Is It Too Late to Save (Newspaper) Journalism?

Why Liberal Foundations Won't Save Newspapers

June 21, 2009 -- As many of America's newspapers slim down, fold, or declare bankruptcy, a number of cries have come from the industry pleading for help from foundations and organizations they know could, and they believe should, save them. What the sinking victims failed to understand was those entities with vast financial resources have little interest in spending precious funds on an industry which appears to be dying. Their thinking is, "Why throw good money after bad?"

Regrettably, the rapid decimation of journalism unexpectedly occurred simultaneously with the loss by these same philanthropic entities of hundreds of billons of dollars in the aggregated value of their endowments along with a concomitant decline in their new charitable receipts. This meant many of these organizations took a "time out" from new major giving so they could support existing projects while trying to figure out what happened to their own organizations financially. The result was the organizations which could have helped had relatively little interest in providing assistance to journalism on the scale it needed.

The Self-Inflicted Demise of Newspapers

Certainly some failures in the new industry were due to mismanagement. Others were due to overleveraged acquisitions. In some cases, financial transactions by parent companies put unrealistic and unfair pressures on otherwise healthy businesses which were part of a conglomerate. The same situations apply today in the world of radio and television, where cuts are being made daily.

From a news and information perspective, there is the belief the demise of traditional news organizations is due in great part to the growth of Internet. If readers and viewers can get the information they want online at no cost, why should they subscribe to newspapers or tolerate television news programs -- both of which overflow with invasive advertising? If they can go to the Web and get what they want, when they want it (although Web ads also can be invasive despite pop-up blockers), how can a newspaper (which some readers consider out-of-date by the time it arrives) or even a television station compete? With a news cycle now measured in minutes -- not days or hours -- the cyber world's domination is a harsh reality for slower platforms.

Has the End Occurred and Is Only Mopping Up Left?

These questions force those in the news business to question whether or not there is any model for success in a news industry where journalistic integrity once reigned. There is little argument that most of what is written on the Web fails to meet even minimal journalistic standards. But if the readers and viewers making choices don't know the difference, it is understandable they would be unlikely to care.

Good journalism is expensive and it is that cost which has been the death of so many press entities. It is that expense which will continue to wreak havoc in the industry -- causing more newspapers to minimize operations or shut down, with radio and television stations likely to eventually follow. In the future, everything will be "on demand" and online.

As a result, the news is being taken over by special interest groups. Whether it's a lone blogger on a Website or a lobbying group distributing information on a national basis, requirements such as fact-checking, avoiding bias, being thorough, etc., no longer are primary concerns. And, in some cases, they are not concerns at all.

Everyone Knows Journalism Is Integral to Democracy, But Who Cares?

Individual stories aside, the greatest loss to our country is the traditional role the free press has played as an integral part of our republic. America without journalism will be a nation which loses its way.

Much has been written about this loss and its seriousness as far as the future of democracy in America is concerned. Journalists' roles in creating accountability, promoting transparency for citizens, keeping government entities and myriad businesses in check, exposing corruption, and simply functioning as a balance to the extremes our nation and its predecessors have seen in the arenas of government and commerce have been and are invaluable. These remain absolute necessities for anyone who wants our country to survive and prosper.

But today, no one wants to pay for these benefits. In fact, it is questionable if anyone appreciates or even understands these benefits. If readers and viewers believe they can get what they want at no cost, again, why would they pay for it?

A Free-Market Test of Quality Journalism

In Denver, The Rocky Mountain News half-heartedly sought a buyer for a few months (management decisions were similar to a family waiting to take a relative who had been ill for months to the hospital as he was gasping his last breath) and then shut down when no sale occurred.

A number of prominent Rocky reporters and photographers banded together and created a very robust and credible online newspaper entitled INDenverTimes. Although the paper's name did not help it (perhaps "The Denver Times" or "The Denver News" or something more traditional would have helped), its quality was surprisingly good for a newspaper put together with minimal resources and even less time.

INDenverTimes asked Coloradans to chip in less than $5 a month to subscribe to the online edition with the hope 50,000 people would participate. That would have meant only 20% or so of the Rocky's approximately 250,000 subscribers needed to pitch in to keep the Rocky alive, albeit under a different banner.

Had Rocky readers done so, the operation would have had $3 million annually from subscriptions to fund its journalistic endeavors. This also would have bought enough time to successfully solicit and generate advertising contracts which had the potential to double those revenues.

Surprisingly Little Crossover in Colorado's Newspaper War

It was surprising the dominant Denver Post, with approximately 300,000 subscribers, overlapped very little with the Rocky. In fact, only 14,000 people and businesses subscribed to both newspapers (disclosure: I was one of those few who took both papers).

