很好。又来了一篇宣扬“互联网正在拯救新闻”的辩词，这次的辩护者是网络杂志《石板》（Slate）的财经作家马特•依格雷西亚斯。看到皮尤研究公司（Pew Research）就今年《媒体状况》（State Of the Media）所发布的、令人沮丧的报告之后，他宣称：“美国新闻媒体从来没有像现在这样兴旺。这是一个常识嘛。”

    与往常一样，当有人引用“常识”一词时，大家一定要仔细推敲。在这件事上，甚至不需要仔细推敲——乍一听，这就是一个非常空洞愚蠢的言论。通常情况下，“互联网正在改善我们的新闻媒体”，这种观点往往隐含着一定的准政治意味：“旧媒体”的“精英把关人”只不过是想保护自己的地盘，而互联网正在给予“人民”从众多新闻源泉中选择的权力（说句公道话，依格雷西亚斯主要是采用暗示的方式来表达这层意思）。

    这种言论几乎总是忽略了一个事实：对“人民”产生最直接影响的本地新闻受害最重，没有一系列的新闻源泉供其选择。在这一点上，依格雷西亚斯的观点没有什么不同之处。从一开始，他就冒冒失失地跃入这个具有讽刺意味的深渊之中。近期对塞浦路斯银行救助计划的铺天盖地，他援引这些报道，证明新闻媒体状况颇佳。“我对塞浦路斯银行救助危机的分析肯定不是对这件事的总结性阐释，”他自信满满地说道。“大家可以非常迅速、非常轻松地在《纽约时报》（The New York Times）、《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）、《金融时报》（Financial Times）和《经济学人》（The Economist）上找到相关报道。”

    诚然，现在对某些公共生活领域的报道的确很好，也许比以往任何时候都要好。比如，或许有更多的人正在撰写涉及国际事务、名人文化、金融（尤其是华尔街的一举一动，特别是特定股票的涨跌情况）和技术（特别是小发明和应用程序，以及制造它们的公司）的报道。但本地报社的大规模裁员以及不断下降的收入已经毁掉了对市政厅、学校和州议会大厦新闻的报道，而这些地方所发生的事情对“人民”（意即纳税人）的利害关系显然要大得多。换言之，富裕阶层（就是阅读《石板》杂志和依格雷西亚斯提及的那些出版物的群体）感兴趣的新闻现在的确做得非常好。但面向中产阶级和工人阶级的新闻，以及为公众利益服务的新闻，现在已经形同游魂野鬼。依格雷西亚斯甚至根本就没有提到这类新闻。他或许会辩解说，尽管本地新闻目前处境堪忧，但互联网的力量“终将”使得这类新闻比以往更强大（但截至目前，我们几乎看不到这一幕即将出现的迹象）。然而，就学术辩论而言，在这些讨论中忽略本地新闻似乎不够坦诚。

    大约10年前，勤勉的报社记者（有时是电视和广播）还经常曝光地方的腐败和政府失职事件。可以肯定的是，现在这类事件正变得日益猖獗，但却几乎没有得到任何监督，主要原因就在于报业的不断萎缩。此外，这种腐败和失职事件之所以更容易发生是因为地方和州官员知道，现在已经没有那么多有见识的“看门狗”密切留意他们的一举一动了。除了政府干的这些坏事之外，公民现在甚至对公职人员的日常活动也所知寥寥。你们当地的学校董事会是不是正在制定一项课程计划，而你们或许觉得并不十分适合你的孩子？你们或许不知道这个问题的答案，因为过去一家报社报道学校事务的记者多达三位，但现在可能只剩下一位了，甚至连一个都没有了。而且，现在从事这项工作的人经验也往往比从前那几位记者欠缺很多。

    Oh, good. Another "the Internet is saving journalism" apologia, this time by Matt Yglesias, Slate's economics writer. Yglesias, reacting to the dismal findings of this year's State of the Media report from Pew Research, declared that "American news media has never been in better shape. That's just common sense."

    As always when somebody cites "common sense," close scrutiny is demanded. In this case, the scrutiny doesn't even have to be close—the argument is inane on the face of it. Usually, this notion that the Internet is improving our news media is couched in quasi-political terms: the "elite gatekeepers" of the "old media" are simply trying to protect their turf while the Internet is giving "the people" power to choose from a whole range of news sources. (To be fair, Yglesias does this mostly by implication.)

    Such arguments almost always leave out the fact that it is local and regional news—the news that most directly affects "the people"—that has been hurt the most, and there is no range of sources from which to choose. Yglesias is no different, and he heedlessly leaps into this ironic abyss right from the start, citing recent blanket coverage of Cyprus's bank bailouts as evidence that the news media is in fine shape. "You don't need to take my analysis of the Cyprus bank bailout crisis as the last word on the matter," he humblebrags. "You can quickly and easily find coverage fromThe New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Economist."

