Is the community willing to help save newspapers from oblivion?

Former Tampa Tribune staffer Billy Townsend sent me a wonderful post he put on the Lakeland Local blog musing on the future of our craft, depressingly subtitled "The Deprofessionalization of News."

He outlines an idea I've broached in this space before, sparked by a conversation with Free Press board member Tim Wu in Minneapolis; that newspapers in particular will need to form a new partnership with the public in order to maintain the current news infrastructure.

What does that mean? Put simply, much of the news you consume in a single day is generated at ground level by the newspaper industry. TV reporters crib scoops from the newspapers; radio reporters and DJs often rip and read stories from newspaper pages; the Associated Press thrives on the fees paid by and stories contributed from member newspapers; blogs are filled with commentary on stories broken by newspaper writers. And so on.

As the downsizing of America's print media continues, the very foundation of our information system is at risk. Forget all the altruistic talk of watchdogging government and uncovering inequities in life -- the pipeline for all the information products we all enjoy is crumbling as the financial model of newspapers disintegrates.

If you doubt this truth at all, check out the financial figures released Tuesday by Media General, owner of the Tampa Tribune,WFLA-Ch. 8 and about 40 other newspapers and TV stations. Revenues for 2008 were $68.3-million -- a lot of cash until you note that revenues were $11-million higher in July of 2007. In Florida, publishing revenue declined 30 percent -- overall, classified revenues dropped 32.5-percent. Declines in retail advertising in Tampa and Richmond dropped $2.3-million from last year.

Some commenters here sneer whenever I broach this idea. But the fact is, if our news infrastructure keeps crumbling, communities across the country will have to consider whether this system is worth funding as a non-profit or publicly supported enterprise.

Because, even though we've trained our audience not to pay directly for the work we do, it holds tremendous value in bringing substance and depth to our media ecosystem. Consider radio as the template -- who else besides the local public broadcasting radio stations is doing real radio journalism anymore?

This may be the print medium's future if we don't figure a better alternative now.

Comments

[beltwaybandit]

Eric,

I think the real question is not whether the instance I cited proves that government control will water down journalism. I think government controlled journalism has proven consistently that it does (BBC, Russia, China, et al).

Instead, I think the point is, as you concede, that both government sponsored journalism and prviately funded journalism are capable of the same thing: failure to aggressively question power.

While we are in agreement that the U.S. journalism field largely failed in the run up to Iraq, there are many famous cases when journalism came through with flying colors.

Watergate is probably the best example.

So again, the BBC has its history and U.S. journalism has its history. Both have done good things in standing up to power and both have failed. Most other government sponsored journalism has been a joke at best.

So I will again ask...why should the taxpayers be foreced to asusme the burden of journalism if government controlled journalism has largelybeen proven to be a failure worldwide?

Beyond saving journalism jobs in the the current environment of downsizing, what purposes does it serve the taxpayer?

[Jim]

I think newspapers are definitely worth saving because they are often the only permanent record of news and events in a community. I would agree with one of the posters above in that newspapers should be writing more about how what happened yesterday will affect you today.

Problem is, newspapers keep giving the public less of a reason to keep reading. The stories are shorter, the longtime popular talent is being pushed out the door and it's no secret the "Times", once a very straight no-nonsense paper of record, has been doing using more supermarket tabloid material to fill the pages.

[Eric Deggans]

I think we're talking past each other.

My point is that i don't agree with you that the BBC hasn't challenged it's government's authority and positions many times in its reporting -- even after its top executives weere forced to resign.

My point is, in the nistance you cite, these executives seem to have been forced to resign because they broadcast a news report that was politically combustible which they couldn't defend factually.

My point is that jurnalists in america have lost their jobs for the same reasons. And the American media as a whole was much less aggressive in challenging the govenrment in the run up to the war than the BBC.

So how exactly does any of this prove that government support would inevitably water down professional journalism?

[beltwaybandit]

Eric,

My point is exactly that the BBC, government funded, does not do a much better job of challenging the government's positions than privately funded ones precisely because it is too easy to get caught up in the politics of biting the hand feeding you.

