Making the headlines

“RATLIKE cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability”—the qualities of a successful journalist, according to Nicholas Tomalin, one of the breed—are not traditionally valued in think-tanks, the semi-academic institutions that come up with ideas for politicians. Their policy papers are meant to be dry; their wonks more like politicised civil servants than hacks. But increasingly think-tanks are doing journalism—not just blogging and tweeting but foreign reporting, too. Deskbound journalists, meanwhile, are embracing data and spreadsheets.

Foreign Policy, a magazine, now runs “Democracy Lab”, a website paid for by the Legatum Institute, a think-tank based in London. It has a modest budget for freelancers. In June the Centre for Policy Studies, a think-tank co-founded by Margaret Thatcher, launched “CapX”, which publishes daily news and comment on its website and by e-mail. The Centre for European Reform, a think-tank founded by Charles Grant (formerly of The Economist), publishes pieces with gripping headlines such as: “Twelve things everyone should know about the European Court of Justice”.

Unlike non-profits, such as ProPublica and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, think-tanks are in journalism more to promote ideas than to inform the public or expose wrongdoing. Much of what they publish is about policy. For officials and politicians, writes Jeremy Shapiro of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank, “The thinkers are the validators. They will write op-eds, give pithy quotes to important newspapers, and appear on network news programmes.”

Think-tank journalism comes closest to the traditional sort when it is in the field. Most of the analysts at the European Council on Foreign Relations spend their days crunching data and attending meetings, says Hans Kundnani, its head of research. But it also has a few in strife-torn places. The International Crisis Group (ICG), an NGO that researches conflict and natural disasters, has more still. Human Rights Watch, which investigates abusive governments, recently published a series of articles on the plight of the Yazidis in Iraq.

Once, these analysts would have written “big-picture” pieces, says Mr Kundnani. But 24-hour news and Twitter demand on-the-fly reporting and analysis, which blend into journalism. Nathan Thrall, the ICG’s Middle East analyst, based in Jerusalem, has written about the conflict in Gaza for, among others, the New York Times and the London Review of Books.

Some journalism, meanwhile, is becoming more wonkish. In April the New York Times launched the Upshot, which features data-packed articles—many written by wonks. “Wonkblog”, by the Washington Post, contains stories explained “in one chart”. In January one of its best-known writers, Ezra Klein, left to launch a website, Vox, that does something similar.

For politicians, policymakers and readers, more journalism means more information and choice. Inaccuracies can be quickly challenged and there is always a second opinion. For journalists, the news is not so good. Twitter, blogs and newsletters can get a think-tank’s ideas to its audience direct. Hence a relationship that used to be symbiotic, with wonks helping create news and hacks distributing it, is becoming competitive—especially in the battle for influential readers, such as politicians.