Outsourcing the Economist
Published by Yazad Jal March 6th, 2004 in MediaA letter in the Economist.
SIR –The Economist has offices in London, New York, Hong Kong, Chicago, Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Paris, San Francisco and Singapore—exceedingly expensive cities to employ journalists. There are doubtless thousands of English-speaking journalists in Delhi and Chennai who would bash away at keyboards for far less pay and expenses. I look forward to the offshoring of your position and a reduction in my subscription fee.
And what about all the excellent journalists in Bombay or Bangalore or Hyderabad or Calcutta or . . ?
But yes, I think it would be a great idea if it ends up with the Economist reducing its subscription fee — one reason why I don’t buy my copy is the high price.
Probably because, Bangalore and Bombay already have too many people snapping at their heels over the outsourcing embroglio. And so, we Chennaiites just want to take some pressure off and let you catch a breath or two.
Check this:
News agency Reuters has announced that it will be hiring six reporters in Bangalore. No news here except the reporters sitting in bangalore will be covering American companies and financial markets. The news has caused a stir in the news world. It’s one thing to have bangalore answer britrail phone calls and Dell hardware troubleshooting, but what happens when journalists who report on the subject feel their own jobs are threatened?
Ramnath, I think the letter writer was commenting on the Economist supporting Reuter’s move. Here’s the Economist article.
What happens when Newspaper owners find their domain threatened? We know the answer to that one. When there is even a hint of a rumour that the government is planning to relax ownership restrictions on newspapers, Bennet Coleman gets their editors to write articles providing creative justifications for why FDI is all right elsewhere, but newspapers are not quite the same thing.
Hi, the words in my previous comment are actually from the news report, not my own. And, I couldnt access the Economist article (because its premium).
However, I feel that the job of a journalist is unlikely to be outsourced. (Desk work - such as proof reading, editing, giving headlines, page making - can of course be outsourced/offshored. But here, I mean reporting and also to an extent, news analysis, the sort of which The Economist does).
The reason is simple: good journalism is about ‘being there’ and meeting people. A corporate reporter can hardly do a good job, if he speaks only to the top management such as CEO, CFO etc. The real news is likely to come from the people at lower level, who would talk only if reporters establish some level of comfort, which again is likely to come not over telephone or email, but over a cup of coffee.
A journalist, however intelligent and knowledgeable, sitting in Bangalore will find himself far behind an even average reporter who is in Seattle or Frankfurt.
It may be argued that in these days of corporate governance, and stock exchange regulations, when companies announce significant developments (such as a takeover or downsizing) by themselves on the internet, it must be possible to track these from afar. With modern communication tools, you can always follow these things up. Not a valid argument: because the goal of the newspapers today is to get the news before the company announces. (And, if the newspapers these days give an impression that a lot of reports they carry are speculative, this is the reason).
But what about analysis, one may ask. It is about giving a new perspective, deeper insight, rather than breaking news. Like a technical analyst, these kind of journalists should be able to have all the facts in hand and after working on an article for a couple of hours make the world say, ‘oh, i never thought about it’.
But, even good analysis is written not by those who read many newspapers/magazines/blogs but by those who ‘talk’ to many people. The reason is again simple. Senior journalists like to say, ‘the best report is the one in which you have written only 10% of what you know.’ The rest is filtered (not, as many people believe, by the pressure from advertisers, but by the prejudices and knowledge (or ignorance) of the journalists). While, it is necessary to source facts from different media, it is hardly sufficient. You have to talk to people (who in turn are comfortable talking to you).
In fact, one journalist tried writing reports using modern technology, from far away, for no less a paper than New York Times. Sitting in his apartment and armed with a cell phone and a laptop, he wrote a lot of ’stories’ for the Times. His name was Jayson Blair, and he was kicked out last May.
And, if you have come this far, you deserve my apologies for the long comment, and long sentences :)
Ramnath, in the review you’ve linked to on your blog, it is mentioned that one reason Jayson Blair got away for long was because his org actually encouraged the practice of “toe-touching”, i.e doing all your research from afar and paying a token visit to the place to justify the byline. Perhaps it is fraud, but perhaps it is also a result of the fact that a lot of research can be done from far off?
Yes, its possible. But NY Times journalists also use stringers, (who do a lot of work in the far off places, but generally dont get the (byline)credit). You must have read about a senior and respected Times journalist, who had to resign (shortly after Blair resigned) because he stretched this practice a little too far. As i said, it is possible, but nothing like being there…