    It's true that certain areas of public life are covered very well, maybe better than ever. For example, we might have more people writing about international affairs, celebrity culture, finance (especially Wall Street, and most especially whether particular stocks might go up or down), and technology (especially gadgets and apps, and the companies that make them). But massive layoffs and sinking revenues at local and regional newspapers have decimated coverage of city halls, schools, and statehouses—places where "the people" (meaning, taxpaying citizens) have a far bigger stake. In other words, news that appeals to the well-off (the kinds of people who read Slate and all the publications Yglesias references) is doing fine. But journalism that is aimed at the interests of the middle and working classes, and journalism done in the general public interest, is a ghost of its former self. Yglesias doesn't even mention this kind of journalism. An argument could be made that, while local and regional news is in a bad way right now, the power of the Internet will eventually make such journalism stronger than ever (though there are few signs of that happening so far). But to ignore local and regional news in these discussions seems intellectually dishonest.

    It's guaranteed that the kind of local corruption and government mismanagement that was routinely revealed by working newspaper reporters (and some on TV and radio) up until about 10 years ago is now running rampant, often going totally unscrutinized, thanks to shrinking newsrooms. Further, such corruption and mismanagement is more easily allowed to happen in the first place because local and state officials know they don't have as many knowledgeable watchdogs looking over their shoulders. And even beyond the bad stuff government does, citizens are left with much less knowledge of the everyday doings of their public officials. Is your local school board devising a curriculum plan that you might think is not the best thing for your kids? You might not know, because instead of three reporters covering schools for a given newspaper, now there might be only one, or even none. And the people doing it often have much less experience than they once did.

    对于一位财经作家而言，最糟糕的或许是，依格雷西亚斯完全搞错了新闻经济学的定义。他把新闻比作农业：“就像少数农民现在生产的农产品之丰沛足以让我们的祖辈啧啧称奇一样，如今的读者能够接触到他们根本没时间读完的高品质报道。”他说，由于网络新闻相对无阻力的生产方式，记者变得更有效率，对记者的需求量也随之减少。但新闻采访并不是种庄稼。报道州议会并不会因为随后产生的新闻可以更便捷地发布在互联网上而变得更容易些。此外，无论是在互联网出现之前还是之后，记者都需要投入大量时间，才能收获一定的“产出”。当然，所谓的“产量”是以记者对州议会审查的数量（这才是真正重要的东西）来衡量的。

    此外，依格雷西亚斯的整体论点建立在一个错误的假设之上，即新闻就是新闻，除了写作质量以外，新闻本身并没有什么区别，无论它是来自伦敦金融城（City of London），还是来自市政厅。“问问你自己，”他命令道。“你今天能够读到的好东西比起13年前是多了还是少了？”没错，就总体而言，显然是更多了，这很好。但就如全美各地的社区一样，在我所居住的加利福尼亚州奥克兰，本地和州一级的新闻较13年前少了很多，而且这类新闻报道的质量也大不如前。

    依格雷西亚斯仅仅在一句话中非常简短地提了一下本地新闻：“传统的报纸过去常常跟单一的跨城对手进行竞争。”在包含这句话的段落中，他介绍了网络竞争的方式，“网上的竞争非常激烈，供人们阅读的内容非常多。”如果比起自己所在社区的犯罪情况，大家更关注塞浦路斯银行危机的话，那他说的没错。 （财富中文网）

    译者：任文科

    Perhaps worst of all for an economics writer, Yglesias utterly mischaraterizes the economics of journalism. He compares journalism to agriculture: "Just as a tiny number of farmers now produce an agricultural bounty that would have amazed our ancestors, today's readers have access to far more high-quality coverage than they have time to read." Thanks to the relatively frictionless production of news on the Web, he says, journalists are more productive, and so fewer of them are needed. But newsgathering isn't farming. Covering a statehouse isn't made any easier by the fact that the resulting news stories can be published quickly and easily online. Just as many reporter-hours are needed to achieve a given level of production as were needed before the Web (that is, if "production" is measured by the amount of journalistic scrutiny given to the statehouse, which is what's really important.)

    Further, Yglesias's whole argument rests on the erroneous presumption that news is news and there's no differentiation to the news product other than the quality of the writing, whether it emanates from the City of London or from the city hall. "Just ask yourself," he commands. "Is there more or less good material for you to read today than there was 13 years ago?" Well, in total, there's more, obviously, and that's great. But here in Oakland, Calif., just as in communities across the land, there's a lot less local and state news than there was 13 years ago, and what news there is isn't nearly as well-reported.

    The one very brief nod Yglesias gives to local and regional news is in this single sentence: "A traditional newspaper used to compete with a single cross-town rival." This sentence was contained in a passage where he describes how competition works online, where there's "lots of competition and lots of stuff to read." And he's right, as long as you care more about the banks in Cyprus than you do about crime in your neighborhood.