Two weeks ago John wrote about the problems facing newspaper publishers. Now some in the industry are asking for a government bail-out.
Columbia Journalism Review – September / October 2007:
Journalism is a rare business in that its product—news—has a public-service function, but unlike other public-service activities, like public education or scientific research, it is not protected from market forces by government support. So when the financial viability of the news business is threatened, so too is the press’s role as the fourth estate. “I don’t think there’s any question, legally or constitutionally or theoretically, that journalism is a necessary public good for our constitutional system to work,”
Citizens need news even if they’re not willing to pay for it, and newsgathering is expensive. “Clearly, journalism’s role of informing citizens is crucial to democracy,”
If market forces have become unfavorable to the press, the question becomes, how do we support this essential institution of democracy?
Isn’t the government already supporting the industry by buying off journalists and planting stories for pay?
Kidding aside, I think the government owes the industry for all the support it got for going to war.
This is an interesting question. I think there’s a slippery slope here. If there are government bailouts, there might be an implied contract for the media to go easy on government. I know you can argue that that is already the situation we have. But I have hopes it won’t always be that way, and therefore institutionalizing the contract might be the wrong thing to do.
On the other hand, if the newpaper industry collopses, that’s not a good thing, either. Especially if the collapse ends up with a consolidation similar to that of the radio conglomerates.
True John they do owe the industry but if the journalists depend on the government for a paycheck how many of them will have the guts to look for the truth? Most of the press will worry that if they upset the hand that feeds them then they would be out of a job, let them just keep to running into walls why looking for black suits around every corner.
Back in the days of P2P someone said: “P2P won’t kill the music industry, only the current music industry.”
In other words, even if newspapers die out, a new source of news distribution will develop. Heck, it’s already out there. It’s called the internet and blogs.
I see no reason for the government to save newspapers if no one is willing to buy them. They’re nice to read when you’re sitting on the can, but I’d rather keep those tax dollars myself and install a computer in the bathroom.
No they shouldnt, the print version of newspapers are responsible for some much environmental damage, millions of trucks driving megatonnes of dead trees around… hello? im no green freak but jeez get with the future. and don’t give them money that should be spent elsewhere to protect a dying industry
The newspaper industry was a shambles…
The price of the newspaper was Pure profit.
Advertisements PAY for the paper, and pays ALL of the bills.
Then the truth and diversity of information FROM the paper is Malformed..There ISNT any..
What’s a “newspaper”?
It’s the cost of distribution that has really hurt the newspapers.
I used to work for a news paper distributor who worked with the Chicago tribune, Sun Times and even Barons. The problem is the internet provides better updates, more real time news. That’s all people really want in a face paced life. Heck some people never even watch the news. It’s too depressing I guess. I used to like reading the news papers myself. But the costs VS internet is no contest. I pay $40 a month for internet. I cannot afford a newspaper too.
Newspapers have to evolve, simple as that. Take the local Arizona Republic here. The newspaper sales are down, but the company that owns them also owns one of the major local TV stations too, and together they run one of the best local news portals azcentral.com
Now all they need is decent competition to keep them honest. They are sort of the model of local news gathering, and I am sure there are similar diversified news media groups in other cities.
The bad news is this: small centralized news gathering groups do not need as many reporters, and blogging just does not pay very much.
If newspapers want to survive, they will have to shift from their constant left-leaning bias and report the news fairly. I think they have already done too much damage to salvage their reputation. The votes are already in at the Boston Globe, New York Times, and the LA Times.
No! Absolutely not. They don’t report the news any more, they just say what they know is acceptable to the administration. As in John’s comment about supporting the war. If you want news you get it on the internet, preferably from international sources as the US sources won’t report things that are not supportive of the current administration. We have a veritable news blackout in America and are one of the worst informed nations on the planet. Let them go out of business.
This would be a very difficult question… IF they were actually sinking.
The Newspaper business actually turns a very strong annual revenue. So a private owner or partnership could do okay by just holding onto a paper, picking good editors, and letting it run its course.
But it’s not a growing business. The stream of profit is very steady and stable, and that doesn’t look good to the Wall Street Executives that are buying them up. So in response, they cut staff and cut back on high quality, expensive, investigative work. The readership weakens as a result.
If there is a “news crisis” it’s that quite a few very good papers will be utterly destroyed before Wall Street realizes it.
How about if they consolidate them all into one central paper for efficiency and call it Pravda or something like that?
I’m afraid I am not familiar with this “News” thing you say is in a Newspaper. As far as I can tell its all the same stuff rewritten a little and regurgitated off the AP wire
You know I think it has a lot to do with how they report the news. Just like TV news people are switching off. It’s not about left or right bias but the news. If all they want to report, just like CNN is Britney Spears latest adventure into alcohol and drugs whilst driving, then the public switch off. The newspapers need to realize their responsibility to the American people and call the government (both left and right) into question over policy. The Congress is no longer there for the people (just corporations) so the press need to ask those questions and when they do people will buy them. Until then I’ll use the Internet to read about Britney.
The news media and the Democratic Party are partners, not the news media and the fedgov.
Compare the mil blogs with the news coverage.
Where would my birds shit?
Local newspapers probs:
1. Gov. help always comes with strings.
2. Newspapers should always strive to make their opinion as truthful as possible (protect the brand).
3. Eliminate print media and delivery.
4. Be an ISP. Deliver news from a webpage with structure designed by net geeks and content by journalistic geeks (in my opin, journalistic types don’t know their “UMP” from a hole in the ground about how to structure a website). Deliver the news in print and podcast form. Sell web services at a very competitive price to new customers (WiFi or WiMax).
