Online News is Not Arianna Huffington's Dastardly Plot to Destroy the Newspaper Industry And Other Reality-Based Observations

John Kerry's Senate Committee hearing on the future of journalism evidently turned into a bunch of self-congratulatory wanking about how important newspapers are to our American way of life:

"High-end journalism is dying in America," testified David Simon, creator of HBO's "The Wire," who wore an open-collar black sport shirt for the somber occasion.

Simon was invited to testify at a hearing on journalism because. . . well, because he created a cool TV show and is a snappy dresser, I guess:

But it was Simon, once a Baltimore Sun reporter, who struck the strongest blow for newspapers. Though scolding publishers for their "martyrology" and mismanagement, he spoke of how "aggregating Web sites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth" and added: "The parasite is slowly killing the host."

As someone actively working to develop a viable financial model for gathering online news, what I really need in life is to be lectured by a guy who hasn't worked as a journalist since 1995 and has never had any experience in online news. This whole "bloggers are just parasites" meme is a tedious, unsubstantiated fantasy. Someone go tell Marcy Wheeler.

"The day I run into a Huffington Post reporter at a Baltimore zoning board hearing," added the casually clad Simon, "is the day that I will be confident that we have actually reached some sort of balance."

Simon seems to have reached the conclusion that any news organization that doesn't cover the pie eating contests of Baltimore is woefully inadequate, those were the days, etc etc. I don't recall anyone ever covering the Atlantic Yards as meticulously as Norman Oder, who has written quite thoughtfully on the subject of local online news coverage. Perhaps if the Atlantic Yards project moved to Baltimore, Oder would pass Simon's litmus test.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) had some complaints for Huffington. "For your audience, there's not going to be a lot of stories about the cop that has been running the dice game on the side," she said. "The way you get those stories is by investing in people."

You mean people like Sam Stein? I guess if it isn't on Twitter, it's not "keeping it real."

In the end, there's nothing like being told by the Washington Post, a paper that's only surviving because it owns the Kaplan Learning Centers, on how to run a business:

"The future of quality journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers," announced Huffington, whose Web site relies on free newspaper reporting. She scolded newspapers for having the nerve to want to charge money for their products.

What Arianna actually said (PDF):

But what won't work -- what can't work -- is to act like the last 15 years never happened, that we are still operating in the old content economy as opposed to the new link economy, and that the survival of the industry will be found by "protecting" content behind walled gardens. We've seen that movie (and its many sequels, including TimesSelect). News consumers didn't like them, and they closed in a hurry.

If by "scolded" you mean pointed out that TimesSelect was an abysmal failure that the New York Times ultimately had to jettison, then I guess so. But since Arianna goes on to mention that an integral part of her revenue stream is advertising, which the Huffington Post very much charges for, it's safe to say Dana Milbank just made the rest of it up.

John Kerry bats clean-up:

Kerry had difficulty understanding why "money goes to Google rather than the newspaper" and why it would be so "onerous" for the likes of Google and the Huffington Post to sit down with newspapers and figure out a more equitable arrangement. "I see cacophony without standards," Kerry said. "I see more and more people operating in public life with snippets, and I think that's dangerous."

Right-o. A "cacaphony without standards?" Let's review:

• "Group's ad says Kerry lied" August 5, 2004 -- USA Today
• "Let The Veterans Speak" August 6, 2004 - New York Sun
• "Kerry comrades have credibility on their side" August 20, 2004 -- Boston Globe
• "Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat veterans' ads" August 23, 2004 -- MSNBC
• "Kerry's Cambodia Whopper" August 24, 2004; Washington Post
• "Ex-President Bush Calls Charges of Swift Boat Group Compelling" August 30 , 2004 . -- New York Times
• "Media double standard clear in coverage of Swift Boat ads" September 2, 2004 -- Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Washington Post
• Navy Probes Kerry Medals September 3, 2004 -- Fox News
• "Two Anti-Kerry Vets Tapped for VA Panel" September 3, 2004, Associated Press
• "Did Kerry write own report of disputed clash? " Chicago Sun-Times - October 1, 2004
• Unfriendly Fire: A Vietnam Vet Saw His Honor Under Attack, and Took the Fight to the Kerry Camp -- October 2, 2004 Washington Post

As opposed to:

• Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record August 6, 2004 - FactCheck.org analysis
• "Survey of recent editorials"August 25, 2004, Media Matters for America
• "Nine more editorials" August 26, 2004, Media Matters for America
• "Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' v. The Truth" Eriposte analysis
• "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" - SourceWatch article
• "Who is Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Vets attack book?" -- Investigation by Media Matters for America
• And there's my own small contribution to the oeuvre

It could have been an interesting and valuable panel, because a lot of people are struggling to figure out how we go forward, and it would have been nice to hear about some of the innovative efforts being made to develop a viable financial model for online news. But journalism isn't migrating online due to some dastardly plot by Arianna Huffington, it's happening because that's where people want to get their news, and they enjoy being active participants in the process. The people involved in this panel didn't quite seem to grasp that fundamental reality.

