The Death of Profitable Journalism 17 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
My Guardian column this week recounts the debate at Ditchley on whether there is a market demand — and market failure — for quality journalism and on the idea of government subsidy for newspapers. The column got squeezed by a larger-than-usual ad - a good cause - so I’ll paste the original here:
It was hard not to look for symbolism in the surroundings when publishers, editors, academics, and others gathered on the grounds of Ditchley Park a week ago for discussion about the destiny of journalism and democracy, sponsored by the BBC Trust and the foundation that owns the 1720s estate. Under opulent ceilings — and the cloak of the Chatham House Rule — the representatives of incumbent and beneficent power expressed grave and urgent concern about the fate of newspapers as they debated drastic measures for dire times—even state subsidy for local papers.
As an American, accustomed to being in the national majority in such meetings, I felt like the alien I was. I’m not used to breathing coal smoke and history. And I’m quite allergic to the notion of government support for and regulation of media, especially news. But I was surrounded by Britons — and fellow foreigners — who appreciate the value of public service broadcasting, even as they engage in the national sport of thwacking the BBC. I learned a lot about you, my cousins, at Ditchley.
The real question for the weekend turned out to be whether there is a market demand — and a looming market failure — for quality journalism. I was the optimist in the room (the library, to be exact) and set off an impromptu poll on pessimism. The optimists, surprising me, won.
But clouds rolled in when talk turned, inevitably, to the scarcity of business models for news in this post-scarcity media economy. I foresee many new models, though unproven, involving networks, platforms, collaboration, new efficiencies, and new players. Others, however, saw no promising models, and so some considered what is not without precedent in Britain: public funds to support journalism, except now for local papers, at least through their transition — they pray — to digital.
Many forms of subsidy were suggested: A slice of the BBC’s or ITV’s cake is the starting point (which Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger broached in these pages recently). What about a tax on Google (GOOG)? I argue Google is enabling more than exploiting digital media. Then why not a tax on broadband providers? But one might consider San Francisco’s wish to provide broadband for all — eliminating that revenue stream — as a better endowment for media and information. Instead of public service publishing, why not public service connectivity?
At the end of the weekend, talk turned to another form of subsidy, which I suggested — naively, I thought — here in 2006: If the BBC is a public trust, why not have it actively support quality journalism? The idea at the meeting was to rebuild newspapers on BBC technology. I’d go farther: The BBC should link to and promote the best of British journalism. It should open its content to remixing by other media (and the public). It could use its international ad sales force to sell quality British sites’ foreign inventory. It should become a lab for shared innovation: the BBC as an open-source platform.
As was pointed out at Ditchley, journalism already is subsidized: The Guardian has its Scott Trust, the Times its mogul, the Washington Post a profitable education company, the Telegraph its sales of wine, local papers their council ads, and everybody had — had — classified ads. So we return to the question: Is there a true market demand for quality journalism or is it already a charity or public utility?
Is the death of profitable journalism as it was the fault of its stewards, its audience, or market circumstances? Given the setting and the timing — just as Chicago’s Tribune Company readied bankruptcy — it was tempting to look for journalism’s murderer, as if in a game of Clue: the butler, in the parlor, with a knife — or local newspaper stewards, in their privileged and complacent monopolies, with a lack of strategic foresight and a surplus of debt. Or are the culprits citizens everywhere who don’t care enough? American populist and optimist that I am, I don’t think so.
Are papers merely victims of time and technology? I wondered whether newspapers’ masters, like Ditchley’s ennobled land barons, are now out of their age. I don’t believe they will be replaced by the workers in the stable — citizen journalists (who weren’t in the room). But I do think we’ll all end up working closer together, tilling smaller fields.
: LATER: Here’s Adrian Monck on the conference, with the rapporteur’s report. And Charlie Beckett. And Richard Sambrook. I’ll write more later about this idea of government support for journalism and why I oppose it.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
Tyler Durden
-
4
Philip Davis
-
5
TraderMark
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 17 comments:
Read this and go get a reality check done...words are not as valuable as results of their application:
www.associatedcontent....
Now do you know anyone who wants to pay me what I am really worth for my time? If so, I have a nice xmas present for you.
IS an oxymoron,
All newspapers and journalists have a political agenda that they push,
the trick for the reader has always been to identify that and try to filter it out...
People are willing to pay for things of value, the old media use to depend
on having a monopoly, that led them to produce a low quality product.
Now they must adapt or disappear.
Why should Google (or anyone else) pay a tax to support "quality journalism"? (assuming we could find and all agree on such a thing)
Why was the NY Times and UK Telegraph so hung up on force feeding their readers a paper based product? This is a classic example of timid management afraid to try a new product area for fear of cannibalizing the cash cow...
