Newspapers for a New Age

New York is a city which moves at a dizzying speed, but the way information moves today can make even the tech-savviest New Yorker's head spin. Today's Kindle-clutching, iPhone toting subway rider who braves the rush hour commute spends every waking hour in a world of nonstop news and information which none of us could have ever imagined just a few years ago.

The changes in how we all access and consume information have done more than just change the landscape of my city, it's also changed the news industry as a whole -- taking a brutal toll on the print news media, whose importance in providing original reporting and investigating issues of public concern is timeless. It is no secret that the newspaper industry has fallen on hard times which have only been exacerbated by the painful economic woes our country is still working its way out of. Digital media, bloggers, news aggregators, and citizen journalists all on the internet have forever altered the speed at which news and ideas are disseminated. And while there are many out there chronicling what ails our country's newspapers, community dailies continue to shut down their presses, and not nearly enough is being done to find ways to preserve these institutions.

This morning, I am holding a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee to examine the treacherous economic landscape newspapers face. The role they play in our democracy -- today and throughout our nation's history -- is too important to allow them to recede further. I expect testimony to cover many different issues, including many of the ideas for the future of newspapers which have already been discussed - and hopefully several new ideas as well. This hearing comes on the heels of my submission of H.R. 3602, a bill which will enable local newspapers to take advantage of non-profit status as a way to preserve their place in communities nationwide. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the federal government has acknowledged that the press is an institution which is afforded special protections by name. In this spirit, I think that the government can help foster solutions for this industry in ways which protect the independence of newspapers and enables their objective reporting to thrive in a new economic and media climate.

It may seem ironic to defend newspapers in this space. But in so many ways the change brought about by the digital media amplifies what is written in newspapers. The internet and mobile devices extend news and information in a way that has open dialogues to more and more aspects of our life. The internet has allowed anyone, regardless of background or world view, to express themselves, connect with others, and access an entire world of electronic information. But the ability for dedicated staffs with greater resources to investigate and report on issues large and small provides a critical check on institutions that otherwise lack a critical body of oversight focused solely on the public interest.

 

 

Comments

[Arion]

I'd like a mixed profit/non-profit kind of deal, where publishers could continue to make money via advertising and sales, but with a non-profit arrangement for some for some new departments. I know your bill is aiming at some blend like this, but I'm not sure a cap on advertising space is the way to go.

[Babsee]

Newspapers (and the MSM in general) became redundant when journalists tossed all their ethics out the window, dissed any idea of impartiality, and started openly rooting for "their team". Combine that with leaving bloggers and amateurs to dig up the news they refuse to report, and it's really no surprise papers are in so much trouble.

But I am really gunning for Obama to buy up newspapers. Then any pretense that they are not state-run media can finally be dropped. And won't it be just so much fun to watch them squirm in a little over three years' time when they find themselves working for a Republican government. Imagine the exodus to alternative media then!

[josephXY]

The intention may be honorable. But they seem to be a bit naive. For instance when considering
the failure of the media in the crisis where they did an awful job, namely not knowing about the
problems for the longest time. And then the surprises for the media consumers, when the crisis
pulled all of the sudden the rug from underneath them:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/media-news/where-was-media-when-sub-prime-disaster-unfolded/2854/

Or, to mention another problem, the problem for business who for a long period got hyped into
extrem ad spending (revenue to which the media all too claim to be entitled), and are now are
now a serious issue when it comes to prudent cost calculation.
A drastic example of ad pricing strategy is this one, with the mentioned Rocky Mountain News
folding eventually. And that's no exception or single case. Similar pricing strategies are the
the case globally. (And the reason why the media are now playing dumb, the total fools,
when it comes to cost calculations.)
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2004/11/08/story4.html

[Noemi Pollack]

Until all the bloggers and other digital media have the same qualified investigative reporters on staff that our newspapers have, they will never be on par with the press. Using the legislative process to shore up our newspapers is a great idea, but more needs to be done. To save our newspapers, there will need to be a new revenue model that is not dependent on advertising.

