I'm not kidding myself. The story of Obama visiting Ireland was far from earth-shattering. But it was worth covering - news is a cumulative process, not just one of exclusives and investigations - and covering it well included a visit to the town that claims him as a descendant.
No one wants reporters to be desk-bound - no one except perhaps accountants and shareholders - so why are so many of us reluctant to get out there and report?
Rates, of course, are a problem. Typical payment for a story in the US is between $200 and $300. In the UK the broadsheets pay 200 pounds to 300 pounds ($325 to $490) and in Ireland 250 euros ($350) is pretty typical. These figures may seem fairly substantial to anyone not working as a journalist, but bear in mind they are gross payments and no expenses are paid for travel or anything else. Spend a week - or more - on a story and the hourly rate takes a precipitous nosedive. I have had to spike several of my own stories recently because once I began looking into them I realized the travel costs alone would cause me to lose money. We still do it, of course. I've lost money on stories before, I'm just trying to cut it down - as are others.
Of all my freelance colleagues I am one of very few who earn a living exclusively through journalism - and, to be frank, I don't make much of a living.
Basically, the sums don't add up.
Journalists whining about poor pay is dull stuff, I know, and I don't want to make grandiose claims about the importance of reporting, but journalism does exist and people frequently say they want it to be better. If you look past reporters' self-pity (mine included) there is an important issue at stake.
The recent outing of the "gay girl in Damascus" as a stubbly guy in Edinburgh is worth considering. Yes, there are serious questions to be asked about some media outlets' credulity, but were reporters on the ground rather than in the newsroom they'd be a lot less likely to rely on hearsay and random claims being made by "someone on the internet."
At the risk of ending up in "pseuds corner," it's worth remembering that newspapers are a product of the Enlightenment. They exist in order to allow people to orient themselves in the world they live in; to be actors who have the information they need in order to make decisions. If reporters spend their days staring into screens rather than at the wider world then how can we expect them to condense that world into 20 pages every day?
If we want to see greater amounts of shoe leather reporting and fewer stories based on e-mails and phone calls, then there's only one answer: pay for it.
As for me, I have to decide whether or not I can justify a 460 kilometer drive to ask someone a few questions in order to get a few color quotes. Or if I should just call her on the phone.
- Jason Walsh, Dublin