Nevertheless, only 3,000 people (disclosure: I was one of them) in an area populated by 4 million people (i.e., less than 1/10th of 1%) were willing to make a commitment to subscribe. While INDenverTimes somehow continues to exist and does an amazing job with limited resources, it already has lost many of its great staff members due to their need to have a paying job. And its readership has dwindled to the point where securing advertising revenue will be quite difficult.

Why Pay for Anything That Is Free?

The reality: "Why should Coloradans pay for an online newspaper when they can get The Denver Post online at no charge?" The Post is a superb newspaper and was made even better when it was forced to compete with The Rocky Mountain News. Everyone in Colorado benefitted from this spirited competition. Both newspapers forced each other to stretch and their product was exceptional in many respects.

While The Post -- a historically critically important part of every aspect of life in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West -- continues to function as if it still were competing with the Rocky for stories, it, too, is under great financial pressure. And it knows it has many other competitors, especially in the cyber world.

So How Can Journalism Be Saved?

So what is the solution for saving journalism? Newspapers, in particular, know they need to reduce their costs and every one of them is in the process of doing just that. Staffs are being trimmed, newsprint orders are being reduced, newspapers are shrinking page sizes and page numbers, travel is being restricted, and other expenses are being cut. Managers know they need to have a local focus and all of them do. They know they need to have an online presence and they all have one. Unfortunately, all this is not going to be enough.

Sadly, journalism guaranteed its own demise by functioning in the exact manner which is diametrically opposed to what it expects of others. Rather than being transparent and making a point of allowing citizens to see how journalism really works -- hence educating the masses about the value of journalism -- journalists arrogantly assumed everyone knew what they did and knew they were working in the best interests of their communities, states, and country.

Journalism as a Black Box

In reality, journalism operated in a black box -- with information gathered by reporters somehow being turned into news stories. The public rarely saw how hard reporters often worked to get stories. However, they often did see mistakes which gave the impression reporters were lazy -- depending too much on press releases and quick interviews to accomplish most of their work.

Citizens did not see the careful research which went into many stories. They did not observe the discussions and debates which occurred in newsrooms with reporters, editors, and publishers about how a story should be written, what was appropriate to include or exclude, and what the impacts of certain revelations might be. And when a critical decision was made not to run a story, the public almost never knew about it.

"Trust Me" Doesn't Work Anymore

This "Trust us, we work for you" paternalistic mentality was too similar to the "We're from the government -- we're here to help you" philosophy so many journalists and members of the public saw as disingenuous (and of which the public is mistrustful).

The reality is very few citizens know the standards to which journalists attempt to adhere. So, when they compare good journalism to what some blogger (such as myself) may write online, it is unreasonable to assume they perceive a significant difference. Most of them don't make any distinction at all.

And even this entire discussion begs the questions raised about the biases of journalists and how organizations with high journalistic standards seek to address and mitigate those biases. Again, the public never sees any of those endeavors to be unbiased and accurate either. Journalists deal with these challenges so frequently, they are second nature. Unfortunately, they fail to realize citizens are isolated from these efforts to maintain high integrity.

The Road to Success Is a Long One

So what can newspapers and philanthropic organizations do to turn the tide or at least slow down and eventually stop the bleeding? Here are some elements which could be considered for inclusion in a possible recipe for success.

1. Patience. Recognize any real solutions are going to be long-term in nature. Planning and commitments need to be made with this perspective. An initial 10-year plan makes sense. Turning around the industry means turning around the country. It could easily be a two-decade process.

2. Hard Data. Institute systems to establish baseline information regarding the challenges journalism faces and then measure the progress, or lack thereof, of any efforts to turn the tide. It is important to know the facts -- especially when they are not favorable. It is this negative information which will help newspapers formulate the most effective strategies for success.

3. Open the Black Box. Have every participating newspaper dedicate a small part of its front page to "The story behind the story." This also would be prominently promoted and provided online. The feature would be a description of how the story was researched and written. It would make a point of highlighting certain elements of good journalism. The concept would be to begin to educate readers about journalism and what is special about their newspaper. Exploiting the unlimited space available online to provide far more detail about how stories were developed and written is a significant benefit good journalists have in cyberspace. This is one way to use the online world advantageously.

4. Don't Be Shy. Have reporters, photographers, and editors use the Web, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. to provide a constant (albeit sometimes delayed, if necessary) account of their work and the challenges they face daily. It actually is interesting and even riveting at times. Newspapers already have entered the video world and this will expand. The journalistic process could be a constant storyline which would educate and entertain.

