Trust

I've written here about how newspapers used to sell trust, and the always insightful Bruce Cubbison of Syracuse noted how that trust has in many cases been transferred -- you trust, say, Jon Stewart more than you trust the New York Times, because you know -- or at least think you know -- that Jon Stewart shares your underlying attitudes. The problem with journalism's stock in trade, semi-omniscent objectivity, is that almost no one views the world with semi-omniscent objectivity. To see the world and see it whole, as a London Times editor once said of his calling (doing so before the Internet and thus having a not easily findable quote), is just not what the typical reader does, for the obvious reason that the typical reader is self-interested.

My former colleague Andy Cassel once wrote a column (I can't find it, but here's a brief comment showing it existed) on how Independence Blue Cross paid for the fireworks at a Phillies game. If IBX had the money to pay for fireworks, wrote Andy (now writing for the "Dismal Scientist" at Moody Economy.com and working with another incredibly talented journalist, the reporter and editor Colleen Gallagher), that was money that in a purely competitive economic system would have not been there because insurance prices would have been lowered. IBX's operation in a semi-protected sphere meant it could put aside money for what it saw as "good corporate citizen" activities. I don't remember, but I think Andy's point was that if the Phillies wanted to have fireworks, they could provide them themselves and build the cost into a ticket price. Thus you, Homo economicus, moving in a transparent market of goods and services, would be able to allocate your resources appropriately.

My son is the economist, but I know enough to know that 1) I don't know enough about economics to say anything rebutting Andy Cassel and 2) the Homo economicus model has been under a lot of attack because of its underlying assumption that while individuals may act irrationally, the marketplace as a whole will not act irrationally. It is like the Catholic teaching that while priests and bishops and even popes may err, the church itself cannot err -- a teaching that says that the only errors are those that the church chooses itself to call errors and correct. This asks ordinary mortals to trust the church, which is what institutions do. And we have seen the cost of institutional errors in the Catholic Church. In a pure free market there are no institutions, merely traders in the bazaar, which looks attractive when a surfeit of information makes it appear that we all know as much as everyone else.

The giant department store Rich's Inc. in Atlanta was known for having one of the most liberal returns policies anywhere. As Leon Harris wrote in "Merchant Princes":

"In each generation there were dozens of tales -- the true stories often more remarkable than the apocryphal ones -- of how Rich's resolutely, unremittingly, satisified its customers no matter how unreasonable, outrageous, or provocative. The store refunded the full price of an unused pair of high-buttoned shoes thirty yearsold, of an unworn man's shirt ten years old, of a dead canary. It accepted for credit or exchange merchandise that customers had bought not at Rich's but from its competitors, because when a customer alleged that she had bought it at Rich's, the Riches did not propose to call her a liar."

The Rich family took the omniscent view -- what appears to not be in our self-interest is actually in the interest of the store as an institution, and indeed in the interest of Atlanta. Harris notes that clerks tended to act in self-interest, though:

"Such a liberal program was very difficult to enforce because employees usually felt that they were giving away their money, their profits, that they were being taken advantage of. ... The store's liberal return policy was only one aspect of the family's insistence that the store must be run to suit the needs of its customers."

In other words, hey, Mr. Rich, if you didn't take that shirt back, you'd have more money to pay me. But Rich's was incredibly successful for generations, becoming the largest downtown department store in the South and helping build the reputation of Atlanta as a place to be. Clearly Rich's built the cost of its return policy into its prices.

What probably made the policy less important was that as many goods got cheaper, it seemed less of a hassle to throw things away than return them. In a country with what many analysts (yeah, I know, that's a journalistic thing that means "some analysts whom I happen to agree with but don't want to take the time to cite") say there are too many stores, Homo economicus could buy the same toaster oven at Rich's or Wal-mart or CVS. Rich's could no longer build in its convenience premium. But Rich's then lost the ability to offer the consumer the same level of trust in the Rich's brand. Rich's then lost the ability to be a good corporate citizen as it had been with such programs as the Christmas Tree Bridge and its activities in the Depression:

"In 1930, when the virtually bankrupted city had no money to meet the schoolteachers' payroll, the store's president, Walter Rich .... called the mayor to suggest that the city issue scrip to pay the teachers, which the story would not only accept in payment but also cash at full value with no obligation that a penny be spent at the store. Rich's paid out $645,000 for this scrip and held it until the city could redeem it." (Harris.)

The individual gets the toaster oven for 30 cents, but society suffers unless your model of the world says there is no such thing as society, only self-interested individuals pursing maximum satisfaction. The weaknesses in that model are why institutions and regulations wax and wane. Institutions -- department stores, newspapers, banks, what have you -- tend to build "trust" in as part of their economic model. (IBX says, we'll put on fireworks to show we're good guys and you will trust us for your health coverage. Of course, good customer service is also necessary.) But "trust" is just another expense to throw over the side when the only market value is the highest return for the least effort -- the lowest cost. Homo economicus, being fundamentally irrational, throws trust out the window in pursuit of short-term gain, then rails back, wounded, when institutions are no longer trustworthy, having pursued nothing but short-term programs themselves.

