Well, the Murdoch clan has to try something. Along with charging readers for the Wall Street Journal, News Corporation is considering charging readers of the Sunday Times by breaking it out of the current Times Online website. Rupert Murdoch has stated that changes would be coming, as newspapers continue spending like businesses while watching their ability to generate cash sink below that of many charities. Digital Media Minute has wondered about the future of newspapers before, and I can easily explain why this News Corp move gets newspapers no closer to finding a way to survive in a form that the internet has rendered obsolete.
The idea seems to be that by walling off several high-profile news presences under the News Corp brand and then charging to view their content, readers will have so few free quality alternatives that they will be more inclined to pay for News Corp. news. A state of effective collusion will be the fix for the dire straits in which these News Corp. properties have found themselves, fumbling individually toward charging for content, finally giving them some leverage.
Well, no. The problem is that there are very few barriers to entry now in journalism/news creation, and collusion of this sort cannot work in such an environment. I’d certainly argue that the Wall Street Journal and the Times Online are excellent. But let’s face it: everyone has micro-authority blogs and websites already bookmarked/rss fed to us for subjects in which we are interested, the content of which will absolutely rival that of people who write for huge established news sources. I’m usually interested in what Walt Mossberg has to say, but do I respect his opinion on certain areas of tech more than Jon Gruber, because he works for the WSJ? I do not.
For general news, whether world, national or local, I have a thousand quality choices. I can find them myself, and over time I’ve found more than I can possibly read every day. The quality is good enough for me never to feel inclined to whip out my credit card for something that may not be superior anyway.
Here is the root of the problem (for ‘news organizations’ by the way, not necessarily journalists and certainly not readers): newspapers arose in a time when there was a lot more human attention than quality information. Armed with expensive infrastructure, newspapers created and delivered a product to address this and naturally cornered the market, giving ‘news’ a value, and attracting readers and advertisers. Today though, the infinite choice of ubiquitous media puts attention, not information, at a premium, and even Rupert Murdoch could never buy news sources fast enough to make news expensive again.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey Jim,
I agree with you. This seems to be a desperate effort by Murdoch to save a model of information distribution that is becoming obsolete. The challenge of how to provide quality information without journalists remains in many areas though. In technology there is a surplus of available knowledge modeled on the open source sharing of information. In some other areas, the paradigms are not as open, and journalists must have the resources to do the necessary investigations. This will become less of an issue as we go forward, but for now there are some areas where I appreciate the skills of a good journalist; and these professionals are currently supported by the newspapers business model. This video at TED of Yochai Benkler has an interesting take on why newspapers are doomed as participatory journalism is enabled by the advance of technology. It turns out that newspapers were not always so expensive to publish. Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html
Enjoy, bob
Hi Bob– thanks for the thoughtful comment. First, I should tell you that I’m Tom Mullaly, the new owner of Digital Media Minute for almost six weeks now. I’ll have to make it clearer in the ‘About’ page. I won’t speak for Jim, but I think blogging every day became less important to him as the years went by. Priorities change. In any case, I’m going to try keep to the high standard Jim set for almost six years, writing on the same topics that frequent readers have come to expect from DMM, ie web development/programming tips, etc., as well as more general commentary on the ways that media in the largest sense seems to have an increasing hold on our attention, and a bigger place in our lives. Please check back regularly Bob.
As to your comment: I think there wil be room for professional journalists as we go forward, but I don’t know if they will be paid by companies that distribute info on newsprint. Maybe it will be a combination of ‘micro-authorities’ who self-publish (Jon Gruber was just one of 100 examples that might have sprung to my mind, and I’m sure your list of favorites is just as long), and good writers (possibly with journalism degrees) who provide a different sort of content, (more general?) to publishers large and small, including any traditional publishers who survive. I wonder if there will be an enormous pool of freelancer journalists who can provide semi-unique perspective based on their location/cultural familiarity or other areas of expertise…
As you say we have to recognize the place of quality journalism in our culture, the necessity of it really. But you hear the idea floating around a lot now— ‘Newspapers are dead, journalism will survive’– I think that distinction will take us forward.
I guess the point of my post was that we’ll have new ways of conferring ‘authority’ on writers, that having credibility won’t be limited to those who write for large companies a la News Corp, and I think that’s a good thing. In the long run the writing cream will rise anyway, and I can’t imagine a world where we’ll be less informed. More confused maybe, but not less informed!
Thanks a lot for the link Bob and I’ll definitely take a look (all things TED are great, aren’t they?!). –Tom
Sorry to think your were Jim, Tom; and congratulations on the acquisition.
I do think that there are many examples of technology writers that fit the micro-authority category, but aside from citizen journalism sites I don’t see many political writers that have emerged. Or maybe as you say it is the filtering that needs to be refined. Many of the political journalists seem to me to have their perspectives obscured by their party preferences. It is true that the larger publications have this flaw as well, but the individuals seem to suffer from a lack of editing of their copy. As do I :)
Cheers, bob
HI Bob– well no problem, I’ve been called worse! Yeah it’s funny that it’s a whole lot easier to spot an authority in a tech niche than it is in politics. I’m not completely sure if we’d get general agreement; blame it on the subject I guess.
An effort at fairness and impartiality is just as likely with ‘micro-authority’ bloggers as it is with journalists writing for large corporations. It may be even more possible for the former, as there’s no ratings chasing (yet) in blogging. Well there is sensationalism everywhere, and that will forever get you readers.
Still, would a ‘fairness and impartiality’ niche attract readers? Writers with no apparent ax to grind, who’s calling card is an effort toward seeing both sides. It sounds like an un-cornered market to me.