Commentary
The Mores Of Content In The Digital Age
- by Kendall Allen , April 6, 2009
First up, there was Rupert Murdoch's quip, as reported in The Wall Street Journal: "'People are used to reading everything on the Net for free, and that's going to have to change." Murdoch also took aim at newspapers for allowing Google and other aggregators to distribute news for free. In the context of his news organization's plans to invest in a reader technology that would enable ultra-browseability -- and certainly, in the context of the ongoing conversation about whether consumers should or must pay for content in digital channels - these comments are hardly new. Come on! But, it was Rupert. So, passions flared everywhere - among friends, on Facebook pages, across the Tweighborhoods we share:
"No way! We should not pay for content in this information age when it's readily available for free." "That's crap. I can Google any bit of daily news or opinion and be served up reams of 'free' options."
advertisement
advertisement
And, some would invoke the free press, network neutrality and ramble off on evil empires. Plenty of fair points, taken in isolation. But Rupert's statement barely scratched the surface of all the interests involved in the real situation. Such narrow rants always sound really stuck in time to me -- no matter who the target.
Next up, The New York Times gave some attention to Google's plans to digitize millions of orphan books out of the bellies of the nation's libraries. This is a move apparently enabled by the expansive settlement of the suit brought against the company. The nuance of this imminent initiative, though, is its focus on orphaned books -- out of print, with untraceable copyrights, and so on. Google-haters refer to end-runs around legislative process; diplomats refer to an array of benefit equations and "good for everyone" platitudes. But, I don't know, I'd much rather see a concerted vast effort to revive and bring into new channels these lost works than see them burnt, Fahrenheit- 451 style.
Corporate-minded quotes by corporate provocateurs and these scenarios rife with conflict of interest bring out the dogma. But, if you spend time thinking deeply about either of these scenarios, you might acknowledge that our relationship with content, both consumer and corporate, is not so black and white. The information sphere is not as straightforward as it used to be. It's no longer just us and the singular news establishment. The sphere has gotten more complex in ways we could not have previously thought. And the exchange of information and pennies from our pockets is not the only one to consider.
One of my favorite reads on the matter is by Clay Shirky. Call him a digital fan-boy if you will, but "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable" is important for the seeds it plants. Shirky writes:
The unthinkable scenario unfolded something like this: The ability to share content wouldn't shrink, it would grow. Walled gardens would prove unpopular. Digital advertising would reduce inefficiencies, and therefore profits. Dislike of micropayments would prevent widespread use. People would resist being educated to act against their own desires. Old habits of advertisers and readers would not transfer online. Even ferocious litigation would be inadequate to constrain massive, sustained law-breaking...
Journalism has always been subsidized. Sometimes it's been Wal-Mart and the kid with the bike. Sometimes it's been Richard Mellon Scaife. Increasingly, it's you and me, donating our time. The list of models that are obviously working today, like Consumer Reports and NPR, like ProPublica and WikiLeaks, can't be expanded to cover any general case, but then nothing is going to cover the general case.
Society doesn't need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That's been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we're going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.
When we shift our attention from "save newspapers" to "save society," the imperative changes from "preserve the current institutions" to "do whatever works." And what works today isn't the same as what used to work.
If we take an honest look at today's world, we see that models are synthesizing; spheres are coalescing; the citizen journalist is no longer just that guy in his robe (though he sometimes is); valuable local cooperative ventures are stirring. In a cross-channel, multimedia world, encompassing not just the news establishment but other sources -- there are new takes on content delivery and consumption, as well as progressive monetization models. The avid consumer of news, information and content-at-large rarely pulls from a single conduit, but through a vast matrix. The most active are subscribing, aggregating, feeding, sharing, digesting and ultimately perpetuating us all to a new world not yet reconciled. The lines blur.
On our way to wherever we are going, there are questions that seem important to ask:
The cords in my purist heart tug for beat reporting, investigative journalism, ethics and standards oversight -- but I recognize the landscape is totally different than even 10 years ago, let alone before the unleashing of the Internet. As a compulsive consumer of news, information, content across channels, I find the situation pretty enthralling. Given my habits and business vantage point, I absolutely would participate in and pay for certain aspects, quality thresholds, media treatments and outright increased access and portability of content. However, this no longer means the answer to just one trite question: Would I pay for my news? It's certainly not a moral question, though it's as complex as the best of them.
