News is what matters, not newspapers

Lots of people have been blogging about John Nichol’s piece in The Nation about the state of newspapers in America.

For some, this is a reassuring tale about the continued importance of newspapers over other media. For Roy Greenslade, the anecdote at the start about newspapers’ role in the Montana Senate race shows that “newspapers continue to set the news agenda“. Ditto Editors’ Weblog.

Nichols does begin his piece by writing about the enduring importance of local newspapers:

…daily newspapers remain essential arbiters of what passes for news and what Americans think about it. For all the talk about television’s dominant role in campaigns … and all the new attention to the Internet, newspapers for the most part continue to establish the parameters of what gets covered and how. … Moreover, neither broadcast nor digital media have developed the reporting infrastructure or the level of credibility that newspapers enjoy.

This Greenslade summarises like this:

We are still in a state of transition from old to new media and newspapers do tend to set the news agenda. Bloggers, meanwhile, act as critics of the old media. They set the agenda only as a reaction to old media. They are not, yet anyway, proactive sources of news and their commentaries, given that there are so many, do not appear able to wield political influence with the same facility as newspapers.

Some might call this an example of the “derivative myth” of blogs, but it is certainly true — particularly for hard news like local politics. But reading Nichols’ piece as just another “old media vs. new media” text misses the more important argument further down page.

What if, as Nichols suggests later in his report, the business model for newspaper’s crucial and as-yet unmatched reporting infrastructure slips away — or if newspaper owners accelerate the decline with suicidal measures aimed at maintaining the high profit margins to which they have become accustomed?

It may be happening far slower than some more alarmist pundits might suggest, but what happens to news as newspapers lose more and more of their classified advertising revenue to the web? Who is going to pay for that agenda-setting reporting?

For some, the instinctive reaction is to cling on to the old, established business model in the vain hope that everything will be alright eventually. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nichols again:

As sad as the end of newspapers might be for someone like me, who began writing at age 11 for the weekly newspaper in my Wisconsin hometown, the important question for the great mass of Americans is not, How do we save newspapers? It’s, How do we still get a healthy mix of reported news and analysis from a variety of at least reasonably reliable sources?

This is a crucial point: Let go of your romatic attachment to the medium. It’s the message that matters. News, not newspapers, need saving.

Equally important is that the Internet is not, as some assume, the obvious solution. Nichols warns:

The web has yet to emerge as a distinct journalistic force—let alone one that speaks with the authority at the local, state or regional level of a traditional daily newspaper. While the web may someday be home to sites that generate the revenues needed to pay reporters and editors to produce meaningful journalism, that day has yet to arrive in any real sense.

“What is really frightening is that newspapers appear to be dying so quickly that they may disappear, or at least disappear as a serious part of our lives, before we have a replacement for them. That’s a grave danger to democracy,” says [Washington Post veteran and Pulitzer Prize-winner David Maraniss].

Exactly. This looming journalism gap, which some people have been warning of for ages, is the real issue we should all be talking about.

9 thoughts on “News is what matters, not newspapers

  1. Pingback: SacredFacts

  2. Pingback: Greenslade

  3. Pingback: Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media

  4. Pingback: Andy Dickinson.net » Blog Archive » Martin Stabe:The Journalism Gap

  5. I’d like to think that I produce pieces of meaningful journalism – and with 100,000 page views so far for the month of January so far, I’ve got some half-decent traffic numbers on my side as doing pure journalism – minus the time/distribution constraints of a printing press – works, albeit in the little world that is provincial football reporting.
    That said, however, commercially it is a tough nut to crack and whilst I hunker down for a reasonably tight spring, I suspect the answer – for me, at least – will ultimately include at least five income streams which, together, may yet get me there. For somewhere in the midst of banner advertising locally bought and sourced; straight subscriptions for premium content; affiliate advertising; premium text alerts; a soccer betting portal; the ability, in theory, to do discount ‘bulk’ subscription deals to every office worker sat in Norwich Union just as the Daily Mail might drop papers off in Little Chefs; and, finally/possibly/eventually, servicing electronic sports desks with syndicated match reports, I ought to be able to fund my work-from-home living… as, in theory, ought a mini, ‘news’ team syndicating their copy back into bigger news hubs. But it ain’t easy, trust me.

  6. Pingback: Martin Stabe » One site, two issues in online journalism

  7. Really good post Martin. News is seen as a commodity – but we need more than Reuters, PA and AP to have people on the ground and that costs money. Facts are sacred etc…;-) Journalism has to be based on newsgathering before we an have comment.

  8. t’s impossible to argue with Nichols’ conclusion — that journalism is more important than the medium or the ownership that produces it. But I fear his failure to address the basic reality behind journalism’s present troubles leaves his overall argument somewhat barren.

    In my view, the problems don’t center on content or ownership. It’s more about the disassociation of revenue from content.

    Many newspapers are doing reasonably well in learning to migrate our journalism to new platforms; we need to do so better (and faster), but I have near 100 percent confidence in our ability to extend into a new multiplatform, multichannel world with our values and mission intact.

    The key challenge is to figure out what to do about the fact that advertisers no longer need us as much as they once did. Traditionally, our business was to aggregate audiences and then sell them to advertisers. Doing so financed our expensive pursuit of the mission.

    But advertisers increasingly can find audiences elsewhere, or even bypass the notion of audiences by plugging directly into consumers, as with company websites, eBay or Monster.

    Fortunately, the audience model still works; it just doesn’t work as well as it once did. We have lost the unique advantages (unfair advantages, to be frank) of operating as monopolies with high barriers against competition.

    Now we have to learn to behave differently. Financing newspapers or newsrooms with foundation money won’t change that. (If you think monopoly newspapers lost touch with readers, wait till you see what a non-profit newsroom does.)

    I see salvation in embracing a capitalist, audience-centered model even more closely. As Marshall Field famously said to a recalcitrant clerk, “Give the lady what she wants.”

    Don’t protest that that’s just a prescription for more celebrity pregnancy news or ever-more graphic hanging videos (though somebody will emerge to provide all that, God knows). If we’re truly responsive to the needs of civic life in this society, we’ll find robust, attentive audiences willing to pay, one oway or another, for what we provide.

    As Nichols rightly asserts, honest, fearless journalism is essential for self-government. And because it’s essential, it will be economic. It is for us to discover how to make that connection in new ways, replacing the eroding old ways that no longer suffice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>