Nice words to capture an idea that keeps popping up.

I’ve always thought it would make so much sense to work with high school kids to act, think and write like a journalist.

I bet they would love it and I can’t think of a better way to sharpen their thinking and communication skills.

Michael: I agree, and I’d add another point: Oftentimes, experts aren’t that great at explaining themselves to laypeople. That’s where journalists’ strengths in writing, analyzing, synthesizing and explaining complex ideas become much more valuable.

A thought to share about “Why use journalists at all? ” The problem with experts is at least two fold. First, many recognized experts aren’t. The second is that even the best of them are inevitably trapped by their own world views.

My sense is that the value add of the journalist is to form the right questions. Not merely to “get at the truth”. But more as a moderator for a “compare and contrast” of opposing smart takes on a situation.

I’ve found a model that works for me in the world of finance on Bloomberg. Bloomberg Surveillance and Pim Fox both are very well informed on the market. They get the smartest people they can find and help them clarify what they think they see about a particular issue.

it makes sense that models first emerge in finance. The stakes are real, individual decisions are made from the information gleaned and in general most of the experts predict the wrong things will occur.

It’s a discourse that has lots of indicators of “smart” and the viewers have skin in the game.

If the issue is a useful public discourse, I think it has much less to do with technology than the presence of skin in the game and an articulation of opposing views from “smart.” Any journalism enterprise that can find that audience and create the expectation of smart v smart will thrive, in my opinion.

A couple of data points: Bloomberg buys Business Week, The Economist keeps growing and the New Yorker I think is doing ok.