Journalism Will Survive
Yesterday I read another one of those hand-wringingly apocalyptic columns in a media trade rag--Advertising Age–that outlined the media meltdown in such hysterical terms I had to double-check to make sure I wasn’t reading The Onion by accident. Consider:
The toll will be so vast — and the institutions of media and marketing are so central to our economy, our culture, our democracy and our very selves — that it’s easy to fantasize about some miraculous preserver of “reach” dangling just out of reach.
Well, that’s your first problem right there. “Marketing”–the whole concept of trying to convince people to buy things they neither want or need–is something utterly endemic to the idea of a person’s self. Why do you think we shy away from poor advertising, skip commercials on our DVRs, and block ads on our browsers? Because we don’t want to be advertised to. By tying this so heavily to the underpinnings of modern journalism, you were sowing the seeds of your doom.
As Sticky Fingaz said, “But but but but wait, it gets worse!”
Garfield admits further on that the power of modern media came from scarcity–everything from the high costs of entry into the business to the privileged access journalists, editors, and the like had to their sources. Now, in an age where everyone is a publisher, and experts talk right to the public (and the public talks back), access is no longer an issue, and the cost of entry is near zero. But to Garfield, this is an unacceptable state of affairs:
The audience doesn’t imagine that all cars want to be free, or that all toasters want to be free, or that all paper towels want to be free, but it somehow believes that all content wants to be free. That’s an indefensible ethic, but moral high ground doesn’t repay the creditors.
“Indefensible?” Tell that to the Free Software Foundation, adherents of which are merely the latest group of thinkers to remember that information is not of the same value of cars or paper towels, or any other typical good. Cars and paper towels are only good for their specific purpose, but information can be used for many, virtually endless purposes. Information is the base code or foundational architecture of everything we do, say, and think.
This is what people like Garfield don’t get, and why the traditional media empires are crumbling around them. People want information. Even if it’s just to confirm their biases or validate their feelings, they will seek out opinions and research from others. Hell, many of us will happily pay for it. But here’s the key–it has to be good. It has to add something to our life that wasn’t there before. It has to tell a compelling story, illuminate a crisis in historical context, and challenge our assumptions. It has to make you think.
This is where modern journalism failed, and what I think Alan Mutter gets:
As a direct consequence of the breakdown in the traditional media business model, publishers today are cutting the quality and quantity of the content they produce at the very moment they should be investing more aggressively than ever in the sole distinguishing capability that powerfully differentiates them from the millions of websites that are siphoning away their readers and advertisers.
The very thing that made modern newspapers what they were was gutted and eviscerated–the ability to use resources to deploy reporters full-time into the breach of a story and connect the dots, follow the money, and build a comprehensive narrative from seemingly arbitrary and random facts. Worse yet, many of those reporters (and editors, let’s not forget) who remained were happy to give up their professional responsibilities as sages and truth tellers for the privilege of “access” to sources, for writing “beat sweeteners” to butter up ornery insiders and loosen them up enough to spill the goods. I don’t have to belabor this point too heavily, because you all know it. It was this abrogation of responsibility that led to everything from the rah-rah uncritical cheerleading of the Iraq war to the utter failure to explore the roots and causes of the financial crisis–and warn people of its effects–until it was too late.
But there are signs that this is changing. Yesterday, for example, the Huffington Post announced a $1.75 million investment fund for supporting investigative journalism into the financial sector:
Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation’s institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists for the venture. “All of us increasingly have to look at different ways to save investigative journalism,” she said.
This is a big about-face for the company that said it wouldn’t pay bloggers because it didn’t fit into their business model. But blogging is not the same thing as journalism, and anyone who’s read their fair share of blogs knows that. The best journalists use the tools available to them to tell the story, and blogging is just one of those tools. Josh Marshall was a journalist before he was a blogger, but he saw the potential of blogging as a new way to report on the stories that he felt mattered, and now look. The guy built a media empire powerful enough to break open a massive scandal plaguing the highest ranks of our government, and dethroned one of Bush’s most egregiously corrupt ass-kissers. That’s exactly what journalism is supposed to do–afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
And Marshall’s path is not the only path journalism can take. Alex Stonehill advances the idea of an NPR-like “public press,” funded by a national endowment for journalism:
The BBC model also provides a strong counterexample to the most obvious criticism of this idea – that government-funded media invites corruption. The BBC has operated for 80 years as an autonomous public corporation funded through tax dollars, without its editorial independence being compromised by government interference. Besides, many of our worst fears for how integrity and editorial independence in journalism might be compromised by government control have already been realized with papers under corporate control – consider Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell weighing Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich’s offer to facilitate Tribune’s sale of the Chicago Cubs if Zell would fire newspaper editors critical of the governor.
What he said. Our supposedly “independent” fourth estate has not only failed miserably to exert any independence from the institutions it covers, but has often acted as a fully compliant arm of those institutions in distributing their propaganda interests unchecked. Americans almost universally hold the BBC (and NPR) up as models of smart, in-depth reporting, and guess what? Those are either wholly or partially government funded. Our historical support of a public media infrastructure has been weak at best and adverse at worst, but it is by no means alien to these shores. A true, functioning democracy requires a functional and empowered press, and this is the time to explore new models in order to give the journalists of today and tomorrow the chance to explore the stories which need telling.