5. Recognize the Competition. Begin running stories on an ongoing basis comparing the journalistic integrity and accuracy of various news sources as a way to educate citizens about the range in quality of the information they get. This also will force newspapers to seek, achieve, and maintain high standards themselves because they will have to assume there will be responses to this quality assurance initiative. And it may spread the best qualities of journalism elsewhere in the cyber world -- with unpredictable consequences which could include the merging of old and new entities.

6. Educate Early. Philanthropic organizations should team up with journalism producers to help expand the distribution of newspapers -- both print and online versions -- to schools and nonprofit institutions in every community. If annual subscriptions were provided at cost (e.g., perhaps at an average of $20 each (one local newspaper in the Denver metro area already strategically has a $13 annual daily subscription for teachers and students), assuming certain economies of scale and the marginal cost of production, an annual national investment of just $100 million could result in 5 million new subscriptions to students and teacher. With approximately 25,000,000 students in public middle and high school grades, that would translate to one daily newspaper per five students, or an average of one newspaper for each student on one day of each week -- a relatively high penetration rate. And this would be in addition to the existing efforts of hundreds of newspapers today. The combination of new and existing outreach efforts could have extraordinary impacts if they achieved an educational critical mass.

7. Create Direct Relationships. Local journalists could mentor students in elementary, middle, and high schools as they develop their own school newspapers. Educating them about journalism careers, journalistic ethics, journalistic objectives could create an entire new generation of journalists -- including many whose work would be online. Journalists are some of the smartest people around (just ask them). Getting directly involved in their own communities can only be a win/win/win for developing readership, finding new sources and stories, and creating a positive understanding and impression of newspapers. Many newspapers already have educational outreach programs, provide speakers to schools, and are otherwise involved in their communities. Greatly expanding these efforts, in conjunction with philanthropic funding, could generate significant results.

8. Make the Future Happen Today. Skip silly projects such as having people print out their own newspapers (no one wants to pay for the paper and ink -- and such endeavors foolishly forfeit printing economies of scales and, therefore, are wasteful). Instead, jump a generation or two and develop a holographic or similar high-tech electronic newspaper (maybe even a virtual reality newspaper where your avatar turns the pages for you) which allows the reader to scan and process large volumes of information quickly and then select what he or she wants to read. The concept is to combine the unique experience of reading a physical newspaper with the advantages of online versions. The latter allows one to have pre-targeted information highlighted, read expanded articles, view numerous photographs, watch related videos, see charts and graphs, view and hear interviews, go to related sources (articles, columns, and Websites), and visit advertisers' Websites as well as get coupons -- all while having information updated constantly. The former allows the reader to use more of his or her brain (still the fastest computer around in this arena), scan headlines, partially and fully read stories quickly, go back-and-forth faster than the Web today while constantly making decisions about what to read (although that will soon be reversed), and view far more information quickly than is presented on a single monitor (i.e., without scrolling). Individually-designed newspapers also are easily done when they are electronic in nature -- the ultimate in customization. If all of these features are combined, newspapers and high quality journalism can survive and prosper -- even if the reality is they ultimately all will be electronic in form.

There Still Is Time to Save Journalism

The premise is journalists need to begin to educate America on a large scale about why they and journalism are so important. If citizens do not know what they are losing, they will not care if high-quality journalism disappears. They won't even know it happened. And the public certainly will not pay for a higher quality product unless citizens conclude that, indeed, they actually are purchasing a higher quality product which has significant value to them.

As more and more Americans eventually understand and appreciate what quality journalism brings to them and what it means to their communities and our nation, press organizations will have a better chance of achieving financial success and stability, even if they still exist only in cyberspace. Now is time for journalists to make their case...before it truly is too late.

Aaron Harber hosts The Aaron Harber Show, seen Tuesdays at 8:00 pm and Wednesdays at 5:00 pm on PBS Station KBDI-TV Channel 12 and viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com. Harber provided software to one of the nation's first efforts a quarter century ago to automate newspapers (Knight-Ridder's VIEWDATA project) and has written columns for a number of publications for a similar period. Send e-mail to [e-mail]. (C) Copyright 2009 by Aaron Harber and USA Talk Network, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments

[chensamabindicka]

Cowardice counts, too.

[chensamabindicka]

Editor: "A person employed on a newspaper whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed." - Elbert Hubbard

Perhaps key EVENTS , not trends should be examined. All American media performed exceedingly poorly during the Bush runup to the WOT. They were cowed and everyone now knows it. Perhaps what newspapers are experiencing is a popular uprising against their crappy outputs during that and other events key events in global history. You didn't do the job. Period.