... and as happened in so many industries, when the timid management failed to adapt and try new products, someone else did it for them. Why should the innovators be punished? Is there any legitimate reason why newspapers did not embrace blogs from day one? (timidity is not a legitimate reason)
True "journalists" are supposed to be neutral and objective-- but the vast majority of "news" reporting is highly opinionated. Without even getting to the content of articles, news editors constantly "decide" (unilaterally and very George Bush like) what is the most important news and what information is unworthy of mention. The articles themselves are filled with obvious opinions, omissions of fact, half truths, and on too many occasions outright inaccuracies.
If newspapers were meeting the public need, there would not have been a need for blogs. Technology aside, blogs were "created" by news organizations failure to do their job. Blogs are no more (or less) opinionated than so-called professional journalism -- the main difference being that blogs do not fraudulently claim objectivity
I will miss the NY Times when it is gone -- it makes for great kindling for my fireplace.
The fundamental change that is occuring is that the distribution channel is no longer always owned. It is for the taking. Pay a few bucks for a URL and you've got a distribution channel. Journalists no longer have to be employed by a distribution channel-owner. And advertisers can be much more efficient in targeting their audience and delivering powerful messages packaged to resonate on very individual levels.
I have 40 years in the communications industry from the perspective of PR, advertising, interactive, etc. I have been amazed that although the technological innovations of the past few decades have had their greatest impact on the way people communicate -- a true revolution -- the communications industry has continued to operate with outdated models. At best, they have tried to bandaid the existing models when what they should do is blow them up and start from scratch with new realities.
For anyone interested, I have written on this sort of subject at my blog, which is linked above.
The public is tired of this trite and simplistic writing. More thought provoking and substantive articles can be found on the web for FREE.
I like your article, but I also find it a bit condescending. I am not a professional journalist--but I write for my own business, on SeekingAlpha and also for other relationships. I believe that my writing is high quality stuff. I also find quite a bit of high quality writing on SeekingAlpha. When I want to learn about drilling and exploration, I would often prefer to get my info from a professional petroleum geologist who writes than from someone with an MA in journalism who has no technical training--which is often what you get among journalists for major newspapers.
To imply that professional journalists are the gold standard for writing is way out of touch. Reuters picks up SeekingAlpha feeds. Barrons picks up SeekingAlpha articles. This marked a major shift in the production of the written word. There are many great professional journalists--and I know of more than one who post here on SeekingAlpha--and there will always be a market for these people, I believe. But the idea that the NY Times and other traditional media outlets have some monopoly on mass distribution of quality writing for public consumptuion is ludicrous.
Should we subsidize these old-line media firms because they are somehow in the public good? I think not. We already have NPR.
I like your article, but I also find it a bit condescending. I am not a professional journalist--but I write for my own business, on SeekingAlpha and also for other relationships. I believe that my writing is high quality stuff. I also find quite a bit of high quality writing on SeekingAlpha. When I want to learn about drilling and exploration, I would often prefer to get my info from a professional petroleum geologist who writes than from someone with an MA in journalism who has no technical training--which is often what you get among journalists for major newspapers.
To imply that professional journalists are the gold standard for writing is way out of touch. Reuters picks up SeekingAlpha feeds. Barrons picks up SeekingAlpha articles. This marked a major shift in the production of the written word. There are many great professional journalists--and I know of more than one who post here on SeekingAlpha--and there will always be a market for these people, I believe. But the idea that the NY Times and other traditional media outlets have some monopoly on mass distribution of quality writing for public consumptuion is ludicrous.
Should we subsidize these old-line media firms because they are somehow in the public good? I think not. We already have NPR.
my dear friend, i guess everyone else have already written what I think as well,
blogs, new comunication technologies, adaptation , and so on..
the thing is, your job pal, is gone.
i have seen a lot people out there crying for the same reasons.
it is amazing how globalization works, couple weeks ago, in one of the major newspaper of my country (brazil) the "union of jounalists" made a open letter "against bloggers"
the truth is, "dude, its over, you cant stop people, that will write whatever they want, will get you information for free, free of ideologies, and faster than another guy who gets paid for it"
so is journalism dead ? no, it is not.
think it, like to what happened to jazz.
rock n' roll , didnt kill it, it just , well.. turned it into small, tiny club "cult people" stuff.
thats what will happen, im sorry. its a fact.
think the positive side, the good ones, the one that really worth it, (just like jazz musicians), writers, will remain, will be highly paid and admired. :)
the trick for the reader has always been to identify that and try to filter it out..."
You are right. There hasnt been "quality journalism" there has been crappy, biased, liberal-agenda-driven journalism, a parasite that survived on diverting the now failing newspaper and media business model towards a political agenda of those who chose to take on journalism careers. I for one am glad to see the business model fail and the liberal MSM to sink under the weight of its own customer-insulting bias.
If we can get to bare-bones non-agenda-based reporting combined with the power of blogs, that would be a miracle.