Last week, a newly minted U.S. Senate subcommittee convened to hear expert testimony regarding a worrisome matter. No, it wasn’t about the economic crisis, swine flu or the war in Iraq, but on something in which many would argue our government should have no say: the future of journalism.
The fledgling Communications, Technology and the Internet subcommittee heard evidence from journalistic entities such as David Simon (former Baltimore Sun reporter and producer of ‘The Wire’), David Moroney (publisher and chief executive officer of the Dallas Morning News) and Arianna Huffington (co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post) concerning the recent wholesale slaughter of newspaper staffers due to a dearth of advertising dollars, both online and in print.
At the moment, a central issue with journalism ‘mdash; which, by the way, arrived long before the global economy took a dive ‘mdash; is that newspapers, which once offered very lucrative advertising spaces, are now at the bottom of the list. As people turn to the Internet for information, the amount of available advertising money spreads more thinly by the day.
Unfortunately, now that the Internet provides ways for advertisers to push their product cheaply and effectively, there simply isn’t enough money supporting large news sites.
This makes it difficult for previously profitable outlets to continue reporting at the level that was once possible. As reporters are handed pink slips and international bureaus fade silently away, we are in danger of existing without access to reliable information about the world around us.
I continue to read the reports of severe declines in advertising revenue in the New York Times itself ‘mdash; because I trust its ethics, the quality of the writing, and because a newspaper with such a stellar reputation should
not have to bow down before the advertising gods as they sell their souls to snag an editorial mention.
While the Times continues to report that it is losing money, readers are waiting for the paper to realize that this isn’t going to change. The rose-colored glasses need to come off ‘mdash; even when the economy turns around, advertisers still won’t be flinging dollar bills their way just because of the popular name.
With sites about every topic on (and off) the planet, advertisers are no longer required to shell out the big bucks to put their name on a site ‘mdash; like the Times ‘mdash; simply because of its large readership. Instead of getting thousands of views because of an expensive front-page ad, a company who wants you to buy skateboards can instead pay a number of homegrown sites a pittance to display its ads.
The Internet doesn’t devalue the traditional brands, it just ‘mdash; in true democratic fashion ‘mdash; lends credentials to every 14-year-old with dreams of designing her own boards by allowing her to set up a snazzy-looking site for consumers to stumble across.
The important aspect isn’t that anybody and their pet cat can put up a Web site; the digital Holy Grail occurs when such a site develops a substantial, devoted following and is snapped up by a recognizable brand name because of its content and readers.
Take Jane Everywoman’s expert blog on do-it-yourself home renovation, add it to a recognizable Web site run by an established brand such as Time Inc.’s Real Simple magazine, and you’re on your way to attracting that specific customer for whom ad executives are searching.
But what does all this online marketing blather have to do with hard-hitting journalism? The answer lies in the hybrid model of news distribution that Huffington described during the Senate hearing. Sites like the Huffington Post make use of bloggers, celebrities and household names to increase site traffic.
But editors and reporters are absolutely essential to maintaining accurate journalism, and as fun as the Huffington Post’s Hollywood updates may be, someone still needs to report the hard-hitting facts.
While Times journalist Nicholas D. Kristof is known best for his unique global columns, he also holds an annual contest through the Times Web site where he selects an applicant to travel with him as he investigates his next piece. People didn’t apply for this contest because they think the Times corporation is the be-all and end-all of existence. They applied because they’re gung-ho about learning from such a knowledgeable fellow.
While it will be tougher for news writers to develop the same kind of following because of the necessarily objective nature of their chosen format, you bet that a reporter blogging from Afghanistan is going to get a serious number of people interested in his perspective.
I’m not advocating the overthrow of the reporter by the masses of bloggers. Quite the opposite. As news organizations are finally forced ‘mdash; as I believe they should be ‘mdash; to loosen their grip on information gathering and distribution, they will have to recognize that alongside investigative journalists, other information can be distributed by talented writers through their sites without a compromise in quality.
Don’t lose the journalists; just make sure to also take advantage of other talent out there and use it to enhance the experience of visiting a top-notch news site. Keep (or hire back) talented editors to ensure that content remains at the highest level while the online destination is customized to keep consumers both informed and interested.
As Huffington stated during the hearing, it’s not about making newspapers work again. It’s about maintaining journalistic standards of integrity and accuracy, while still accepting the fact that information, and the power that comes with it, is no longer held solely in the fist of the publishing pooh-bahs of yesteryear.
Unsurprisingly, the Senate meeting concluded without any firm decisions. Even so, the multitude of possible models left a feeling that while newspapers may be going, journalism ‘mdash; in all its iterations ‘mdash; is undoubtedly here to stay, even as it explores novel ways to connect with news consumers like you and me.