5. Mail a CD Archiving the previous quarter of local and national news to each subscriber.
6. all for $49.99 per year covering media and delivery cost. Paid advertising to cover news gathering, licensing, and profit.
Who knows it might work – nunyac
“If market forces have become unfavorable to the press, the question becomes, how do we support this essential institution of democracy?”
Question highlights the “model” one uses for evaluation. What is protected by the Constitution? The Press?==No.
The Constitution protects free speech. The Press/outspoken individuals/internet benefits from that protect but is not guaranteed existence in any sense–only free speech.
So, “THE PRESS” is not an essential institution of democracy==rather free speech in all its forms is. As commented above, the press is already excessively in the pocket of government power brokers. A new model/reinvigorated news source is needed. Long live a multitude of voices.
18,
i would ask, what your birds would READ while …… On the paper..
The financial problems aren’t in the news industry in general they are limited to a certain segment of the industry, ie newspapers.
Should the government subsidize town-criers?
How are journalists essential for the working of the Constitution? Most of the time they get the Constitution wrong in their articles anyways.
Boobo, I agree, with one, small, exception. The press was one of those power brokers, and is trying to regain it’s status.
Back at the start of online news and talk radio, all coverage from Washington went through about 24 newsmen, and they supported the Democratic Party. Both parties are string pulling crooks, but the press/democrat alliance gave the Democrats enormous leverage in that particular area.
Reagan cracked the monopoly that started the Vietnam War (among other things blamed on the Repugs) with his fireside talks, and broke it completely with the repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine” that gave full power to the Journalism Industry.
Usenet, Internet news, and the blogs are continuing the process.
They are not is the newspaper business. They are in the news business. As soon as they realize that they will simply change their delivery method and continue to make money.
#10 – If newspapers want to survive, they will have to shift from their constant left-leaning bias and report the news fairly.
When I find a left-leaning newspaper, I’ll be sure to mention your advice.
#11 – They don’t report the news any more, they just say what they know is acceptable to the administration.
But wait… The administration is right wing, and the guy before you thinks newspapers are left wing… something here doesn’t add up.
#20 – “If market forces have become unfavorable to the press, the question becomes, how do we support this essential institution of democracy?”
I read a pretty good article a while ago (and I wish I could find it) that talked about making news a non-profit business and why that would be better for citizens (not consumers). It envisioned a scenerio where the overwhelming majority of news sources were NPOs.
But you raise a great question. Despite the number of misinformed people who think news is a sham, journalists are the real defenders of freedom in America. The military defends infrastructure, which is vital, but not civil liberties and freedoms. All the threats to freedom we’ve faced since the end of WWII have been from within the United States. And one could argue that we haven’t faced a credible threat to our individual liberty, freedom, etc., that wasn’t from within since the last time a foreign set foot on our soil.
#24 – Back at the start of online news and talk radio, all coverage from Washington went through about 24 newsmen, and they supported the Democratic Party.
Thanks Rush… and now we return to Brit Hume in the studio…
26–OFTLO==I do agree “the Press” is doing a very bad job of muck raking these days. “Almost” irrelevant they have become—but for the chance they will do their job once or twice every 3-4 years, they really have become “a business” rather than a profession or better yet “a calling.” Sad, given there is so much muck about?
24–Phillep–where is the disagreement? And I wonder – – -if you think the press was left leaning some time ago, do you think it is right leaning now==or just lazy and incompetent?
As far as a balanced coverage of news can be appied to media in general, I have never noted a greater amount of vitriol and biased ranting, spewed nearly unceasingly, than that which flies from the orifices of our neocon nutbags in the media. I know they have become a small minority of the Repugs but, I still hold the Repugs to blame for letting them overwhelm their own better judgement in the past. Newspapers, like any of the forms of education,entertainment and all methods of current communication, should evolve with times or become extinct with dinosaurs of the past..and oh, by the way, someone clue the MPAA and RIAA ??
who reads newspapers anymore? other than my parents and others who arent computer savvy (aka once the boomer generation is gone, so are the newspapers)
#30….Tallwookie….yep…it will be sad to see the generation that actually KNEW how to read go.
#26..IMHO……the major papers in this country have gone through many stages. Once they were almost all conservative, then after the depression they started going more liberal. Thats the situation up to about Bill Clintons time. Now, you have a very, very few conservative papers and an almost as small a number of liberal papers. The problems come from the fact that the 4 biggest liberal papers also happen to be the largest circulation daily’s in the country. Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, and the L.A. Times….they have a bigger impact than the 4 largest conservative papers.
Most papers today are just ad carriers, they get all of their news from the wire services. Some smaller city papers do some local reporting, but not a whole lot. Journalists today are lazy, usually biased(either way), and report their *opinon* as news. Most of them don’t even do their own research anymore.
I go to many different online news services everyday to try and get 1 whole picture of whats going on from 20 different pieces about the same story. Blogs are not news providers, bloggers have biases, and opinions, and those who comment on them are the same. Blogs provide a different kind of service, but I wouldn’t call it *news*. I would call it a forum for views.
95% of actual news stories are provided by AP and Reuters, which are both left leaning. Like the BBC, if you are aware of the *lean*, you can compensate for it and filter out the truth. These stories are what the papers print, and what those who still read papers think is the whole truth.
There will probably always be a place for newspapers, but it’s obvious that their role as the preeminate news providers is becoming less true every year.