First Response

Doing more with less seems to be the big phrase in media this year and Blodget's idea of cutting the staff at the New York Times probably wouldn't hurt to save money. While I'm not in favor of anyone losing their job, we all know there are those who don't do as much as others and you think would they really be missed if they weren't here?
While initially I was thinking that Blodget's idea to charge for the New York Times was heading in the way Rupert Murdoch is going to charge for content, I think he makes some valid points that fall in line with the article by Picard.
In order for someone to want to pay for content they need to know they are not going to find this type of reporting somewhere else for free. Blodget makes the point that the NYT's has a style of journalism and reporters you can't find anywhere else. In addition, paying $80 per year for access to the NYT's from your computer is much cheaper than having the paper arrive at your home for the year. On a personal level I do feel like I tend to skip several stories when I view the paper online verses when I'm holding it in my hand. Some articles that I typically wouldn't be interested in I will find myself browsing over.
But if Blodget is right about the reporting style than that would help form Picard's argument that there needs to be more original reporting for journalists to deserve the credit and “pay” they receive. I have often felt the way Picard does when it comes to journalism. Why are there four stations in a city when typically everyone is covering the same content night after night? News Directors would argue that different personalities attract different viewers, that's why the anchors make the big bucks. But I do feel journalists need the skill to go through information to determine what are the facts and what needs to be questioned. For example, if the public had only politicians to hear from night after night and not be questioned by reporters then the public would get a very skewed look at what is happening at the Capitol.
Picard does make a valid argument not so much about money but about creating content that is original. I think journalists can get lazy and getting the official sound bite is always the easiest route, leading to news that looks the same from station to station. I took away from his piece that you need to bring original content to the table for the viewer to truly take an invested interest in what you have to offer. Earn your money don't just make it.