Old Media Bailout?
ByApparently there is discussion happening within the political world about bailing out “old media” journalists.
Please excuse my over use of the word Old Media. It was the best way to distinguish between traditional and digital.
The business insider quoted Obama saying:
“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding”
“Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy”
So here are my issues in nice organized bullet points for your enjoyment.
1. Old Media is not mistake proof
The quotes above gives the illusion that journalists supply fact and truth while bloggers are shouting out their opinions effortlessly. How many times in our history have reporters made mistakes? Sometimes they don’t get the exact facts. Sometimes they spin a story in a negative light in order to attract more readers. No article in ANY media is written without leaning towards some sort of conclusion. Supporting some kind of opinion. We are humans. Even history books can be distorted.
2. Old Media is censored information
How many times has old media been behind in reporting information? There is only so much room in a newspaper for stories. There is only so much time within a news segment to deliver information. Often, stories get un-told. Often content is censored for political or financial reasons. Journalism is a business like any other. They have editors and publishers and advertisers.
3. Arguments exsist. And that is ok.
I have seen enough criticisms of news channels for being “too conservative” or “too liberal.” I have looked at enough comic strips filled with donkeys and elephants to know it is not just bloggers yelling at each other. Since when is having an argument considered bad? How many philosophers argued about the meaning of life and the purpose of humanity? How many religious leaders have argued for their beliefs? It is in these “arguments,” these discussions that we find truth and answers.
4. Bailout because new technology exists
Imagine if letter couriers asked for a government bailout when the telegraph machine was created. Would it have happended? I am not trying to say that old media is as outdated as letter couriers. Journalists are still extremely important and extremely valuable. However, people are choosing to access information in different ways. Journalism is not dead. Journalists do not need to be bailed out. There will always be space and NEED for journalism. However, traditional print media is in need of a makeover. Can we said digital?
5. When will the bloggers get bailed out?
Magazines and Newspapers are hugely profitable corporations. Well, they used to be. The government is offering to bail out an industry because they went from being work millions upon millions to millions less. Most blogs are a one man show. Few blogs could pull in a million dollars in a year. When is the government going to bail out bloggers?
I would love to hear your thoughts/concerns. This is not to meant to talk badly about journalism and old media. I read magazines consistently. I love holding a crisp newspaper in my hands. I think that journalists are needed. That fact checking is important. But a bailout? Bad Idea.
Related posts:
I agree… a bailout of old media is a horrible idea.
Thinking critically about complicated issues and not listening to talking points is the key to wisdom.
Great article. Kudos.
I apologize in advance for such a lengthy response within a comment, but as I’ve given up blogging myself I have no other venue to respond to your post.
a few observations: bloggers, with few exceptions, aren’t journalists, and blogs – almost by definition – are personal and represent the opinions of their writers. So, President Obama’s statement with regard to the blogosophere is an apt one. The piece that you quoted, from the BI, is in fact an opinion piece – one in which you seem to agree.
Also, there is a distinction between media and organizations. I.E., the Washington Post is not just folded bits of paper with words on, it is a news organization, one that not only publishes on paper, but on the internet too. In fact, all major “newspapers” have an on-line presence (even my hometown paper – circulation @3000).
These news organizations have a structure and laws that govern their operation and what they print. They enforce (not perfectly, but no one is perfect) the rules and ethics of journalism as well as the laws of libel – among others. Their reputation is based on the unbiased reporting of events. All of this structure is paid for via printed circulation to some degree, and by advertising to a large degree. The on-line presence of these organizations is almost always free and supported mostly by their print operations. Newspapers are, however, facing a crisis in that this business model is being outmoded. Fewer people are buying the print versions of newspapers, and more and more of them are going out of business , by being bought up or actually closing their doors.
I have yet to find a blog that provides this service. If the on-line presence of these news organizations disappear because they go out of business, where would we go to get NEWS – not opinion. This business is in a state of change. What I get out of your post is that you disdain news organizations in favor of individual journalists or bloggers. My question is: how are these people going to support themselves – pay the rent, buy groceries, pay for their news-gathering and reporting activities? Free access to information on the web is a huge step in the democratization of free speech, but it isn’t a paying model yet. Like it or not, in today’s world, without a news organization to work for journalists will cease to be journalists – except in their spare time.
point by point:
point 1: old media is not mistake-proof. Yep, you’re right. No one is perfect, people make mistakes. But – when mistakes are made, they are acknowledged and corrected. There are editors that catch the mistakes that journalists make that you never see “in print”. While I agree that there is usually and editorial bias in news organizations, the best ones mitigate it and attempt to balance it. Reporters are not allowed to print their opinions (as was done in the BI article you read) they are supposed to print the facts. No real reporter would print this in their article:
“This strikes us as the worst kind of protect the horse and buggy policy imaginable. Newspapers have been printing money for 100+ years, and if the market is now putting an end to that, stifling this change probably isn’t a good idea.”,/i>
The article in BI wasn’t labeled as an editorial, but yet it was very clearly written in such a way to support this conclusion. How many people will read this to get their “news”. The authors, while maybe being journalists, haven’t written a news article, they’ve written an opinion piece. In traditional media, this would have been printed in the editorial section, and so would be clear to everyone that it isn’t meant to be news.