And this, to me, is really the key of why journalism will survive: Because we need it. We’re in a world now where everyone is (or claims to be) an expert, and everyone has a perch to spout their particular dogma or set of beliefs, often backed up with substantial evidence, but just as often not. Bloggers and commenters will hurl articles and links at each other like fusillades at the Somme (”The Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing crisis!” “No, it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall!”), using specific bits of information to justify their ideological biases. Very few people are blessed or cursed with the wherewithal to seek context, to seek greater meaning, to find out how the parts fit together. (Heaven knows most practicing reporters aren’t.)
Fewer still are those who realize that true, good, honest reporting does not happen in a vacuum–and neither does shitty, vacuuous, stenographic reporting, for that matter. The reporter doesn’t just wave their fingers and have their article appear whole cloth on the front page of the Post–it goes through editors on several levels, many of whom have agendas of their own, or are serving the agendas of larger parties. I think blogging makes it so easy for us to speak unfiltered that we forget that “traditional” journalism plays through a lot more sets of rules than blogs or citizen journalists do, but where citizen journalists rely on the self-correcting power of community to ensure they stay factual and accurate (I’m still getting crap for mixing up my numbers on my AIG post, for instance 
), the old school has the hierarchical system to deal with–and that can often lead to both severely bollixed results or truly worthy stories.
The point I’m trying to make here is that journalism, as a craft, as a trade, as a calling, will survive. It has to because it fulfills a role we’ve needed since the dawn of time, since people first came together in community–the truth-teller, the sage, the chronicler, the person who marks down all occurences for posterity. The truly good ones will rise above the seas of hackdom, substance-free tabloidism, and the like, using whatever tools they can–the blog, the endowment, a paid subscription model, or all of the above–and do what the societal ecosystem needs them to do, in order for the community to survive and thrive.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
You make a lot of great points. However, it seems to me that as bad as the old “Advertising is King” model is, it is pretty easy to see how it came to become dominant in media… simply becuase the original media venues we so anonymous… TV and Radio were just throwing stuff onto the airwaves, and even newspapers, which were sold, were done so anonymously on consignment.
The system is going to go through a lot of turmoil before it is able to reform.
To your point that we are willing to pay for content, as long as it is good… That is another problem. The issue is that the industry isn’t designed around targeted quality content, it is designed around throwing HUGE HEAPING MASSES of medicore content out there, with the notion that something in the mess will appeal to everyone.
Hence we all are willing (in theory) to pay fairly high prices for Cable TV, and get 200 channels we never watch, because somewhere in that mess are the few nuggets we think are worthwhile.
Media has been building towards this high volume hail mary approach for years. Hence the Cable News Networks and other channels breaking out into “24 Hour Round the Clock BS that we hope you will find an hour of worthwhile.”
If we really do need to seriously streamline media operations to produce targeted, high quality product and cut the fluff, that is a HUGE transition.
Your points about BBC/NPR are well founded, but we Americans as a nation seem to have this real loathing of government sponsored anything. I am not sure that can easily be fixed, or that logical arguments will pierce that. Americans are almost universally taught to distrust the government. Hell, many Americans don’t even identify with the government, wiping their hands clean of it.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Nick,
Very good points as always. I’ll address them in turn.
The high level of distrust Americans have in their government is not without justification, certainly, but as you say–it’s taught. Not an innate part of our character, and thus it can be *retaught*, or unlearned as the case may be.
Remember, no one thought we’d ever elect a black President, let alone one with the middle name “Hussein.”
There’s been a frequent debate in cable TV circles about “a la carte” pricing, where you only pay for the channels you want. Most people, at this point, still purchase cable or satellite for the sports packages, because so many other shows are available online, so people who don’t buy those packages shouldn’t have to subsidize those who do. If I had a la carte, I’d probably be able to cut down my cable bill at least another $20. (As it was, I convinced Time Warner to not give me the Sports or Spanish tiers, which saved me $15 right off the bat, because they were so desperate for subscribers.)
The problem is that many broadcasters oppose this because they wouldn’t be able to survive without being carried by the more profitable networks. Former FCC chairman Kevin Martin was on a huge crusade for a la carte bundling as a way to reduce smut on the airwaves and please the Religious Right–until he heard from many lower-tier evangelical broadcasters that they would go off the air if they weren’t bundled with more salacious packaging.
Savor the irony.
The transition is not easy. It’s happening now, all around us–people are losing their jobs, papers are shuttering, TV stations are going dark. We have to find new ways to fund that knowledge and get these people back to work. Our country needs the best of the best to do what they do, because without a strong press corps, we might as well hand the keys over to the corrupt elites and say, “Have fun! We’ll leave the light on for you.”
March 30th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Agreed. To go Cable A La Cate as you say will probably mean that a whole boatload of channels just disappear. Part of the issue is that we are at a major convergence of changing several things at once.
