsidized by the billionaire Sandler family, who are generous donors to a variety of leftist groups, such as ACORN. ProPublica hires journalists to write investigative articles and gives its product away for free to mainstream media. The general theme of ProPublica's work is that the government is not doing a good enough job in controlling things, particularly things involving big business.

The ProPublica article in The Post was slanted, sly and opaque. For example, we are told, "In one case, a house exploded" because of nearby hydraulic fracturing. Where was the house? Who determined that hydraulic fracturing was the cause? ProPublica does not say.

The article points to a 2005 federal law which put state government, not the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in charge of regulating hydraulic fracturing. The article is replete with complaints from EPA employees. Yet in an article focused on natural gas extraction in Sublette County, Wyo., the article shows no indication that the author (Abraham Lustgarten) talked to a single state or county official in Wyoming. Although the article makes assertions about what "state regulators" think, the article does not quote or a cite a single state regulator.

Like an Op-Ed, the article presented a one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view. Even when appearing in the news section, such articles should be labeled as "opinion."

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 11 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • December 27, 2008

    9:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Dave
    You buried your lead.

  • December 27, 2008

    10:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    They acutally pay Campos???!!!

  • December 27, 2008

    10:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    This is outrageous, for the reason cited by Kopel: "the article presented a one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view." The fact that it is labeled propublica does not excuse the publication of an article as "news" by an organization that apparently has an agenda. Of course, it is not so simple: how do we distinguish these sorts of orgs, from, say, AP or Reuters?

    Kopel also identifies the underlying issue, what he calls the economics of journalism. It seems the bottom line takes precedence over other matters, including journalistic standards. Newspapers are less willing to pay journalists to do their own investigations (See the book "The News About the News" for a discussion of this trend)

    Kopel gives us one specific instance, but it raise the question: how prevelant is this practice amongst major newspapers? Also, has the Post or the RMN done this sort of thing before or since?

    Here is the article mentioned.

    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11001835...

  • December 27, 2008

    10:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Also, what does the Post's editor have to say about this?

  • December 28, 2008

    11:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Anderson
    That was my next question. I'd like to see on of those no- response-at-press-time.

    Republicans won't buy newspapers because they can't justify it to their CPAs. Democrats own the media because they are able to somehow quantify the value of propaganda. Republicans have trouble with paradox.

  • December 29, 2008

    9:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anthony writes:

    This seems like largely an economic issue: Instead of paying full-time newspaper or wire service journalists to write articles presenting a one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view, the news media now publish articles written by third parties that present a one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view. Either way the editors and publishers approve the articles, so it would seem that all this does is outsource the writing. It doesn't change the underlying bias.

    One must ask how this differs from the fine old tradition of publishing news releases? Edit a couple of phrases, slap on your by-line, and voila! Instant journalism! So easy a caveman could do it.

  • December 29, 2008

    9:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JackMackenzie writes:

    Mr. Kopel, thanks for shining the light on this practice. A friend sent me the Denver Post article and was surprised at my lengthy reply concerning advocacy journalism as practiced by outfits like ProPublica, and the lame press outfits that accept this kind of thing. But more than that, my friend had a revelation just how much of 'journalism' is actually rip and read off the wire, and that the source of most reporting begins not with a reporter on the job but an interest or an agenda fueled public relations feed. How many of the responders here have any idea how much of "the news" is idea-driven by PR Newswire? The last time I used PRN, their literature touted they were responsible for upwards of 89% of what eventually becomes 'news stories'.

    Communist Goals for America, Congressional Record, 1963 - 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

    ProPublica fits the description of a proxy for a larger interest, an interest we used to call Communist but now that this is out of favor with the elite and intellectuals, we'll call it national socialism.

    That's hardly a description of the media-deficient Republican Party, and is quite the correct overview of those interests and agendas aligned with the Democrat Party.

    Thanks, again Dave for not letting the Post get away with blatant propaganda.

  • December 29, 2008

    10:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    anthony: "Instead of paying full-time newspaper or wire service journalists to write articles presenting a one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view..."

    Evidence that this occurs? Or are you just part of that group of people who think newspapers are against you?

  • December 29, 2008

    10:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    thomass writes:

    anderson writes:

    "Kopel gives us one specific instance, but it raise the question: how prevelant is this practice amongst major newspapers?"

    It's very common in a less extreme form. The press pack... sent out by interest groups. Reporters have used them to form the backbone (or narrative) of news stories for over a decade. This is just the next slip on the slope...

  • January 5, 2009

    4:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sara123 writes:

    Mr. Kopel, most Americans know an activist "news" article when they see one. Most of them are produced by paid "jouranlists." We are accustomed to our newspapers delivering political, social and cultural activist groupthink as taught in the schools of journalism.

    When I read a journalist's sob or fear story, I look at what the solution is in order to evaluate the degree and reason for the propaganda.

    For example, reading a story where government employee union leaders are quoted as warning of dire consequences to government budget cuts (union employee layoffs), I know to ignore the story as it is a free Union commercial provided by a school of journalism's training in activism. The same goes for all the activist's pet projects from race-baiting, watermelon global warming stories to "Obama is a god" love stories and "Sarah Palin eats little children" hate stories. This "reporting" by your paid staff is so uniform and predictable...why buy a newspaper?

  • January 8, 2009

    8:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatheromalley writes:

    Good article. The same could be said for many of their "news" stories about "man-made" global warming. These were FULL page "articles", where in reality they were free full page advertising.

    This type of conduct affects who I dial to commit my advertising dollars. I speak as an ex businessman that has owned 3 successful small businesses that used print advertising.

    I also speak as a private individual that has used both the web and print to sell items to other individuals. I received more inquiries from the Rocky and the Post than I did Craig's list.

    Go figure.. It just seems it would have been the opposite, the way these guys talk..

    In recent weeks the newspapers have laid the blame of their reduced revenue directly at the feet of the collapse of the classified advertising. That they say is where "technology" has yanked their financial feet out from under them.

    Advertising is based on popularity, not the other way around.

    Where value is concerned would I rather pay or not?

    I would pay, if the paper were popular = pre-paid circulation + news stand sales.

    This is a matter of "hits", or eyes that see my advertising. Being "free" is not a primary consideration. If my product is local, how many people will see it?

    This decision involves, not just whether I must pay for this advertising or not. This is where the Rocky still had the advantage.

    Businessmen are human. As a HUMAN businessman, would I rather place my ad where I too enjoy reading?

    The political bent of the Denver Post and The Rocky affects their popularity.

    Popularity is a more potent motivator than just "free" advertising. If not as many people see it, being free has little bearing. Someone must pay me or I must pay my employee for the time to place the advertising on Craig's list, and respond to it.

    The answer as I see it:
    I see papers as belatedly migrating to a more analytical model which should have been their original intent. After all they are "the guardians" against oppressive government instead of an apologist for it.

    Instead of trying to keep up with the "breaking news" and taking their lead stories from AP or the New York Times, they will go toward more in depth reporting and be a purveyor of information of how to reference their articles. They will give us more "hard facts", instead of agenda driven opinions posing as news.

    Content drives advertising, period.

    Otherwise they will die out, undoubtedly telling everyone within earshot that Craig's list had the gun...

    Love to all,
    Gary "Father" O'Malley

    www.fatheromalley.com "Study it, believe it, become it"