Why Are Deep Dives So Few And Far Between?

Over the weekend, I read this sharp and extensive New York Magazine piece about the New York Times and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. It’s a keen and well-researched look at internal strife, nasty politics and personal relationships ... and I couldn’t help ask myself why the trades don’t do much of this. Daniel Miller and Matt Belloni’s recent Kim Dotcom piece was excellent, and it shows that the potential is there for "long" journalism. But it’s still too seldom that we get this kind of laser beam-like, purposeful and investigative reportage.

I'm not talking about more profiles. Not instant analysis of instant news. Obviously not special reports. And not Q&A's (though Mike Fleming's one-on-one interviews for Deadline possess the spirit of what I'm talking about). Rather, a lengthy, months-in-the-works, hardcore deep dive that looks at a controversial issue or company, uncovers plenty and asks hard questions. Some of you have the staff volume. All of you have the resources. And this town is flush with good freelancers. And cutting back over the past few years is not an excuse; you still have plenty of high-salaried, high-profile team members who know this terrain -- and who should be held accountable for delivering this type of reporting. So -- if everyone is a journalist and journalists rattle trees, then where are all the leaves?