So – while I admit that traditional news media (of the best tradition, not the scandal sheets and tabloids) do tend to have an editorial slant, they uphold the ethics of journalism and have built-in safeguards against it. This BI article would have never made it by an editor in a traditional news organization.
point 2: Old media is censored information. First thing: your use of the word censored is suspect here. Yes, you can only print so much, so there is selection of what gets printed every day. Even in blogs, no one person can report everything. That’s why it is important that we – as consumers of information – have a variety of sources. 20 years ago, major cities had half-a-dozen newspapers, with morning and evening editions. Many people started or ended their day reading several of them. Today, most cities have one, maybe two newspapers. Less papers, less news printed. That isn’t censorship so much as it is a necessary decision about what to print.
By using the word censorship, you imply that (politicized) editorial policy is the first and foremost filter applied at traditional news organizations. While I’ve admitted previously to a bias in news organizations, I’ve also stated that in the best of them this bias is suppressed and when acknowledged, addressed. You imply here that on-line blogs and on-line only news sources are not biased or censored. I disagree. Just as reporters and editors are people, so are bloggers. Every thing you read anywhere has to be acknowledged as being biased by who wrote it. This criticism could easily, and to the same degree, be aimed at the on-line world of blogs.
You also mention that news is old by the time it is printed – this isn’t necessarily the function of censorship, it is frequently the function of accurate news gathering. While newspapers do stress getting the story first, they also – again, the good ones – stress getting it right. So, fact checking, obtaining 2nd sources for questionable material, etc. can slow down a story. You have a story that damages someone’s reputation? A staff lawyer will review and make sure libel laws aren’t being violated. Getting it right is frequently more important than being first. (How many stories did I read on-line the weekend-before-last that the polluting wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico had been stopped by the mud-pumping process? Only to find out it was a complete failure – about a day later.)
point 3: arguments are okay. I agree, free speech is a wonderful thing. But there is no room in a news story for political bias. I’ve addressed this in point one above. I need a place where I can read about an event and be reasonably sure that I’m not reading someone’s slant on it. If I want political slant, I’ll listen to Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. while I tend to agree that you can find truth in well-reasoned debate, that truth can only be determined if you have a reasonable knowledge of the subject at hand. I’m not going to get a balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian problem by listening to the Anti-Defamation League – or Hamas.
point 4: bailout because new technology exists. Democracy is dependent upon an informed electorate. We aren’t talking about keeping branch banks open because more and more people do their banking on-line. I’ve stated above my position that news organizations are critical – the freedom of the press is written into the constitution – and that blogging news isn’t necessarily a substitute for them for the reasons I’ve stated above. Once again, the business of news is in flux. Journalists just don’t spring out of college ready made, just as atomic physicists don’t. You have to practice your profession. You also have to make a living. This is the real world. How many journalists actually make a living solely by their on-line work? How many atomic scientist have their own laboratories and are self-employed? The market isn’t always the best decider of what succeeds and what doesn’t. That’s why we have national parks, the national endowment for the arts, the NIH, the FDIC, interstate highways, Medicare – all supported (“bailed out”) by the federal government because it was determined that they were important to our culture and society to exist.
point 5: When will bloggers be bailed out? this is disingenuous, a case of “I didn’t get mine, so they shouldn’t get theirs”. Do bloggers deserve bailing out? Why should I pay you a living to write your opinions here? Most blogs are hobbies. Now, if you had framed your question differently – say, when will on-line (only) news organizations get bailed out? Well, who is to say that they won’t? If the business of news cannot find a money-making model on-line, then maybe they will. (at least until a paying model evolves).
Despite their problems, the free press (news organizations ) (and by free, I mean non-government agencies) is critical to our democracy and are our best means to get information about the world around us. I have no problem myself with print going by the wayside, it is inevitable I think. While President Obama may be interpreted as addressing the dying print industry, I see nothing wrong with supporting these organizations during their transition to the net. The fact that there isn’t yet a paying business model for on-line only journalism doesn’t mean there won’t be one. My not being able to see, excepting the on-line editions of traditional print organizations, the same level of journalism in other on-line media doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. You didn’t point to any in your post. If you can make your point with examples of these, AND can demonstrate that they are self-supporting, then I will go a long way with agreeing with your point that a bailout is unneeded.
And you didn’t even mention TV news and its effect on newspapers. (and since you didn’t neither did I, except to mention here that one of the major causes of the downfall of print has been TV – and yet no government bailout yet). On-line journalism isn’t the first assault on printed media, but it may well be the last. New technology like the Kindle and iPad are the 1st devices that will open up on-line media to people who do not spend their days (or nights) behind a computer screen.
I really have no problem with on-line journalism, I hardly ever handle a printed newspaper. But until the on-line world evolves more and I can find organizations that can earn the same trust in their product as newspapers have had for several hundred years, I will continue to use “old media” news organizations as my primary – but not only – source of news.
