On line "news" vs. Journalism

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

Well, the Wall Street Journal's done alright with it. The NY Times is going to head that way sooner rather than later, and they'll do fine, too. My guess is that as the situtation deteriorates futher, the remaining dailys will either go bankrupt or start charging. Once the availability of "free" news comes to an end, then people will have to pay someone. Whether that means everyone goes to the NY Times or USA Today, or sticks with their local fishwrap, I don't know.

The Times and the Journal will survive just fine, as they have enough of that niche market.

If all papers start charging, people will just watch CNN. Or read their website.

Again, these newspaper guys are analogizing a subscription fee to the cost of buying a paper, when they're not remotely the same thing.

Well, considering donations aren't a sustainable way to pay salaries of people like reporters and editors, I'd say they have a point.

I agree that they might be forced to do it. I just don't think it will work.

But I disagree that donations aren't sustainable:

Interesting yeah, but again, I don't see it being sustainable long-term.

Well, I've talked with Joel Kramer, the editor of MinnPost. They don't quite have it down yet, but the combination of a Public Radio approach with advertising and member contributions has worked long enough to keep them afloat. The quality of the articles is much higher, as well. I think it's a promising medium.

Oh, and MinnPost is not just some blog. Those are all professionals. Most were ex-Star Tribune folks who have taken one of the many rounds of buyouts. They're professionals with excellent connections in the area.

Anyway, if you take out the profit angle, you've made a huge leap. Part of the reason so many papers have been gutted is because they're expected to make profits. Put them in the non-profit realm, and that changes things.

Add in the donation aspect, and I think you've got an interesting model to build on.

 

[alfablue]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

No way donations will be sustainable. We think NPR is all donations, but remember that it IS supported by the US Congress. It's not purely donations and sponsorship.

First of all, most of them come from the audience that you just said that you are ok with abandoning- the older, non-internet people. They are the ones with most of the money, and want to keep the golden age. So in a while, that money will probably die off.

Second, eventually, the people getting it for free will just annoy the payers to the point where it's just not worth it.

As it stands right now, our society sees journalists as the value that we place on advertising, since that's pretty much were all the money comes from. Which puts us into a tight condundrum- when do we call BS on the news and just see it as entertainment based on who is paying the bills and how it's being presented. Heck- there's even a lot of questions from ESPN and how they REALLY report sports news vs. the conflict of them really being the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network- nothing about news.

The web has marginalised information so much, since there's SO much of it available, even when 99% it is not important, that we expect that the important 1% should still be for free when people risk their life and limb to get a story. Kinda sad.

Much like teaching, real journalism takes a back seat to entertainment. Based on some of the magazines I read, I still think there's room out there for paid writing, and paper delivery WITH web support.

If we stay free, it's going to end up like Idiocracy (see the media content there).

 

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

No way donations will be sustainable. We think NPR is all donations, but remember that it IS supported by the US Congress. It's not purely donations and sponsorship.

Again, that's not what MinnPost is doing. They're taking out the external profit motive (i.e. the demands to shareholders) and bridging the gap between old newspaper ad revenue and current internet ad revenue with donations, membership (i.e voluntary subscriptions) and philanthropy.

For a locally focused 'paper,' I can think of plenty of local donors and philanthropists who would love to ensure a robust journalistic enterprise in their city...

First of all, most of them come from the audience that you just said that you are ok with abandoning- the older, non-internet people. They are the ones with most of the money, and want to keep the golden age. So in a while, that money will probably die off.

MinnPost made this exact decision. They had a print edition you could subscribe to, which they scrapped because it was a money loser. Instead, they offer print formatting for easy printing of articles via PDF - in the same way you'd layout a paper, not just the 'print' function on your computer.

The problem with wanting to keep the golden age is that the golden age is done, no matter how you slice it. You're only postponing the inevitable.

Second, eventually, the people getting it for free will just annoy the payers to the point where it's just not worth it.

As it stands right now, our society sees journalists as the value that we place on advertising, since that's pretty much were all the money comes from. Which puts us into a tight condundrum- when do we call BS on the news and just see it as entertainment based on who is paying the bills and how it's being presented. Heck- there's even a lot of questions from ESPN and how they REALLY report sports news vs. the conflict of them really being the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network- nothing about news.

The web has marginalised information so much, since there's SO much of it available, even when 99% it is not important, that we expect that the important 1% should still be for free when people risk their life and limb to get a story. Kinda sad.

Much like teaching, real journalism takes a back seat to entertainment. Based on some of the magazines I read, I still think there's room out there for paid writing, and paper delivery WITH web support.

If we stay free, it's going to end up like Idiocracy (see the media content there).

I don't see what's sad about it. That old model wasn't based on any particular lionizing of the news, it was based on the old monopoly economic structure that allowed the news to be profitable.

I don't think our values have changed. There are surveys pointing out that Americans today consume more news (a lot more) than ever before.

Paying for it won't work, except in certain niche situations.

So, you've either got to restore the monopoly or find a new model. Either way, lamenting the days of yore won't get you any closer to a solution.

 

[alfablue]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I don't see what's sad about it. That old model wasn't based on any particular lionizing of the news, it was based on the old monopoly economic structure that allowed the news to be profitable.

I don't think our values have changed. There are surveys pointing out that Americans today consume more news (a lot more) than ever before.

Paying for it won't work, except in certain niche situations.

So, you've either got to restore the monopoly or find a new model. Either way, lamenting the days of yore won't get you any closer to a solution.

For not paying, you ALWAYS get what you pay for. So if you are not paying for it, the sponsors are getting what they are paying for it.