I, for one, would gladly pay more for the privilege of receiving my NY Times - in print - every morning. Of course, that does not make a revenue model and this will never be sufficient for financial support. But if enough outrage is unleashed at the possibility of the extinction of the press altogether, then I am sure that some entrepreneurial or visionary spirit will come along with an idea that someone will say 'BINGO" to...
Noemi Pollack
http://www.ppmgcorp.com
http://www.pollackblog.com

[Inquisitr]

Journalism needs to be saved, not newspapers.

Journalists can post to this magical interwebs we meet on.

[glorialovelace]

Journalists can post to the digital media, but somebody has to pay us. When done properly, it's hard work. It's bad enough certain pages rip us off, but somewhere in the process there needs to be somebody signing our checks.

[ThePeoplesKey]

I hear you. If I were being paid to solve this problem I'd take the time to elaborate on my licensing idea below to show how you could be paid using that system and the aggregates of the stories could make money also . But alas, no money means no time for a solution. So goes America so often now. Money has become LIFE itself . . .

[DevonTexas]

While I appreciate your sincerity...

Historically newspapers have been the protectors of democracy but we're in a new age where, like HuffPost, the free press is now electrnic and interactive. Newspapers have evolved into corporately controlled mouthpieces for who ever buys their advertising or controls their editorial board. They are anachronisms. Time would be better spent searching out ways to protect the Internet from corporate control and let the newspapers die the slow death they've brought upon themselves.

[bigpaws23]

sure. they are so important that you had to post this article on the internet. LOL

did you ever stop to think that consumers (especially younger generations) just don't want to read newspapers?

you can subsidize and reorg these papers until the cows come home, but if the consumers and advertisers aren't there, then you're simply delaying the inevitable.

[springsm]

Yup newspapers are really important...and with some important honesty from the newspaper people, we would not have had bush for 8 years. Good reporting and research would be nice. There is not integrity in the newsprint these days and if any of you buy papers of smaller towns as you move through them..you will see how awful they are. I am constantly amazed.

[Colmore]

Well stated. Had the newspapers written the TRUTH for the last 8 years, we would not be in Iraq, with all the lives lost, billions of $$$ missing, for WHAT? They did not write about the voter fraud, or the fact that the SC had no business interfering in an election. They contributed to their own demise. The local paper where I live, in a town with the highest unemployment rate in the state, is so pro-republican it is laughable. They show no respect for President Obama, and still think GW did a great job. During the elections, they promote the repub. candidates religiously. It makes no sense.

[AmerikaWaning09]

My local city's paper is CALLED the republican, but is very liberal. Would you care to switch papers?

[Creeker11]

Only AFTER we bail out all the pay-phone manufactuers and door to door encyclopedia salesmen.

[iblogleft]

Fold Journalism into higher education. Take out corporate interests in the media, and run them non-profit.

[bigpaws23]

as non-profits, their opinion section would have to be non -existent. so what are they there for then exactly?

[iblogleft]

Journalism is here to tell us what factually occurred, so society has a common point of reference to make important decisions on how our society is run.

We can only have opinions on factual occurrence after we know they happened.

Anyone have a better idea? All I know is that news cannot be run for high dollar returns on investment, there is too much pressure to gather market share, and too much pressure to not tell the truth.

They could have chosen to invest in the internet infrastructure, and charged a base fee for news departments, but they missed that boat.

I still do not have a solid answer to all this, but we have to save journalism, not newspapers.

[NorthSide]

I think most newspapers have in fact become non-profit, which is the problem, isn't it?

[ThePeoplesKey]

"The internet has allowed anyone, regardless of background or world view, to express themselves, connect with others, and access an entire world of electronic information. But the ability for dedicated staffs with greater resources to investigate and report on issues large and small provides a critical check on institutions that otherwise lack a critical body of oversight focused solely on the public interest."

The public interest would be far better served by outlawing contributions of any kind to politicians from institutions/corporations/anything that isn't considered to be an individual human being of any kind.

Let's start with the above. Then we can worry about how the newspapers are fairing in the internet age. See my previous post for the beginnings of a solution to the "reliable sources" problem formerly handled by newspaper companies . . .