You will note my point that NBC does not challenge GE for exactly that reason.

So...whether the taxpayers pay for journalism or it is privately supported, doesn't matter. Journalists drop the ball either way.

It wasn't the pressure put on journalists by management that caused the failures to challenge Bush and Co. prior to Iraq, although some have claimed that was the case (Donahue a journalist? When did that transformation happen?). Journalists are supposed to have the skills to have their facts straight and to stand up to power. If journalists did not do so, is that ownership's fault all the time? And news managers are usually journalists by trade...where were they when this was happening?

So what we agree on here is that whether it is the taxpayer or private funding that funds news operations, journalists can still fail in their role of questioning power on matters such as going to war.

Why then does it make sense to add yet another expense to the taxpayer in these economic times when there is no evidence to indcuate it will improve things much?

[Robin 'Roblimo' Miller]

There will be news, and there will be businesses that deliver it. Those businesses may not be housed in the deee-lux buildings newspapers (and school boards) all seem to need these days, and they may not use paper as their delivery mechanism, but I assure you that there are at least a few people in the Tampa area working on next-generation news businesses right now.

The outlook for newspapers may be bleak, but the outlook for *news entrepreneurs* is better today than it has been at any time since the FCC decided we no longer needed local radio.

[dreaming]

eric:
i think youre missing my point. i agree the newspaper biz is trimming reporting jobs left and right. (though arent some of yr losses like chris sherman, helen huntley etc overdue for retirement anyway?)
the point is the biz is not trimming where it could save the most: mid to upper level mgmt, i.e, the names no one knows except those who work inside. these fat cats are not only unnecessary to creation of the news product, but they are also the best paid as they feed till the last from the increasingly bare trough.

why is this so? because they hold the keys to the kingdoms, not the lowly staffers losing their jobs to buyouts.

if you want to run papers like nonprofits, then these overpaid mgrs will have to go. they dont write. they dont report. they dont generate the 'content' that feeds the bloggers, tv and radio rip-and-readers. they are deadwood. but they are 'in charge.' that's what needs to change if papers want to survive on 50 percent of former revenues.

btw, you say the fat has been cut at your paper? why then does poynter pay blogger jim romenesko $275k, as reported recently, to run a clipping service of news media stories? some smart techie could write software to do the same thing for free. that's one small example of old ways that may have to go in the name of living lean.

[Eric Deggans]

Well, the situation is not as clear cut as you describe.

I think there are many people in the U.S. who say that American media did not adequately challenge the government's claims in the run up to the war and took years to acknowledge how they dropped the ball.

Talk show host Phil Donohue is an American who says he lost his program at MSNBC because he dared to regularly criticize the war at a time when the channel was afriad of looking unpatriotic.

I also think the BBC's problem may have been that the report you reference made allegations they ould not prove and asserted points they eventually had to retract. You may recall that former CBS anchor Dan Rather saw his career end badly for the same reason.

Do people generally accept that George Bush dodged the vietnam war by pulling string to get in the national guard? Of course they do. But Rather's report made specifc allegations about that situation CBS News could not prove, and he lost his job.

In the run up to the war and in its early days, i know lots of people who listened to BBC reports because they were more incisive and skeptical about the war than American media.

So if you think the BBC has been cowed by the government which funds it, what does that say about American media's supposedly unfettered, too-accepting reactions?

[beltwaybandit]

Eric,

Actually, the BBC reported that the reasons for going to Iraq had been "sexed up"...similar arguments that are made daily in the U.S.

This of course flew in the face of the Blair government's position. After an inquiry, the heads of the BBC were forced to resign and the BBC was forced topublicly apologize to the British government.

This is a recent example of how a government sponsored media was forced to bow to the government's position.

I do not understand how any journalist worth their salt could argue seriously that a news outlet can possibly report fairly on government affairs when the same government is their primary source of revenue.

If that argument is credible, then NBC News has no problem reporting on GE objectively.

Yeah, right.

Not the way to keep our readership, I mean.