[peterg76]

Journalism cannot be rescued until journalists stop trying to invent scapegoats and accept that they simply stopped doing their profession. That is the entire reason that there is now more and better journalism being done by amateurs than by the so-called professionals.

[OlHippie]

The paper newspaper is dead; it just needs to lay down.

I refused to renew my local paper subscription this morning because it has become virtually useless, and the price continues to climb. I read the papers from London, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. every morning on-line; what do I need with forty pages of ads, and car wreck stories.

They should quietly join the typewriter, the telex machine, the washboard, and all of the other obsolete remnants of the past. Think oif the trees they will save.

[daffey]

A big probem is the perceived bias in journalism. Like it or not, increasing numbers of people believe that journalists give us a slanted view of the stories, not the whole view. And that really goes for TV news, too. The worst part today is, that seems to be what people want. They want the news show that tells ‘their version’ of the events. But while folks will go to a TV station they already pay for to watch (for free), or go to the internet and read (for free), they may not be so inclined to fork out the money to read what can only be charitably described as biased versions of the news. Even if that newspaper is telling me everything I want to hear (how great my side is, and how horrible that other side is), why pay? I can go on the net or watch a news show for free. The only way to salvage it will be to shake up the status quo and do what it takes to say that newspapers are different: they tell the real truth, the unbiased truth. They are the ‘real’ story. Go to the other sources for biased, partisan spins on the events of the world. But newspapers tell it the way it is. Only then can they stand out. For as long as they are like every other source of biased spin, why pay when you can get the other sources for free?

[Maxiesid]

The posters all covered the one thing that this blogger ignored, as usual, in his article about how to save newspapers. Whenever anyone in the news industry writes or talks about why newspapers are dying (it's the internet!!) they completely ignore the one true reason that it is happening. They are aware that newspapers and a robust news system are incredibly important to a functioning democracy...... and they insist the public doesn't understand! What they willfully ignore is that the public is fully aware of what the loss of an independent third estate has cost our country, because it already happened. We know it, we have learned over the past eight years by watching up close, what happens when the newspaper industry becomes a propaganda arm of a political party. We watched as Rupert Murdoch took over the news outlets in this country...we sat and looked on as he twisted the 'news' for political gain (he gets the keys to the empire, the neocons get a 24 hour propaganda distribution system with its own built in defense system. "Don't like what is reported-- it is because of the 'liberal press' trying to keep the 'honest reporting' from being aired")

[bksnhoops]

Thank you! Preserving the integrity of our democracy -- is he kidding! That stopped a long time ago and it happened when the corporations and Murdoch took control of the content on news channels. The 24 hr/day cable news networks are always looking for anything at all to push on their shows to fill time and create sensation. Whether or not the facts are important, harmful or ridiculous does not matter at all. They no longer ask serious questions at press conferences or on interview but instead seek to create sensation and create a headline In order to appear "balanced" they offer the spotlight to ridiculous shills who present the "opposing viewpoint." Except for a few bold voices like Olbermann there are no individuals willing to stick their neck out to find the truth or even ask the obvious. You can see/hear the fear in them. It was sad to see Russert and even Dan Rather crumble under the weight of corporate and partisan political interests. They destroyed themselves. Where was the third estate when Bush ran this country into the ground for eight years? They have lost their credibility with Americans and you don't have to be a PhD to smell the bs.

[GardenerNorCal]

When journalists became propaganda tools they bought their own demise. You outline all the financial woes of the industry and the nation...where was that reporting before this became a crisis. There were voices on the internet telling us but we didn't see it in the MSM. The stuff about the war, where was MSM? You forgot what your real job was.

[CroatianCritter]

The days of the printing press are behind us. And with big corporations over the past few years taking over every journalistic entity and the newspaper managers making the FOOLISH mistake that newspapers need to function politically closer to magazines and 24 hour news networks (DOES ANYBODY ELSE BESIDES ME BELIEVE THAT THEY GOT MORE NEWS BACK IN THE DAYS OF THE THREE NETWORKS THAN THEY DO NOW?), newspapers have now become a thing of the past. When corporations and government are involved in newsmaking, they WILL interfere in the process of how things are reported. This is normal human behavior. Newspapers will only survive as online entities with voluntary funding and local control. Only then can the financing exist with proper management to keep the ideas of news reporting in its place. Allowing the newspapers to be taken over by GIGANTIC corporations is the real reason for their downfall. Decentralization will now help bring them back.

