Posts
What are we saving?
We know that newspapers are closing all over the place. In itself this is not a problem. The problem is that it is likely to lead to even less good journalism – by which I mean journalism in its full investigative, watchdog role, the fourth estate if you will, the kind of journalism without which democracy falls apart.
In other words, a lot of newspapers are worth losing. A world without the Daily Mail, for example, might be less entertaining, but we won’t really be losing anything essential to the functioning of society. As Nick Davies illustrates in his excellent book Flat Earth News, and as most critical readers already know, journalism is already broken… for the most part.
And I think we should acknowledge that this is not just a result of the internet, 24-hour TV news, and the current economic crisis. Somewhere over the last thirty odd years journalism has gone corporate and this has resulted in less specialization, less in-depth work, and the incredible rise of press release journalism. As many in journalism will tell you, the soul of the profession has been ripped out and replaced by hard stream-lined economics.
In part, this is why arguments for publicly funded journalism are becoming viable. Whereas just fixing the economic model may save journalism, it may be saving the wrong kind of journalism, and whether even this is possible is doubtful. In fact, the current crisis is a wonderful opportunity to re-invent journalism in to something that can much more effectively serve society.
The economics of internet journalism
Whatever the long or medium term solutions might be, many journalists are being laid off and news gathering in some areas is grinding to a halt. Therefore it is extremely important to find ways of making internet journalism pay, and soon.
My feeling is that things can only get better – it might happen too slowly though. And whether there will ever be enough money in it is doubtful. For some insight in to just how expensive hardcore journalism can get, see Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger’s New York Review of Books piece on a major lible suit against the Guardian.
Finding ways to monetise internet journalism will not solve journalism’s problems, but in this case something is better then nothing. Still, there is a lot of gloom and uncertainty about how to do this monetising business. In short, the market, both publishers and advertisers have to grow up - given how young internet journalism is though, we really couldn’t have expected to do much better.
So, here’s a quick run down of what’s on the table and why there is more to all the options than what most critics seem to think:
Paywalls: Long written off and often shown to fail, the idea of paywalls and micro payment systems are making something of a comeback. Maybe the market is more ready for this than it was five or ten years ago. As more and more people get used to spending money online, paywalls, micro payment systems, and other similar systems might well become economically viable. Yes, we’ve been down that road, but there are some indications that second-time round things may be different.
It would be a sad retreat though. The free internet – which allows anyone on the planet to read the New York Times or the Guardian – must be one of the most democratizing and empowering social changes of the past ten to fifteen years. Paywalls may start to make economic sense again, but to my mind the retreat from freely available quality journalism is too high a price to pay.
Still, something will be saved if this model works – maybe some niche publications can survive this way and get enough funds to do some decent journalism. But this journalism will 1. Be behind a paywall, and 2. Still won’t make the kind of money to back really important journalism, in the being able-to-afford lawyers sense of the word.
Online advertising: Despite all the negativity, online ad-spend is rising, and will continue to do so. Marketers are catching on to the value of highly targeted ads. Publishers are getting a better idea of how to make ads work: Don’t clutter; Google ads makes you look cheap; Rather run one big ad on a page and ask a lot for it than running many small ones. Etc.
In short, the market is maturing. Whether it will mature enough to support hardcore journalism is very doubtful though. But, as with paywalls, there is more life left here than what many people think. Of course, combination models might also work pretty well.
Restructuring journalism: In an article called Can the statusphere save journalism, Brian Solis from TechCrunch argues that journalism might be in an era of redefining its basic structures. We’re heading for an environment where it is about individual journalists as their own brands – a journalism defined by status, if you will.
This is in part where we are heading – managing credibility will no doubt be key to journalistic success online as the advertising market matures. But status-driven journalism will not be able to support the hardcore journalism that democracy requires. Someone has to pay for those multimillion dollar investigations and the lawsuits etc. I don’t see anything in the statusphere to provide for these basic realities of the business of serious journalism.
Secondly, in a journalistic environment where status and marketing have often become intertwined at the expense of accuracy, this might well get worse if we expect too much from the statusphere. After all, many people still take quacks like Patrick Hollford seriously. (That said, the excellent HollfordWatch blog has put his work in perspective.) Point is, status is often highly subjective.
In other examples of changing media structures, websites like the Huffington Post and TruthDig.com have had substantial success with new business models. Similarly, a number of excellent health blogs are taking health journalism in exciting new directions.
But useful as all this is, there is still no replacement for Strong independent journalistic institutions with strong journalistic values, elaborate fact-checking processes, the budget for investigative journalism, and the legal muscle to face off to the bullies out there.
We’ll probably see all three of the above: a return of paywalls, better online ad revenue, and a shift in the structure of journalism. It will help, but it is highly unlikely to generate enough money to revive or reinvent good hardcore journalism, or to help fight the kind of lible suit Rusbridger writes of in the NYRB.
Going public
As Nick Davies, and others, have illustrated, journalism is in many ways broken. What we’ve had is a kind of market failure. Some forms of journalism are surviving, and will thrive, but journalism is in many instances becoming incapable of fulfilling its essential role in democratic societies.
I would argue that the role of journalism is so important, that when the market can no longer fulfil it, it is essential that the state steps in. This is not as strange a notion as it may sound. The publicly funded BBC, for example, has been producing quality journalism for ages – much of which simply wouldn’t have been produced by market forces alone.
Obviously a lot of checks and balances need to be in place ensuring independence from the state and some form of quality control. I will be looking at details of how this could work in a future post – but it is certainly where the discussion should be heading.
Whereas some have argued that the removal of the profit incentive will hurt journalism. To the contrary, I would argue that much of the decay of journalism that we’ve seen over the past twenty years have been precisely because of the need for profits trumping the need for good journalism.
The actual leg-work of journalism is done by journalists, and all the journalists I know got into it not for the money, but for telling the truth and uncovering corruption or getting the scoop and being the hero. Of course good journalists have to be paid well, but that is not why they do it. If anything, economic considerations forced many good journalists to stop doing in-depth work or to leave the industry through shere disulusion or because of job cuts.
Of course, large government handouts to newspapers without any strings attached cannot be the way to go. It cannot be business as usual. For one, in societies with a high internet penetration there is little reason to prop up print publications. Publications will have to embrace new technologies.
Also, public funding will allow for greater accountability. Whereas we certainly want to steer clear of censorship, the printing of demonstrably inaccurate information – particularly in fields like health journalism – could be curtailed by making publications answerable – not for matters of opinion, but for factual errors. Why not make a rule that all health articles in publications receiving public funding should be signed off by at least two doctors and contain links to the original studies. (for more on just how wrong mainstream media gets health coverage, see Ben Goldacre’s excellent Bad Science blog or his book by the same name.)
To summarise
To summarise then, I think the “monetising internet journalism” debate is a bit of a red haring within the bigger picture of journalism. We will no doubt see some more interesting publications like the Huffington Post and TruthDig.com, but this alone is not going to deliver the big, hardcore journalism that democracy requires.
The much greater problem than “monetising internet journalism”, is how to ensure a media that can fulfil its full watchdog, fourth estate, function. In this regard we have market failure, and the only solution I see at present is public funding … with some very carefully selected strings attached.
As for what current publications are to do? Invest in quality journalism – and as the online advertising market matures hopefully reap the rewards.
For a must-read discussion on public funding of the media, see The death and life of great American newspapers by John Nichols and Robert McChesney April 6, 2009 edition of The Nation And here you can read Charlie Becket’s response to the The Nation article.
No comments:
Post a Comment