A lot of conversations I've had over the past few weeks have centered upon the American decline, not in terms of global influence and economic standing, but in terms of journalism. I've found myself speaking with students of the field, freelance writers and grayed reporters, all of us solemnly reflecting, as if a good friend had died.
And then something struck me: I spend hours a day reading news, digging into any paper I can find, from Lebanon's Daily Star to the Buenos Aires Herald, but I've only purchased about a dozen American papers in the last year. I, I realized, am the murderer of news.
I spend my life burrowed in Lexis-Nexis, enamored by any paper available in English. I'll grab pages from a buffet of reportage at work, and devour new stories on my BlackBerry during my commute, but I haven't paid more than $40 for news in the last three years — perhaps not more than $100 in my life. News has simply become too accessible to pay for without a concerted effort. Free quick reads on the train, full pages by front desks at hotels, and, of course, news always available onscreen.
About the only time I buy newspapers is before boarding planes, when digital sources will be inaccessible. About the only pages I'd paid a dime for while grounded came to me on Nov. 5. Who could pass up the historic "Obama Wins" headlines?
The better question — who amongst my generation even realizes the role he or she has played in the murder of news? Silently skimming off Google's AP content and other major news outlet websites, where advertising tries in vain to offset the cost of reportage, my generation, and many around us, have failed to recognize the part each of us have played in the death of American journalism.
So I made a decision amid this existential crisis. I will soon be a subscriber to four American newspapers: the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Rocky Mountain News, and the Chicago Tribune — all publications in major financial duress.
My moral qualms solved, the reality remains — what will it take? How will journalism survive?
I've yet to find a member of my generation — as enthusiastic as many are about blogs and "new media" — that'd rather see the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times fail than cough up $100 for a subscription.
But nobody's ever asked us to; nobody ever explained to us that we're the free riders killing the industry.
We've grown up with news being free, whether our parents paid for it or we stumbled across it on the Internet as young teens. In college, many of us found stacks of papers free in dining halls and student unions as publishers showered schools in hopes of building devoted young readers.
To where from here? I think the industry can only survive if big guns — the bankrupt Tribune Company, owner of the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune; the New York Times; the Washington Post; Murdoch; McClatchy; and Gannett — manage to collude. They, as a cartel, must demand that we pay for news, be it digital or print. I think a system where subscribers get Sunday print delivered combined with unlimited digital usage is a likely model.
It'll require a far more sophisticated password system than that the New York Times employed when it kept opinion pieces and archived content cordoned off in subscription-only territory, so that people don't share usernames. It'll also require web pages capable of preventing text from being lifted and reprinted. Finally, it'll take a vigilant legal effort by news corporations to keep material from being reproduced or quoted at length on parasitic blogs.
Most importantly, it will require leveraging the power the major newspapers have over their wire services — as major subscribers — to keep the Associated Press, Reuters, and others, from selling material to those operations — such as Google and Yahoo — which distribute content for free. Without this dimension, getting news for free online will continue unabated, and the industry will continue towards utter demise.
Surprisingly, there's an unrelenting faith amongst students of the field, professors, writers, editors, and even managing editors that something will break. That someone will "crack the code," and figure out how to make journalism profitable again.
I don't think there's a code to be cracked; I think there's only a reality to be explained. The news industry is in collapse; a critical piece of successful democracy is in jeopardy. Unless you trust blogs to accurately and consistently report news, or trust government and business to be completely forthcoming with all their misdeeds, you ought to recognize the free ride you've been on and stand to pay your fare.
Brian Till, one of the nation's youngest syndicated columnists, is a research associate for the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington. He can be contacted at till@newamerica.net. To find out more about the author and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
The problem with your stance is that you view "Journalism" as an institution, rather than a competitor in an open market.
The fact is that print media has staunchly held on to 100 year old ideas and ideals, and has really failed to keep pace with the technological advances. As a result, they are now feeling the brunt of the information age.
What you fail to see is that companies such as Google, and Yahoo! and others have found a way to give this information away "for free", and still manage to make money.