[veracity]

Aaron, your analysis overlooks the most basic transaction of the whole (news industry) process: newspaper readers purchase a newspaper because they are getting something.

What happens when the newspaper readers FEEL LIKE THEY are NOT GETTING _ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE_ for their time & money invested in reading a paper ?

Papers throughout the nation, REFUSE to EXAMINE & discuss the US government DEFICITS in detail
(specifically - WHO is PROFITING from the deficits - WHO, besides Saudis & China & Japan, are EARNING INTEREST on the MISERY of American taxpayers?)

The abject DERELICTION of Journalistic duty is even WORSE regarding BAILOUTS - the TRUE TAXPAYER SOCIALIZED BAILOUTS for Wall Street ("private equity markets") is north of FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS,
(over $8 Trillion according to this CNN article) -
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/where_stimulus_fits_in/index.htm
but local & national papers ABJECTLY REFUSE to EXAMINE the BAILOUTS FOR BANKSTERS

Pick an issue - ANY issue - & the LOCAL PAPERS are RELENTLESSLY on the CORPORATE executives side:
- ENERGY INDEPENDENCE? at best you will find "LOCAL" stories on alternative energy
- PUBLIC HEALTH CARE? - at best, the local papers report ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS, not the NEED or trauma of American families at mercy of insurance barons
- state budgets ? - papers are as AWOL as they are on national deficits & bailouts...

The American Public NEEDS REAL INFORMATION, which the appalling "news" papers REFUSE to investigate & publish. so why the hell would anyone waste two quarters, and a half hour, reading abject garbage

[billsmile]

When the internet becomes government monitored and censored we'll be back onto newspapers.

[Cool-headed]

Who the heck wants to read a story the next day if you can follow it minute by minute on the net? and who says there's no serious journalism on the net? There's the New York Times, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal and other excellent outlets. All for free, or sometimes for a small fee. No paper wasted, no intrusive ads. It's so obvious that the printed paper is dying. The new generation does not even look at newspapers. They should adapt, and quickly; but they prefer to cling to their wasteful business model and hide their hands in the sand. Kind of like the music labels and the CD business. Byebye old media.

[Peabodies]

Well today Randi Rhodes came roaring back into the airwaves on WZAA, the new Air America station (1050 AM) the only "liberal" (apart from WPFW 83.9 FM, a Pacifica outlet) in Washington D.C. It's been a long drought for anything but bible-thumping, or vapid or drone republican wallpaper (including Mon santo-backed NPR) for our radio ears.

Even though I don't always agree with Randi Rhodes, it felt like a breath of fresh air. If only the print media would now follow. We now have, in the nation's capital, under Democratic majorities in House, Senate and White House, a choice of

the fire breathing conservatism of the Washington Times, and the newly minted (free) conservative "Examiner"

the "free market", "charter schools at all costs" Washington Post

the "don't know where they belong" (free) Politico

the lost "The Hill", "Roll Call", both free, I think

The light in the wilderness the (free) Falls Church News Press, truly progressive.

I would like to PAY for a good source of news. Alas!

[NH]

The writer of this posting clearly put a lot of effort into it but just feels so irrelavant. I can see no appreciation in it of the reason I stopped buying newspapers - no mention of lapdo gs, Bush-Cheney enablers, blandness and irrelevance and collaboration for "access,"nor commentary on the number of Iraqis whose lives were unnecessarily destroyed nor McCain's dropping bombs on civilians and their support in Viet-Nam - that kind of thing. The US had just come through a repeat of the insanity of the Viet-Nam debacle and the press just acted as lapdo gs, slurping up all the tired old slogans and evasions and neologisms. If the press had really been doing what it is supposed to do, the Iraq war would never have happened. And the fact is, it dumbed itself down whereas the are now websites that are not dumb.

[MichaelMcKLA]

I was a long-time subscriber to the Los Angeles Times. In the last year, I had contemplated canceling it, since the amount of interesting content was waning along with increasing subscription costs. But I hung in there.

Recently I moved. I called in the address change, and asked the customer service rep to notify the paper delivery person to slide the paper under the complex's security gate. She said this was done.

And then I discovered, apparently, that someone in the complex was stealing my paper every morning. And I'm paying for the privilege of receiving a paper with vanishing content, at an increasing price, and they are now unable to get the product into my hands?

That's it. Goodbye. Have a nice death.

[Bluetiger]

I contacted the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Herald on how to stop the slide of newspapers into the list of things of history. None of them were interested. And this space does not offer enough space to tell you what could be done to save them. I'm tired and don't really give a care anymore