I'm not really lamenting for the days of yore, I'm pointing out that we, as a society, undervalue news. Nobody is willing to pay for it, so we end up with blogsites where the news is submitted by the newsworthy, single sided, or is slanted by the people paying for it. Basically, we have freedom of the press, and we get press for free.

I don't understand that you are ok with free news- what if big oil was able to take over all the news services and basically debunked the other side of the CO2 debate? What it my auto industry got control, and then debunked all of the public transportation debate? If YOU don't have $$ input, don't expect to have a balanced reporting.

You ALWAYS get what you pay for. Pay nothing, that's how much your news is worth.

Like I said before, you write a decent enough paper that people are willing to pay for, and go with that. Don't over extend, don't cater to the feebies, cater to the readers. Your monopoly is balanced by radio, internet, and TV. Hardly a monopoly on local news, unless radio, internet, and TV ignore it.

 

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

For not paying, you ALWAYS get what you pay for. So if you are not paying for it, the sponsors are getting what they are paying for it.

I'm not really lamenting for the days of yore, I'm pointing out that we, as a society, undervalue news. Nobody is willing to pay for it, so we end up with blogsites where the news is submitted by the newsworthy, single sided, or is slanted by the people paying for it. Basically, we have freedom of the press, and we get press for free.

I don't understand that you are ok with free news- what if big oil was able to take over all the news services and basically debunked the other side of the CO2 debate? What it my auto industry got control, and then debunked all of the public transportation debate? If YOU don't have $$ input, don't expect to have a balanced reporting.

You ALWAYS get what you pay for. Pay nothing, that's how much your news is worth.

Like I said before, you write a decent enough paper that people are willing to pay for, and go with that. Don't over extend, don't cater to the feebies, cater to the readers. Your monopoly is balanced by radio, internet, and TV. Hardly a monopoly on local news, unless radio, internet, and TV ignore it.

I don't think I'm making myself clear. I don't like the direction news is going in, but it's not about us consumers getting what we pay for.

We undervalue news, yes. But my point is that we haven't changed. The price we paid for newspaper subscriptions ought to be viewed the same way we view the price we pay for an internet connection, or for cable/satellite TV. We, the consumers, paid for the transmission of the information, not the information itself.

You're also missing my point about the monopolistic aspects of the news. What made the old economic model work was that the local paper had a monopoly on local news. The Big Three networks had, more or less, an oligopoly on TV news. And they made a lot of money off of that.

No matter what happens, that economic model isn't coming back. I find your suggestion that producing a quality, local product is half-good - that's exactly what MinnPost is trying to do, for example. But it's not the whole solution. Frankly, I'm disappointed to hear people dismiss what MinnPost is trying to do in favor of trying to augment the old system with fees that users have never paid.

The consumers haven't changed. Hence, I don't like the moralizing about how we need to value the news more.

I do value the news a great deal. When we get an economic model for reporting the news that has that as well, we'll be set. Right now, I'd posit that public radio/TV and non-profit enterprises like MinnPost have a far better shot than anything else out there - and they produce higher quality products, too.

 

[unofan]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I don't think our values have changed. There are surveys pointing out that Americans today consume more news (a lot more) than ever before.

Paying for it won't work, except in certain niche situations.

So, you've either got to restore the monopoly or find a new model. Either way, lamenting the days of yore won't get you any closer to a solution.

Except the news today doesn't mean news anymore. It means more Kanye, Jon & Kate, and celebrity gossip, and less, well, real news. Consuming news via MSNBC, Fox News, and Headline News may incraese the quantity, but certainly not the quality nor actual information.

And I'd argue that the NY Times and WSJ don't exactly cater to niche markets, unless you think the 50% of the country with IQ's above 100 are a niche.

 

[unofan]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

Frankly, I'm disappointed to hear people dismiss what MinnPost is trying to do in favor of trying to augment the old system with fees that users have never paid.

I'm only dismissing them because donations alone rarely if ever support media by themselves. PBS and NPR get federal money; college radio get student fees; and so on and so forth.

I just don't see MinnPost being able to survive long-term on donations alone. They'll need something else.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

The local newspaper used to be just that: local. Now it's all wire service feeds and regurgitation of press releases from wherever.

And some may claim they consume more news than ever but I'll side with 'unofan' in that "Jon & Kate" is not news.

If you can tell me about Kanye but can't name your mayor, your county sheriff, your Governor, your Congressional representative, your Senators, the Vice-President, and the President I'd argue you're up on entertainment but not well informed.

 

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I'm only dismissing them because donations alone rarely if ever support media by themselves. PBS and NPR get federal money; college radio get student fees; and so on and so forth.

I just don't see MinnPost being able to survive long-term on donations alone. They'll need something else.

They're running the same ad-based revenue that every other newspaper or online outfit is running. Again, it is NOT a donation-only operation.

The local newspaper used to be just that: local. Now it's all wire service feeds and regurgitation of press releases from wherever.

And some may claim they consume more news than ever but I'll side with 'unofan' in that "Jon & Kate" is not news.

If you can tell me about Kanye but can't name your mayor, your county sheriff, your Governor, your Congressional representative, your Senators, the Vice-President, and the President I'd argue you're up on entertainment but not well informed.

Again, this is because with current technology, local outlets no longer have a monopoly on local news delivery. Local news was never just local, it had a local flavor (and writers) for national stories.

As far as consumption of news goes, it's up - I don't know what else to tell you. Newspaper subscription rates may be down, but the total number of eyeballs that see those products, whether in print or online, has increased and increased dramatically over the past 5 years or so.