Image credit: Wikipedia
With the country sliding into a massive recession, two major foreign wars raging, federal investigators uncovering a series of juicy political scandals, and our first black President entering office, it’s hard to imagine the newspaper industry is having trouble finding news people want to read.
So what’s the problem? Industry insiders blame the Internet for all of newspapers’ woes. But it’s a bit more complicated than that.
Here’s my basic take on what really happened: As control of papers and other news sources were consolidated and corporatized over the last decade, decision making was wrested away from editors and publishers who actually know and care about journalism, and into the hands of businessmen and boards of directors who brought the wisdom of the business world to newspapers… and promptly ran them into the ground.
At the first hint of internet-induced financial trouble, they started cutting costs, and the first thing they cut was ‘enterprise reporting’ – investigative beats and international bureaus that are the darlings of old school, prestige-oriented newspapermen, but that business school economics tells us are products with very elastic demand.
News consumers won’t miss investigative reports into corruption in local government or coverage of important events taking place on the other side of the globe, the logic goes, because if the paper doesn’t cover it, it won’t make it onto readers’ radar at all. Better to focus on coverage of local sports and weather – things that readers care about because they’re happening right outside their windows – and that is cheap to produce.
The trouble with that logic is that it’s in coverage of these local events that newspapers face their biggest competition from the internet. Anyone can live-blog from a local sporting event or repost forecasts from the national weather service, so why would news consumers wait until tomorrow’s paper comes out to read about things they can find out about online as they happen?
Web 2.0 has universalized the means to distribute information that is easily collected like sports scores, election results or weather reports, but it hasn’t really changed the amount of effort, skill and contacts that investigative or international reporting requires. Even if the distribution models have changed, we still need strong, professional institutions like newspapers to gather and make public that important information.
That’s why we need to act now.
Few heads turn in Washington DC when a regional paper from a distant corner of the country folds. But if the newspaper crisis continues and we start hearing talk of national institutions like the New York Times or the Washington Post closing their doors, people will panic about the grim prospects of a democracy without a fourth estate.
At best we’ll get the same solution we’ve gotten for all of the problems that we knew were looming, but tried to ignore until it was finally impossible: a newspaper industry bailout. And it won’t work for the same reason the financial bailout and the auto industry bailouts probably won’t work – it will just pump more money into flawed institutions under failed leadership, without addressing their flaws or changing their leaders.
The better alternative is to act now, before panic ensues, and actually change the way we think about journalism. Is it a product that corporations sell to us in whatever form is most profitable, and only as long as the money keeps flowing? Or is it something that we think of as a public good and value for its own sake?
If we choose the latter, we should urge the incoming administration to create a new National Endowment for Journalism - let’s call it the NEJ - a federal fund aimed at supplementing the free market for media and enhancing the aspects of journalism that contribute most to the public welfare
One simple idea would be to create an enterprise reporting fund where editors at existing newspapers (or radio stations, TV stations or websites) could apply for money to execute reporting projects they couldn’t otherwise afford, allowing them to pay for staffing, reporting expenses, travel abroad and production of in-depth international or investigative coverage.
The Pulitzer Center On Crisis Reporting has been funding reporting using this model on a smaller scale for several years with a lot of success (disclosure: the CLP received a Pulitzer Center grant last year for reporting on water scarcity in East Africa). Newspapers would keep the same means of distribution, but could grow their revenues by delivering an enhanced product at little additional cost.
Another great use of NEJ funds would be to enhance public broadcasting. Currently, NPR and its local affiliates only get about a third of their funding from grants, and most of those come from private foundations, not the government. It’s a similar story for PBS stations. An injection of cash would allow NPR to improve its coverage and expand its reach, and would allow PBS to spin off the news shows it already produces into a 24 hour news channel that could do what cable news channels don’t – cover a diverse range of stories with more on-the-ground reporting and less talking head analysis, and broadcast some of the fantastic current events-related documentaries that are being made all the time but struggle to find distribution.
If we want to get even more ambitious, we could create a National Public Newspaper using a similar funding model as NPR or PBS (government funding mixed with reader support, private grants and corporate underwriting). The newspaper would cover national and international affairs, as well as local stories of national interest, but not be targeted toward any particular region of the country. Rather than competing with local for-profit newspapers, it could actually help them by allowing them to rerun its original international and national coverage at low rates, and by paying to use their infrastructure to publish and distribute the national public paper locally.