And BTW, what the hell was John Kerry thinking?

You can find Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com and Twitter

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

Comments

[Mugzi]

The last time I subscribed to a newspaper was in 2004. They didn't report the news, Kerry was being slammed by swiftboaters, the mess in Ohio with the tainted voting machines by, at the time, Diebold. If there was an article, it was buried on page 32. Newspapers will be viable once they do real investigative unbiased, reporting. Now newspapers and MSM are owned by the Repubs and a controlling interest to keep the Repub in office.

[FormerReaganite]

The last time I checked, isn't capitalism a "survival-­of-the-fit­test" system?

[DavidJames]

Jane,

Jane is right. Main stream media is dying because they failed to provide us with the truth at a critical time. They have become corporate mouthpieces.

Most people can afford a newspaper or magazine subscription. That is not the problem. They were and are afraid to print the truth.

The MSM allowed us to be lied into a war. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

For the last 8 years the MSM treated the delusional and immoral arguments for torture as if they had a basis in reality.

They were silent when a nationwide domestic spying program was passed into law, the Patriot Act.

The MSM have destroyed their own credibility. Extreme intellectual and moral cowardice, they have redefined the meaning of yellow journalism. Anyone interested in the truth gets it somewhere else.

[manitoumackinac]

I do agree with a point that David Simon made about the non-profit model of the news, like the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, as a potentially promising way to go forward.

[TabulaRaza]

As a professional journalist, I am appalled by the assumptions made about the news industry.
Yes, traditional media needs to adapt ; no question. But if they die, so will an informed public. I support citizen journalism, however I find it difficult to trust an unedited and unbalanced viewpoint.
Assume "traditional" media dies. How many bloggers will surface to provide in-depth LOCAL news? When the far majority learns they can't support their families by blogging, they'll stop. Local blogs rarely provide original content, preferring instead to criticize traditional media. I'd love to see a "citizen journalist" cover six breaking stories at once. How many people have time to surf a dozen blogs to get an accurate summation of the day's news?
Let's assume the average Huffpost reader is a motivated, informed and involved. However, the average person would rather watch TMZ and tend to their private lives. Diversity of choice is not always best. No local news, no informed VOTERS.
A more disturbing trend? Citizen bloggers who type faster than they think. Untrained blogs are rife with slander and inaccuracies. I have seen biased blogs rake innocent people thru the coals bc their readership are biased cheerleaders. I have seen irresponsible bloggers display gruesome morgue photos taken illegally and against the wishes of families. Ethical dilemmas overflow.
Media professionals understand the dangers of the written word. I am deeply concerned by the ethical boundaries citizen journalists cross. My question to those championing the demise of newspapers: At what cost?

[wietog]

Um, you're on HuffPo. An online news aggregator - compiling news from both blogs and traditional media. So readers of this site are not informed?

ONE editor versus thousands is better? How can a variety of angles be unbalanced? Sorry, most papers slant one way or the other and we get a a lot of sanitized info from corporate news.

Local news is overflowing! The blogs are often way faster than even the TV crews!!! Check out http://westseattleblog.com/blog/

You really think that blogging is going to slow DOWN? It's growing exponentially. Working from home you can be a freelance writer/editor and have several revenue streams going, including all kinds of monetized blogs, sites, etc. Some are making a very decent living. Or, would you prefer to be at the mercy of a cold-hearted corporation?

You don't have to surf a dozen blogs to get info, you just have to be a savvy searcher. It's fairly easy to assess what content is trustworthy.

Every newspaper is filled with FILLER - comics (that aren't funny), "living" sections to appease advertisers, etc. How is TMZ any worse?

Perhaps it's better to get people fired up and force them to do some legwork, rather than feeding them pablum.

In terms of ethics, it's always been a tough call, but today's world is hyperfast, global and brutal. Just as it's always been.

Video killed the radio star. Yet music lives on and dare I say it - flourishes.

[JohnDewey]

Fantastic comment!

[lobear00]

When the News media, print media will not report the real facts, then its time to sweep them into the gutter, and turn to the internet and get the news from people and not the outlets of propaganda.

[AngieMom57]

We are all "armed" with the ultimate WEAPON OF MASS CONSTRUCTION: High Speed Internet.

It takes hours and days for the written word to appear in printed form, and seconds on line. At that point it is the job of the journalists to separate sensationalism from fact and give a well articulated summery of any given news worthy situation...

AS FOR HEADLINES!!!! A course in the controversial NLP-Neuro-­linguistic programming-now there is a subject to be selective and clearheaded about.

[molderic]

Cure for newspaper endangerment: Step 1- News organizations agree that only subscribers may have access to their product, paper or electronic. Step 2- News organizations agree that a subscription to one will give access to all news products. Step 3- Huge increase in income from subscriptions, reporters' jobs saved.

The only other creative solution I can think of is: license all computers, the way the Brits license TV sets, and spread the income among deserving contributors, ie news organizations. I like the other way, because it is less cumbersome.

