Is it time to end “beat reporting”?

Edward Wasserman at the Miami Herald had a recent column questioning the reliability of the beat system -– a staple of shoe-leather reporting since, well, the dawn of shoe-leather reporting.

The merits of a beat are simple. Every journalist becomes an expert in a specific topic, so the town paper can divide and conquer the news that needs to be covered, knowing that nothing will fall through the cracks while people fumble over each other looking to cover the same story.

But what happens when the relationships formed in a beat become contentious, uneasy or a liability?

The wisdom of beats rests on the idea that journalism can flourish in a setting where a journalist’s professional success utterly depends on the continuing cooperation of the same people that the journalist is supposed to badger, provoke, expose and, in sum, hold accountable on the public’s behalf. And that is totally illogical.

Editors Note: There has been a lot of chatter this week about the Los Angeles Times’ recent state of turmoil. And as the goliath paper turns to the Web, we thought it would be interesting to highlight the history of the LA Times through a different lens.

The following comes from Smith – as he describes the history of the Times in Los Angeles. His architectural prescriptions are forthcoming.

The Los Angeles Times has an extremely rich past that is woven into the fabric of L.A. history. Historically, the capital behind The Times was involved in the construction of the Owens river aqueduct, helping to lure the film industry to Southern California, and spearheading the development of a large portion of the downtown L.A. arts infrastructure.