Journalism's brave new world
by Stuart H. Loory Posted Wed, Dec 31 2008
These days, many in the American news business see newspapers as having arrived at an Armageddon of sorts. But are newspapers really at a similar moment in the history of journalism as the horse-and-buggy business found itself when the internal combustion engine hit the scene?
There are two ways to look at it: the optimist’s view and the pessimist’s view. The newsroom optimist says, “Of course newspapers will survive, but they’ll be in a much different form, and we can’t yet tell you what that form will be.”
The pessimist, on the other hand, believes the time has come to say goodbye to the mainstream news business; that readers, viewers and listeners—those who consume the news—have abandoned the market to youngsters who want their information on hand-held screens—mobile phones, BlackBerries, iPods and platforms yet to come. The pessimist interprets this to mean the kids aren’t interested in real news any longer, and that they’re happy to get their information from sources such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo.
Those who speak of Armageddon base their argument on the impacts economics and technology have made on the news business. The big spenders in the American news business have come to grief during the past two years—and they’ve carried all of us along. Sam Zell, the real estate magnate who bought the Tribune Co. and took it private, has declared the bankruptcy of an institution that includes some of the nation’s most important dailies. McClatchy Newspapers, which bought Knight-Ridder Newspapers, then the second-largest chain in the country and arguably the best, has seen its value plummet 85.62 percent in 2008. Lee Enterprises, which bought the once prestigious St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has suffered a 97.34 percent drop in its stock price on the New York Stock Exchange. On the day I checked (Dec. 18, 2008), only one publicly listed publishing company showed a gain. It was Marvel Entertainment, the comic book publisher.
Much of the deluge is credited to the recent economic recession, which has destroyed economic progress throughout the world. But serious journalism does not have to suffer as it does when it is “Twittered” away.
It’s clear that the answer to the news business’s problem is the successful migration of newspapers to electronic publishing. Ink and paper, the mainstays of information dissemination since the 15th century introduction of movable type, are no longer a necessity. Instead, the focus has shifted to digitized type and audio and video generated by microchips and viewed on plasma screens.
Roger Fidler, the first fellow at the Reynolds Journalism Institute of the Missouri School of Journalism, describes in this issue of Global Journalist how digital publishing works and what its benefits are. In brief, tablets on which electronic ink display news and information are the platforms of the future. Lightweight, multimedia-ready and in color, they are already replacing convenient laptop and notebook computers. They will give serious news consumers the opportunity to meet all their needs on a single platform that offers something more than the hand-held iPhone can.
If Armageddon is really upon us, must we come up with a solution to help the forces of good (those who will figure out how to rescue newspapers) withstand the forces of evil (the aggregators, algorithmers, bloggers, Web site proprietors and advertisers who are scuttling down the mooring lines of the sinking SS Fourth Estate)? And what about the hardware developers and software writers who have thrown out the lines?
The answer has two parts: first, there is no need; and second, it would be counter-productive. The facts are that the old economics of the news business are gone and that a new model must be developed to enable the new distribution. This new model will rest on selling consumers—the subscribers, listeners and viewers but not the advertisers—the products produced by journalists. In the old economic model, the news business paid lip service to the idea that it had a responsibility to the public, but it didn’t always live up to its word. In this new model, consumers will be of central importance.
Gone are the days when free over-the-air radio and television ruled. Now, digital distribution rules and buyers pay happily for good products. Consumers have learned to pay for television and are learning the value of paid radio. They are also paying for text messaging and Internet services on their hand-held devices.
Obviously, these technological and economic changes will also mean a change in how good journalism is produced. The key word here is “good,” and it need not be compromised. The people will pay, and it’s more important for proprietors of news business organizations to understand that than to lament the good old days when you could hold a paper product in your hands, carry it wherever you were going and read it at your pleasure. A world of possibilities is upon us, and that world will only expand in the years to come.
Stuart H. Loory
Stuart H. Loory, an international journalist, is Lee Hills Chair in Free-Press Studies at the Missouri School of Journalism and editor of Global Journalist. Loory worked for TBS/CNN from October 1980 to March 1997 as CNN vice president and Washington managing editor, Moscow correspondent, and executive producer, among other positions. Before joining TBS/CNN, Loory spent 28 years in the newspaper business. Among his positions were Moscow bureau chief for the New York Herald Tribune and White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times during the last years of Lyndon Johnson and the first two of Richard Nixon. He was a member of the Nixon enemies list. He was later managing editor of the Chicago Sun Times where he supervised several award-winning investigative reporting series.