What the current economic recession is doing, and it seems a few are actively ignoring, is to force us to re-evaluate what we do and how we do it. For example, newspapers are wasteful. There are more print ads than news, the same is true of magazines. However, these ads are static, therefore, there is no draw back to the media. Same news, same ads, so very yesterday. Also, newspapers and magazines are not easliy recyclable (sp?) due to the chemicals used in the producing them, so from an environmental impact (how many newspapers/magazines are willing to use recycled paper, and env-friendly ink?) they are wasteful again. We wont even discuss how many trees are cut down to produce the paper.
Further, putting mandates on companies that gather information such as Reuters, and AP, will only hurt in the long run as what you are really doing is telling these companies who they can and cant do business with. I believe that falls under the Anti-trust legistlation. What's next? Sony can only sell TV's to middle class Asian-American's providing they only drive Japanese cars that are members of the International Japanese Auto-makers Association?
The good in the recession is that it will (if the government manages to butt out) force a culling of some of the corporate deadwood that accumulated in our society. Most of the businesses failing right now, are large companies that have either stymied in their business practices, sticking to 50 year old business models that dont work, or they are falling victim of their own poor business decisions.
The beauty of a free market is that good business is rewarded with more business, while bad business usually dies and falls to the wayside. (Yes, there are exceptions, how ever, I think it's fair to say this statement holds true for the vast majority)
There will be pain. It happens, what we as consumers must do now is tighten our belts, and become smarter consumers. Not revert back to tactics of more than 50 years ago, that have all proven to be failed ideas. We the consumer, in order to form a more perfect union, should hereby swear to demand the best from a company, instead of settling for mediocraty.
Kudos to the print media for NOT asking for a government handout, but shame on you for proposing we engage in a "cartel" business model, which will ultimately cause a failure of the cartel, as well as the satellite businesses affected by it's mandates. Take RIAA, for example and the DRMA decisions. Ultimately, what have these mandates done? Nothing except keep money out of the hands of the individual artists. People still share music, they have since recording of music has been possible, and they will unto perpetuity. The good news is that there are enough artists out there, who DO see the value of digital media without restrictions, and have managed to market well there (See Nine Inch Nails, et al).
To paraphrase Darwin...."Evolve or Die".
I would say you are less of a "murderer of news" and more a consumer. Consumers are fickle. A good consumer is also frugal. Why pay 10 dollars for something you can get for 5, etc. If you are on the move, then you media needs to be as mobile as you are. Instead of shoving the current poor product down our throats, perhaps these media companies would do better to improve their product as dictated by the market. Offer more electronic versions, and fewer print versions, and by the way, this is not the same as making a PDF version of the newspaper. That's just lazy!
Some companies have started doing this, however, it may be a case of too little too late.
Perhaps, it would be more fair of you to state, that, with regards to the media moguls, the market has spoken.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Charles
Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
There is some weight to your argument, except for one thing. Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth, for which people will pay money. The truth has value, just as knowledge has power. Here's the problem: Major media has chosen to go bankrupt rather than report the truth. Mass murder, intentional incompetence calculated to create profit-making opportunities, violation of treaties and US Code, cuts in funds for wounded veterans, school lunches, childrens' health care, environmental crimes, domestic spying (on nuns and Quakers), and criminal sex charges on GOP officials-- all are off the newspaper table.
If the major news organizations want to report spin and lies and ignore actual facts, so be their unprofitability. Recently Charlie Gibson allowed pres. Bush to lie on national TV about his Iraq misadventure. But the public doesn;t buy the Bush lie. If they told the truth,they would be selling papers and adspace like hotcakes. Why do they choose to overlook crime and report celebrity gossip? Because the criminals and media owners are financially linked. Why do they cut school lunches and give billions to bankers? Because the children do not own banks or major media, the children have not got the podium. On war crimes, domestic crimes, treason and calculated mismanagement, the silence is deafening.
Comment: #2
Posted by: marty
Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