The value that these new media resources would provide--in supplementing our struggling education system, in articulating our national identity, in ensuring our ability to make informed democratic decisions, and in salvaging the integrity of our existing news media--to me far outweigh their financial cost.
The Pulitzer Center funded 25 extensive international reporting projects last year for only $270,000. The BBC covers the globe with the world’s largest network of reporters for TV, radio and the web, and still has room in its $6 billion annual budget to produce loads of entertainment programming.
All of the NEJ projects proposed here could probably be executed for a few hundred million dollars a year in government funds. To put it in perspective, that’s about the cost of roughly 12 hours of the war in Iraq.
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.
An NEJ with nonpartisan leadership and independent control over funding and editorial decisions could only be an improvement over the corporate media ownership model. Best of all its formation would create jobs for some of the legions of newly laid off journalists and editors soon to be loosed on streets across the country by a shrinking newspaper industry. We’ll be paying their salaries anyway when they hit the unemployment rolls. We might as well save American journalism while we’re at it.This piece originally appeared on The Common Language Project, a nonprofit multimedia production house that reports news from around the world about the people affected by key social justice issues, with a specific focus on stigmatized regions and peoples underrepresented in the traditional media.
The BBC may not be the best of examples to jump to these days-- recently, the headquarters of BBC Scotland was occupied by demonstrators unhappy with high level plug- pulling, and BBC employees aren't much happier, if rumors are to be believed.
Frankly, I've less than zero respect for self-described journalists. Anyone who'd voluntarily place themselves in the same category as Tom Friedman probably belongs in the scrapheap of history.
This sentiment, that journalists are worth less than janitors, began around the Iraq war-- where were the journalists then? The Internet hadn't yet drunk their milkshake, but we didn't see the hard questions asked by the BBC, we didn't see them asked from print or commercial domestic journalists, and we didn't hear them from PBS.
The cute little "Homeland Security" bumpers from NPR don't endear me to them either, any more than their right-wing slant on economics or bending-over-backwards to go soft on Bush. "Surely Bush must have the best of intentions" ad nauseum.
We need something better than journalism. Journalism got us into this mess, and we're not getting out of it with the same bent spanner.
A National Endowment for Journalism... Really, another institution under Federal control... Are you out of your frealing mind? Do you not remember Jessie Helms and the National Endowment for the Arts-- all it takes is one rogue Senator and the endowment you speak of is sent running for the hills. Let one journalist expose one corrupt Congressman or weapons kickback scheme from the likes of Haliburton and your endowment is dust in the wind, dried up, no more Federal funding.
A far better idea would be to gather journalists and bloggers into one big non-profit network with the understanding that they won't get dumped for doing their jobs.
A formal non-profit has a much better chance of survival and a lot bigger reach than a Federally managed, through the control of purse strings,Federal endowment.
And even better: instead of reinventing the wheel, work with NPR, PBS and other existing publicly supported institutions to find a way to bring more indy media into what they do. You see, the endowment that created public broadcasting has already been cut to less that 1% of their ovrall funding so they're no longer scared of loosing it.
Remember: Anything supported by tax dollars is controlled by government.
I generally like the way you described the situation - the news institutions now, although filled with earnest reporters and editors, are unable to make quick decisions because of the institutional structure that has been placed on top of them.
I think we need LOTS of different experiments and that more and more local newspapers will have to turn nonprofit.
Here's one model I'm working on: http://spot.us
Trying to pioneer "community funded reporting."
Skepticism of government funded media is natural because state-run media producing pro-government propaganda is almost a cliche, but if you look at past examples, government funded media projects set up in a democracy tend to remain democratic. Whether they can hold on to their funding I suppose is another question, but that's hardly a reason not to try to fund them in the first place.
You can rightly take issue with specific columnists, or news channels, or even the way journalists collectively covered something like the lead up to the Iraq war, but I think the idea that journalism is worthless and we should be happy to see it disappear is ridiculous. Information and the continuing education of the population about the world, our government, our society etc. are vitally important to the public interest - just like roads, or police departments, or education - if any of those things were left to the whims of the free market they'd probably fail to function (or only serve the wealthy), so we've made the collective decision to put them, at least partially, in the hands of the government.
We can, and should, criticize the way our government handles any of these endeavors, just as we'd cast a critical eye as the way a government media funding was set up and distributed - that's how democracy works.