jonward11

That's a really great question. There a multitude of them and I could fill the page with thoughts on that. But I also think there's a lot to be optimistic about since we are in an age of innovation and because the hyper competitiveness of the market now means we as journalists are being forced to really up our game to stand out.

But I do encourage younger journalists to try to have a long view. Build a life, not a career (that's more just life advice I guess). But in view of that, I want more young journalists to fight against the urge to do stuff that's quick, cute or clever and to dig deeper and do work that might take a little longer, but is thoughtful, or makes a serious point, or helps readers understand things about the world that actually help them or enlighten them or raise their spirits in a meaningful way.

We do need to have more investigative journalism, and I'm encouraged by what Ben Smith at Buzzfeed is doing in that space, as well as places like ProPublica. But we need many more folks to get into that space, and there's no question that the business side is still a puzzle.

their roots are in Libertarianism but they've become much more involved in the Republican Party over the last decade or so. "Sons of Kansas" by Daniel Schulman is a book about the brothers that's actually been recommended to me by people inside the Koch empire as pretty accurate.

they haven't shown any affinity for Rand Paul. their most positive mentions have been of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. They're pragmatists at the end of the day i think

upping our game means doing quality work in a way that is also easy to read, interesting and relevant. there is inherent tension between the sort of purist attitude of 'this is important/really good/etc so people should read it' and 'make it palatable to the largest possible audience.'

but journalists do have an obligation to serve the reader, and inflaming them is not that.

since Goldwater in 64 they've become pretty conservative, and have had a pretty consistent internal tension between the hard right and the establishment/elite more moderate wing. Reagan united them and so did Bush for a while but they've struggled without a national leader, as any party does. Democrats were in the same position in the 80's before Clinton came along, and could be there after Obama, depending on how HRC does

hello jstrong! :) the Kochs, ie i360, are much better funded obviously, and among Republican campaign folks, they just want to win. they don't care about stupid philosophical questions. but by going public with the philosophical, more big picture question about who is the more responsible guardian of the Republican party's master voter file, the RNC may be able to rally some folks in the GOP to their side. a big moment will be what the eventual GOP presidential nominee does and how they lead the party on this question of data