Underlying principle: Americans can't always have somthing for nothing. If there is angst about getting ripped off left and right, don't mourn: organize.

[davism97]

You can't fight the future. Either adapt or retire.

[AngieMom57]

Reminds me of an old Dylan song: "...if you can't lend a hand then get out of the way, for the times they are a changing..."

[branchwater1113]

The essence of "newspaper" is NOT paper and ink, but the reporting, editing, opinion and insight that the physical objects convey to us. The paper and ink - satisfying as they may be, especially on a lazy Sunday morning - are simply the vehicle which carries the really essence of the news - the reporting, fact-checking and editing, the network of talent, ethics, checks and balances that (in the ideal world, at least) assure that we receive some vision of the truth.
So don't mourn the decline of companies that supply us with paper and ink. Be concerned, rather, that the purveyors of the new electronic news vehicles have the same commitment to honest reporting and the resources to build the checks and balances that come from a strong network of reporting and editing. Huffington Post, Politico, TalkingPointsMemo and many others have made a good start - and provide useful models for the transformation of the traditional paper and ink providers.

[dharrison]

A lesson worth remembering is that at the turn of the 20th century, people had a transportation problem...and the solution turned out not to be a "faster horse"...but a Ford.

And one should note that the Ford didn't arise out of the "Horse Industry Revitalization Act" or the horse industry's attempts to legislate new Business Models.

The future of the media business will look as different as Ford's operations look from horse traders and blacksmiths.

What's historically given value to editorial content is the relative scarcity of distribution versus readers. Newspapers have historically enjoyed natural localized economic monopolies.

Monopoly constraint of distribution and supply will always lead to prices (and profits) significantly above open market rates.

In an Internet world of infinite supply, the ability to monetize the value in any piece of editorial content will be driven to zero...infinite supply pushes price levels to zero!

No one can marshal enough market power to monetize the value of content in the face of an infinite supply and massively fragmented distribution. Pay-walls, lawsuits and ill conceived legislation won't re-construct those monopoly conditions.

Once data becomes publicly visible on the Internet, its monetizable value rapidly dissipates to zero.

There are certainly ways to make online news profitable...and many of us are working to develop such approaches...but I can assure you they don't involve inventing a "faster horse"...

Dale Harrison
dale.harri­son@inford­a.com

[PCL07]

Thanks for letting us know about the Senate Committee Hearing. Fortunately, things can get verified quicker online then waiting on a journalist to verify some facts thanks to the bloggers. lol Provided you can filter the fodder.

What will we use for the bird cages and cat boxes if we have no more newspapers?

[propitiousmoment]

We get our news here and it's free to us, because somebody pays to advertise to us. I don't know but I'm guessing that most newspapers' revenues are more largely made up of advertising money than subscriptions because the price of newspapers has to stay low or no one would have been able to buy them every day for all these years. If we want content without advertising, we pay for it, or pay a lot more - i.e., have you seen the price of a book these days? Seems to me that there will be A)subscrip­tion-sites that charge for their content, possibly ad-free or ad-lite, and B) the free sites that bombard us with advertising as the price we all pay for the content, whether it's generated by the operators of that site or copied from somewhere else. HuffPo seems to be making both the copy (or link-to) model and now with their foundation the original-generation model work. Lots of people hate change, but it is pretty inevitable and in this case, it's here. So I'm glad that someone is looking for creative ways to keep the content coming. Thanks, HuffPo, and thanks, Ms. Hamsher, and all your colleagues.

[Maxbyte]

Probably a little more attention than John Kerry is worth, Jane. His track record on sage advice is still trying to pull itself out of Karl Rove's wagon rut.

The printed word is not going to vanish. A lot of us enjoy a newsy paper when we're traveling or when we just want to spend a lazy Saturday or Sunday catching up on 'stuff'.

For most of us, there is going to be more and more demand for SMS and Internet news, so the print Industry takes a hint and gets on board, or it joins Chrysler in the new flick called, "outa here!"

[Sutungpo]

Most of this discussion is just plain beside the point. The fact is, newspapers used to make money because of advertising. Web sites can make money through advertising. The ADS pay the bills, in both cases. The old paradigm of making the consumer pay dearly for content is GONE, and it ain't coming back, even if the government makes an attempt to force a return to newspapers.

Don't cry to me about digital rights and how we're forcing the content producers out of business through "illegal" means. The American system of making consumers pay through the nose was a shortlived experiment. Look at the history of content distribution in newspapers, in music, any way you like. Throughout history, people produce content because they love doing it and hope to make enough to pay the bills doing it. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, O'Carolan, NONE of the musical giants ever sold a single record. The production of information used to be a matter of government dissemination of news, distributed through a town cryer. People wrote books and hoped to sell enough of them to make money before they were pirated. IF you make music for the money, or write news, you need to be alert to paradigmatic changes and working on practical new revenue sources instead of attempting to force the government to make people pay you.