Humpty Dumpty's Great Fall

Traditional media in the U.S. is teetering precariously on the proverbial wall. The Pew Foundation’ Project for Excellence in Journalism has produced a “State of the News Media” annual report for the past six years, and this year’s conclusion is the bleakest in their history. The increase of reader migration to the Internet as well as the collapsing economy led the writers of the report to lament: “Imagine someone about to begin physical therapy following a stroke, suddenly contracting a debilitating secondary illness” (Overview). The report goes on the say that “the problem facing American journalism is not fundamentally an audience problem or a credibility problem. It is a revenue problem—the decoupling, as we have described it before, of advertising from news” (Overview). Thus, dailies like San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Boston Globe are threatening to close, their ability to produce a profitable product hobbled by digitized media and disappearing advertisers. But is the fall of newspapers and other more conventional media necessarily negative? A close look at new media models arising from the ashes of former news powerhouses suggests otherwise.

Five years ago, Howard Finberg, Interactive Learning Director of the News University of the Poynter Institute posted a prescient article in The Chaser, entitled “Training for the Future.” He posed the question, “Who and how will we train journalists to carry out the future?” He suggested two simple tenets:

1. Develop the new business models to support the journalism so essential to democracy

2. Develop the staff -- young and old -- to be more flexible and adaptable to a changing media landscape.

The first principle assumes that journalism is not what is disintegrating; rather it is the “business models” or the medium through which news is presented that is in need of overhaul. Journalists have historically acted both as watchdogs devoted to a vigorous defense of the rights of the American public, as well as being recorders and analysts of daily life. Andrew Donohue, Editor of VoiceofSanDiego.org continues this tradition in a non-traditional venue. His news organization is a non-profit news site with a staff of 14 and an annual budget of just over $1 million. In an interview with Mallary Jean Tenore, he argues that the advantages of this model include “efficiency,” a focused “mission of investigative, in-depth reporting,” and more “revenue streams” than mainstream media. The site is, as its title suggests, a local “daily” recreated in a digital medium. It does not depend on advertising, but rather on “foundation grants, corporate sponsors and membership drives,” much like public television and radio. Freed from the clutch of advertising revenue, perhaps this is a model that better supports the principle of the independent journalist.

This model of a commercial free press is further supported by The Nation’s John Nichols and Robert McChesney. In March of this year, they wrote an article entitled “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers.” Like the Pew report, they painted a grim picture of American journalism: “The old corporate media system choked on its own excess. We should not seek to restore or re-create it. We have to move forward to a system that creates a journalism far superior to that of the recent past.” Their conclusion is, however, a bit more radical than Donohue’s: “We can do exactly that—but only if we recognize and embrace the necessity of government intervention.” (2) Their reasoning appeals to a historical view of government support, and suggests that though careful protection from censorship is necessary, a vigorous free press can be a matter of public policy. “From this foundation we can envision a thriving, digital citizen's journalism complementing and probably merging with professional journalism. What will the mix be? It would vary, with more not-for-profit and subsidized media in rural and low-income areas, more for-profit media in wealthier ones. The first order of any government intervention would be to assure that no state or region would be without quality local, state, national or international journalism.” (3) Their vision is a careful balance of protective policy and investigative vigor.

In a more capitalistic vein, Alan Mutter, adjunct faculty at Berkeley’s graduate School of Journalism writes a blog entitled “Reflections of a Newsosaur: Musings (and occasional urgent warnings) of a veteran media executive, who fears our news gathering companies are stumbling to extinction .” He discusses a profitable online model in a March post, “Can WSJ (Wall Street Journal) pay model work at other sites?” His post includes a commentary by Bill Greuskin, former managing editor of WSJ.com , in which he details why WSJ seems to be successful with their paid content approach. “Charging readers for content might work, but it needs to be a consistent approach, with targeted content that enriches the lives of readers. More fundamentally, online editors and publishers need to value their readers’ time, and make editorial and business decisions that fit that goal.” His conclusion—people will pay for content.

The second of Finberg’s principles focuses on flexibility of journalists and willingness to adapt to new media. In the Online Journalist Survey included in the State of the News Media Report, those surveyed were uneasy about the direction of journalism (54% said that it was on the wrong track). However, 82% were either very or somewhat confident that a profitable business model could be found online. This ambivalence underscores the tenuous nature of the profession today, and is reflected in some of the gloomy responses to Allan Mutter’s posting such as tish jett who says, “It is absolute hell being a journalist now.” As in many sectors of our economy, we are feeling the pains of a profession reinventing itself. Adaptability and patience are key to the process. Those who persevere may find new hope even as they sweep up the shards of fallen giants.