All of these things means that the industry basically goes through the wringer and is reborn. Since so many people that run the industry may well lose their jobs, they are in no rush :-p
Moving away from bundled, quantity over quality, sponsored content to a la carte, targeted, quality, on demand subscription content means much less content, and the end of the whole idea of “programming.”
The “Media Conglomerate” that is the Television Industry becomes what? A TV Interface for the Internet? Because taking only the best content, and putting it where I can decide what to do with it sounds just like putting up a huge peer to peer server and letting us run with it.
It could be (tongue in cheek) the Protestant Reformation of the Church of Media.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
One of the roadblocks to making the Internet the central portal for all media distribution is that content distributors can yank away content at a moment’s notice. That’s why shows disappear from Hulu, why videos get taken down from YouTube due to spurious claims of copyright violation, etc.
The old gatekeepers are desperately trying to squeeze all the revenue they can out of the current model to pay their mortgages, put their kids through school, etc. Perfectly understandable, but they fail to see that if they went full-hog on expanding their infrastructure, e.g. more broadband to more people, and brought more shows to the Internet, not fewer, they could create a sustainable business model in no time.
I’m perfectly okay with the giant P2P server idea, frankly. It’s a much more market-based and efficient system than what we have now, where generally ass-tastic and ignorant MBA types interfere with creative visions and end up torpedoing or sabotaging them in the name of pleasing advertising demographics.
Look at the problems Joss Whedon is having with “Dollhouse”–the very changes the network demanded, from simplifying the storylines to dumbing down his trademark witty dialogue is what’s killing the show. Or there are Ron Moore’s legendary struggles with
SciFiSyFy over stand-alone episodes of BSG that brought us such clunkers as “Black Market” and “The Woman King.”These idiots have written themselves into obsolesence with their desire to play to the least common denominator and feed us a steady diet of stupidity.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Yeah, the ship has really sailed for print media to capitalize on advertising in the information age. Online advertising is too cheap to support what a newspaper needs, plain and simple.
I like the idea of newspapers as non-profits. We may not even need an American version of the BBC. NPR receives very little of its funding from the corporation for public broadcasting. The vast majority of their funding is from listeners, large donors, and corporate sponsors taking advantage of the tax deduction.
But more broadly speaking, I think you’re spot on that print media was never going to save its skin by diluting the quality of its product. As a consultant, I firmly believe that running a lean and efficient operation is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for putting out a product that people want or need to consume. Print media is NOT in competition with blogs because unless the fourth estate reclaims its position in the market, there won’t be anything to blog about.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Folks- The comments above regarding the ‘a la carte’ media model for cable is something that is transforming (albeit slowly) the printing industry. Personalized advertising has been driving the focused content of print collateral for nearly a decade now- the tortoise paced transition stems from an industry with dated, large investment hardware, and craftsmen and business models that are slow to embrace variable data and the skill set and infrastructure to support it. Eventually, the culling process that we are in the midst of will produce well pruned advertising and print companies who understand and have implemented the filters for the cesspool of information. (Perhaps a more precise picture than what is presented by this persons premise is that it’s only partially pugnaciously pungent.)
The slurry of data isn’t all crap and the technology enables the filtering and mining of information. Print has always been a more tangible, tactile means of communication that drives more successful promotion.
There are categories in which the newspaper was once the main means of dispersion- the want ad, the job notice- that are now dead from cost and lag time. The next generation of newsprint will be a custom subscription where one pays for the content desired and will receive only that, for the flat delivery rate. When contracting for your personalized rag, you’ll divulge a few preferences and interests which will augment what is already known about your spending habits and demographics. Advertisers will be happy to have a pre-qualified leads for more personalized marketing.
You’re only interested in financial information, world and national news, but could care less about entertainment and television listings? A publisher will be happy to save the paper and ink. Less overhead and better placed advertising dollars… or Euro… whatever.
I wouldn’t expect to see much of anything in this arena until business takes a turn for the better, (like so many other things on ‘hold’) but the printing industry buzz, pre-crash, was not only for personalized advertising in sheet form, but packaging as well.
Suzi gets the sample of cereal with Barbie and her own name on the box, while Johnny gets the sporting theme with his junior football portrait on it.
A little over a decade ago, some really bright folks at Microsoft were touting the ‘Office of the Future’, in which all documents would be electronic, and your e-faxes wouldn’t be printed- they’d be on a heads-up display in your flying car. (editorial sarcasm)
Time has shown that print volume is a function of available information. It seems that we’ve only just begun to shred trees… or the next better source for biomass that comes along.
Obviously, volume has little to do with content and it’s quality. Printers and publishers will learn how to listen to their markets and respond in the most efficient way possible while they do their best to pawn data about you, the consumer, for cash.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Big Mike,
I think we’re seeing more and more citizen journalists and bloggers step up to the plate and generate their own news through investigation, research, and tenaciously following the truth. This is one reason why I’m a big nut for open government data–the more information that is available, the more people can avail themselves of it directly.
Otherwise, I agree with you totally.