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it (although Web ads also can be invasive despite pop-up blockers), how can a newspaper (which some readers consider out-of-date by the time it arrives) or even a television station compete?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 Aaron@HarberTV.com. (C) Copyright 2009 by Aaron Harber and USA Talk Network, Inc. All rights reserved.