All of which is a long way of wondering whether newspapers would have adopted the "everything is free" model of Internet service in an era less driven by a laissez-faire model -- or indeed whether they would have been able to (imagine the Internet appearing between 1905 and 1945, the era in which license plates, broadcasting licenses and modern banking regulations were established). Newspapers used to charge in part for "trust." The conundrum, of course, is that if people are told that anything except pure self-interest is "being taken advantage of," no one wants to pay for it. And then they find trust in people who they feel think as they do -- who, in journalism's case, mainly take what newspapers, newsmagazines and network broadcasters do, comment on it, and present it for their circle of fans. (Jon Stewart does his own form of original reporting, of course, which is why he has been honored, seemingly against his will, as a journalist.)

If newspapers were to suddenly say, "Hey, bloggers, you know, if you now want to comment on this information, you will have to pay for it," what would happen? Yes, I know the nature of digital information means that after the first person paid for it, it would be free. But for people to be able to trust anything other than "my friend whom I agree with," a price for trust -- for example, to employ editors whose job is to verify that the information is correct -- has to be paid.

All of which comes to mind in the current apparent failure of a system founded on laissez-faire unregulated self-interest. Will trust will be more important to the younger people now in high school, college and early jobs? And can institutions, such as newspapers, use this to emphasize trust as a value, even though it cannot come free?

First Thing, Let's...

Well, one truly doesn't want to wake up on a Monday to this. But one did, so let's look at it.

Because Alan Mutter's argument -- are layers of editors in the editing process now a luxury? -- is not only just the next step beyond outsourcing -- if we can't move these jobs to India, do we even need them at all -- it gets back at a point made in lo this very space:

"If you don't post news on the Web, someone else will. If you do, someone else will anyhow. TV stations, local entrepreneurs, L.A. Observed. All you're doing is doing it with a higher cost structure. Unless you get your cost structure down to their level, you can't compete on the Web in the long run. If you get it down to their cost structure..."

I left that unanswered. Mutter raises the question and offers a Tevyean response ("On the one hand, Mottel is a good man..."), yet in the classic journalistic sense of "I will write this story fairly, but I will show which side I think may be right by giving them the kicker paragraph," he writes:

"All things being equal, everyone would vote for giving newspapers sufficient resources for both gathering news and checking their work closely. But things aren’t equal. Newspapers are operating at an increasingly unequal disadvantage against their online competitors.While there is no doubt about the value of the industry’s traditional values, the question is whether the industry can continue to afford them."

Thus, Gresham's law wins for Alan Nutter. He also raises the point that multiple layers did not stop the Jayson Blair episode. Nor did it stop Janet Cooke, although the redoubtable Bill Connolly has devoted years to a training program showing copy editors where the red flags were in her story. But there is very little in the editing process that will catch a talented liar who is a staff member, because the process is built upon trusting the reporter.

Now, many good objections to Alan's post have been raised already, the best of them being that the chart he refers to shows a process for editing copy that does not exist even at my own large and well-respected metro. A typical story moves through assigning editor to copy editor to slot and is proofread. Others may have input into it or may not, depending on the prominence of the story. Mostly, they don't. The statement that a half-dozen people "are likely to lay hands on an ordinary story bound for the pages of the typical metropolitan daily" wasn't true here even when we had twice the number of people we have now.

And we are, indeed, a big newspaper still. Nearly all of the one thousand howevermany hundred daily newspapers in the U.S. would look at this and simply scratch their heads. Many are the newspapers -- even large ones -- where most copy goes in read by one person, two at the most. If competing with online news means competing with anyone who can post something online, then the only way to compete is to have no editors. To me, that becomes a competitive disadvantage.

Look, we are who we are. The only way we can realistically continue to operate as newspaper journalists is to show how what we offer is better than what someone else offers. That means operating behind a brand. That brand has to stand for something. Quality is a good thing to stand for.

John Robinson of the Greensboro News and Record -- a paper that has been a leader in online journalism and blogging -- responds to Mutter by saying, we need this. He calls for two reads and I would call for three, but that's quibbling. Even with his paper's extensive commitment to online, he also makes the point: Online is not print. That means print has a role. And thus John and I and Alan are back to the question of determining how that role can pay off in the 21st century.

But please go to Newsosaur and take Alan's poll. (Here's the link again.) And since I do know how to write the end of a newspaper story:

"Sullivan recommended that anyone taking the poll should use his or her own conscience. 'Matters are in flux and everyone benefits from all opinions being counted,' he said. 'At a time like this, people should speak their minds.'

"Then he added with a smile: 'Of course, I can always hope that most of those who speak their minds freely are those whose minds are in the right place.'"