I agree with Clay when he says we need journalists. When I attended the Poynter Institute, the Director at the time told us outright that "We're essential to Democracy."
I like to know that a real journalist with a real name wrote the stories I read. Not "PychoNewser89."
We lost the Rocky Mountain News here in Denver about a month ago and I really went through withdrawl of the experience of holding a print publication in my hand.
That lasted about a week. Now it's my laptop and the TV. TV I pay for through by satellite provider. I pay for online content to the extent that Comcast charges me for the service.
Will I pay for online local news content? Yes. But only to a point. Actually, I think paying for content means better content because people will compete for our dollar.
But when the journalism goes, so does our society. Akin to one of those "Mad Max" type of worlds, only digital.
As a 20 year media veteran, I love print...AND I love online news. Both are a major part of my daily routine. Here are my biggest fears.
- We become a 'headline news' society. Too many of us won't look beyond the headline on usatoday.com to get the entire story.
- True journalism is lost, with investigations, editors, fact checking, etc. We will only be able to trust the bloggers that are known and respected.
- Speaking of bloggers. Many open our minds to new, thoughtful ideas. But many post big, unfounded and unchecked opinions. That scares me.
- Finally, as a citizen, I care about the senior generations. How will they get their information? TV alone is not the best source of news.
A hybrid model must emerge. I'm sure it will be completely new. A place where trusted journalism can survive, readers can rely on the information, and new revenue models are discovered.
Back to the Benjamins. Journalists/reporters need to be paid a reasonable income along with expenses - hotels, meals, time, fact checkers, editors, staff, transportation and in some parts, protection. This is expensive regardless of today's technology. For a long time, advertising did an admirable job supporting the system. Then came fragmentation (talk among yourselves to rehash the whens, whys, etc.). We see there is just not enough money to go around, and becoming less, on the ad model due to fragmentation. So unless there are some patrons - individual or business without allowing personal biasses to invade (yeah, right) - then your freedom to have an unlimited amount of publishing efforts will have to pay the price of limitation to pay for the liberty to have the freedom of the press to get the "true" story. Subscriptions on line, off line will never, ever cut the mustard. Nothing is free. Freedom is not free.
I may be a 20 year old veteran in hard core media planning, but it was only today that I learnt the phrase "When all you have is a hammer, you can only see nails." The author calls it "functional fixation".
If you look at 'news' as a commodity to be bought, then yes, paying for Mediapost updates like these tomorrow sounds a little painful, not when you can get it from other sources on the free lunch wagon.
If you look at content as being part of bigger catalytic experience - as a community, as a professional badge of identification, as a time saver (quality not quantity), as a friend and confidante, as a professional network to belong, as a passion, a belief even - then sure, I will pay for content anytime.
I'm cool. Whatever it takes to keep your business afloat, and your Christmas tree lined with presents.
Price is what you pay.
Value, on the other hand, is what you get.
Big difference.
We do need journalists. But there are no pure journalists left. The politicization of the process of reporting has created a new class of partisan hacks, rather than true reporting.
Unfortunately, the shift of newspapers from at least some semblance of unbiased reporting to serious bias has truly cost them readership. I ended my relationship with the New York Times several years ago to their blatant partisan shift that began appearing in articles as diverse as Real Estate and Entertainment. It's annoying to read a political screed when you're thinking you're reading a sports commentary.
I can get my partisan political news on blogs. That's what they are for. But the newspapers were supposed to be the Fourth Estate - protecting people from the excesses of government and business by keeping them informed. Today, they simply promote one while attacking the other (given that most major newspapers are large business entities, it sometimes leads to rather ironic twists of fate, particularly when unions are involved).
Rather than read a newspaper today, I have a series of blogs and links that I utilize to find news. Sometimes the source is the NYTimes, which is fine....as long as the story is well written and fair. But I don't want to rely on one resource for all my news and information, especially when it's as biased as the Times. I'd rather seek out many sources for a more rounded view.
The only paper which I would subscribe to, but cannot anymore since it's gone purely digital, is the Christian Science Monitor. It remains the last bastion of unadulterated pure news reporting.