[ThankfulTexan]

Honorable Representative Maloney,

Once again Congress is stepping in and distorting the free market. What constitutional basis do you have for saving newspapers. The decline of this market began with consolidation. Generally you had left leaning and right leaning papers serving the same market.

In addition, the overall market for delivery of media has changed drastically. Let the market dictate who wins and who loses, we do not need Washington butting in.

[AmerikaWaning09]

Thank you & amen!

[ThePeoplesKey]

My suggestion is licensing journalists similar to real estate agents except more restrictive. (IMHO it is far too easy to obtain a RE license for the service being performed) Assuming that the requirements for fact checking, researching, grammar, etc., skills could be determined through testing along with a code of ethics system of arbitration which would include revocation of a journalist license for deliberately promoting misleading or incorrect information.

Then newspapers could become non profit aggregates of information obtained from licensed journalists which is then published to the general public either in print or on the internet similar to the MLS system Realtors use. The journalists would have to pay yearly/monthly dues to their own organization to remain licensed members in good standing and take continuing education courses every year similar to other professions. Those dues would support the aggregates of the information who could continue to also use advertising to support their activities. Funding for news gathering and reporting expenses would be obtained through the organization of all member aggregate portals according to priority based on a rotating panel of members determine what is the most critical information to publish first based on current national and international trends. The public would be protected by being able to determine whether the information they are getting is being written by a licensed journalist or not.

That's a start . . . just off the top of my head . . .

[bigpaws23]

I think that a licensing scheme is unconstitutional. Freedom of the press is NOT like any other profession. Plumbers, doctors, barbers, therapists etc. don't have the guarantee of the Law of the Land like the press does.

why should I need a license to print or say what I want? Heyyyyyyy - guess what I don't.

Thanks Bill of Rights!

[ThePeoplesKey]

I think you missed the point.

This is a consumer protection issue.

Of course the Constitution protects your right to freedom of speech. I'm not suggesting that you need to be licensed as a journalist to print what you want. I'm saying that your credibility as a source of factual information would be suspect if you were an unlicensed journalist printing, distributing, and/or promoting your personal opinions. Doesn't mean you couldn't do it or that the consumers reading your output couldn't believe every word written by you as handed down from God himself. It just requires those claiming to "Be Journalists" maintain a measurable amount of integrity and ability in order to use the title "Journalist" so that the general public reading your work could be assured of some degree of impartiality vs personal opinion unless specifically stated otherwise by the journalist publishing a story. An opinion columnist for example would have to state that his story is an "opinion" so someone reading it would know that.

Anyway, I just threw the idea out as a possibility not the complete solution to newspapers failing.

[glorialovelace]

I think licensing is a very good idea. It needn't interfere with free speech. Licensing would enable sanctions to be taken against editors and reporters who deliberately and knowingly disseminate information that is false.

Free speech does not include the right to make up lies and present them as truth.

[Bloggerrogr]

"News"papers? I haven't seen one in ages. Mostly they are advertisement directories that throw in a smattering of uninformed blather as some sort of "filler".

Thank you, wordsmith! "obsolete" and "irrelevant" are the words I would have chosen as well.

FWIW

[comrade leviathan]

True, although newspapers as non-profits would greatly reduce the amount of advertising consuming their pages.

I think it's an interesting concept, and one with merit. God knows the profit-motive has impacted the news industry to a similarly detrimental degree as health care, higher education, etc, etc, etc...

[AmerikaWaning09]

the profit motive is horrible & greedy . Mr. Comrade Leviathan, please, go to work tomorrow & every other day, and please do it for free. I don't think it is right and just that you should expect to get paid. Do it as a service to your country, and humanity. I am sure the government willeasily be able to afford to take care of your basic living expenses. Thank you for your selfless service.

[DevonTexas]

But without newspapers, how can I wrap glassware when I move?! Or what would I combine with ammonia to clean my windows!?

[AmerikaWaning09]

What would we put down for our cats, dogs, and birds to poop on?

[cktirumalai]

A proportion of newspaper articles which would still be interesting a year from now (and not just for researchers) would be worth having. That requires journalists who are no strangers to literature and philosphy: those who master facts and detail and can then step back to comment on them in a wider prespective of understanding. There is such a thing as being too lost in the passing scene.