Thank you for commenting. I appreciate this conversation and realize in reading your response that I may have missed some points in my original argument. I am also afraid in this response I may stray from the original argument. (please pardon me if I do)
Many bloggers are in fact running personal websites which work much like personal journals. However, in my definition of blogging (which I should have stated clearly) I was discussing all of the content creation going on online. Such as, online magazines such as Tech Crunch, Mashable, Modern Mom, She finds. These provide content much like traditional magazines. Also, online blogs which are personal blogs sharing opinions and personal insight. As well, as online newspapers Forbes, New York Times, True Slant. Places that are providing factual content for us.
I did not clearly define what I was considering “old media” which I was meaning all traditional media outlets. Newspapers, magazines, and News channels. (all of which are suffering in this economy)
Perhaps if I had chosen one outlet to speak about my argument would have been a little more clear.
I am aware of the structure set up. However, that structure was created to put a line between factual information and opinion. However, it seems that many outlets (news and magazines) have found ways to bend these rules. (as everyone does) and simply provides the facts that support their opinion. Where as the lines and ethical obligations have gotten quite blurred in the process.
Is it important to have ethical standards on what is printed? absolutely. Is it important to censor what can be printed and what can’t? In my opinion? No.
yes, online content does not prove to be profitable. However, why are we going to argue that investing government resources in essentially saving traditional outlets is more valuable than investing money in making online media more profitable. (As you said yourself you get most of your information online. That would seem to be a more logical approach)
Also, buying advertising space in magazines and newspapers and television is more expensive than purchasing online advertising. If these print editions become irrelevant (which they may or may not that is not what I am arguing) the only option for advertising is online and online media could become just as profitable as traditional.
I think that you have made some very true points in your argument above. I wish I had some more time to dig into them and discuss them further.
I simply don’t see how investing money into something that people are utilizing is a logical way of dealing with it. If their business model is failing either it needs to be reworked or people aren’t using it anymore. If noone ever went to a state park the government wouldn’t fund it.
I am simply saying the business model (both online and offline) needs to change. The government does not need to control this change.
There is a great article here: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalisms-past/
While I too lack the time to pick through all of your points (this time!) I will mention a few things.
“Is it important to have ethical standards on what is printed? absolutely. Is it important to censor what can be printed and what can’t? In my opinion? No.
You have yet to make a case for why you think traditional print news organizations censor. I too am against censorship, and I think I established in my first response that, from what you wrote in your original post, I don’t agree with you that they do censor information.
“yes, online content does not prove to be profitable. However, why are we going to argue that investing government resources in essentially saving traditional outlets is more valuable than investing money in making online media more profitable. (As you said yourself you get most of your information online. That would seem to be a more logical approach)”
If you assume that all print news is going to the web anyway, then you make a good point. Yes, I do get the majority of my information on-line – by reading the on-line versions of the traditional news organizations newspapers. What I’ve found so far in terms of on-line only organizations is that they are highly specialized. The examples you gave: Tech Crunch, Mashable, Modern Mom, She finds. Where, except in the on-line versions of the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. can I go to one spot and get news, sports, business, etc? I think there is still a role for traditional media to play, even on-line.
“Also, buying advertising space in magazines and newspapers and television is more expensive than purchasing online advertising. If these print editions become irrelevant (which they may or may not that is not what I am arguing) the only option for advertising is online and online media could become just as profitable as traditional.”
You make a good point – once again, if you assume that everything is going to the web anyway. The current click-through method of selling advertising on-line is being called into question, companies that purchase advertising on-line are questioning if they are getting the return on their investment – i.e. that these ads are generating sales. There is no good way yet to measure their performance.
All of your arguments seem to presuppose that all media are going to the web anyway, so let the dinosaurs die. What you haven’t taken into account is that there is a significant portion of our population that are behind the technology gap. They are not on-line, nor do they have the means to get on-line. I have personal knowledge of people (friends, acquaintances, etc) who cannot afford a computer or a subscription to an ISP – nor are they likely to. They have trouble paying rent or buying groceries. But they can afford 50 cents for a newspaper. While you and I can argue about the pace of the digital revolution, they have no access to it. If we can agree that an informed electorate is critical for the survival of a (representative) democracy and that the free press is vital to that effort, then we may have to preserve some of these institutions that foment it. Like it or not, printed newspapers still serve a vital purpose. If that means that the government has to help them find a new business model, then I don’t have a problem with it.
One last thing. “If noone ever went to a state park the government wouldn’t fund it.”
I heartily disagree. State and federal parks don’t exist just to give you or me a place to have a picnic. They exist so that portions of our country can be protected from the short-termed interests (read exploitation if you want) of people and businesses, they exist because there is value in protecting and preserving some of the natural environment for our collective future. It doesn’t matter if people go regularly go to them. Vast amounts of preserved lands are not regularly visited by people. There is value in preserving the land itself in its pristine state for our children and our children’s children.
I’ve enjoyed this debate.