Chuck,

"01:36 pm: Can I call you "1 o'clock?"

I don't see anything from 1:00, so I'll assume it went way beyond the bounds of decency.

I may state my disagreement with someone, but I don't post in a manner that would get me censored from a St. Pete Times blog. So, no, I'd rather you not call me 1 o'clock.

To my original (and long-winded) point: Ignoring those like me who tell you we don't see as much objectivity in reporting as we used to see is not the keep our readership.

[Eric Deggans]

The BBC and National Public Radio do a fine job of providing incisive government coverage while getting hefty sponsorship dollars from their respective governments.

All is takes is a transparent funding process and a committment to keeping the public informed.

[Eric Deggans]

Dremaing, increasingly newspapers are not making "plenty of money." At the Times, we passed the point of cutting fat from our staff about a year ago.

Most staff reductions at newspapers these days are cutting deep into the bone of the organizations. Trust this word from a professional who is covering this.

For us, losing people like Helen Huntley, Tom Zucco, Chris Sherman and Jack Reed are losses which will hurt like heck for a long time...

[dreaming]

the newspaper biz makes plenty of money to continue news gathering, even if its revenues are cut in half or more. the point is the biz got used to living fat for decades, just like detroit, which is now going through a radical restructuring to align itself with consumers again.

eric, youre right that the best paid in newspapers, tv and radio will be the last to go, or to cut their own salaries. the truth is there is plenty of money to be made in journalism, contrary to what newbie reporters are always brainwashed into believing by their well paid bosses.

if newspapers are willing to pull back the curtains on their own lopsided compensation structures, it will be clear that the biz can survive on a lot less income than the fat, but naive, years of the past.

The truth is that contrary to many comments by non-media consumers of news, the newspaper industry is crumbling for two reasons:

1. Declining advertising revenue due to more targeted, efficient alternative channels of marketing;

2. Fixed costs to deliver newspapers that are based on old assumptions that are rapidly becoming outdated.

It has NOTHING to do with the quality of journalism.

In fact, those who complain about the opinions provided by Fox News, MSNBC and newspaper editors have no one to blame but themselves. The news media, including newspapers, offer content based on audience preferences. If the audience truly did not want it, it would not be offered.

I agree with Eric that solid news reporting is critical to the foundation of this country...an informed public. News journalists are supposed to question power and keep those elected on their toes.

The resolution should be to find a new business model that does not rely on union printers, use of gas-powered delivery vehicles, etc. to get product into the readers' hands.

Digital delivery has been and is the way to go, and like the profitable German newspapers who've already dealt with these issues, part of the solution is to do away with home delivery and get readers to go to newstands.

Public support or government support of a news journalism program makes zero sense and fails the logic test.

How can a journalist paid by the government question the government without causing repercussions?

You can't legislate morality, so passing a set of laws to protect the journalist from being fired is not the answer.

It has to be a private-funded business model solution.

[Chuck Welch]

Eric: At the Ethics seminar we both attended I was asked how would journalists make money if there is a collapse of the newspaper industry.

One point I made is that some will become journalists out of desire to contribute to society. Like poets, philosophers, and other such positions we tend to undervalue.

Reporting will be something many perform out of love while they wait tables, write business copy, and such to pay the bills.

I wonder though, if newspapers collapse how many citizens will notice how uninformed they are?

[Chuck Welch]

01:36 pm: Can I call you "1 o'clock?"

I'm very familiar with the Townsends, CSX, blogging, and objectivity.

First, Billy was on the CSX story long before the local newspaper decided to look under the CSX covers. Second, he was there long before his wife got a job that made her involved in the story.

If you read any of the reporting coming from Townsend you'd see just how on target he was. The Tampa Tribune's decision to remove him from the story seriously damaged the investigation into the CSX shenanigans. Lindsey Peterson did a fine job, but two can get much deeper into a story than one.

"Readers are increasingly asking themselves why they should subscribe to a publication written by reporters who don't even give much effort to seeming to be objective."

Actually, readers are increasingly turning to hyperlocal sites that announce their biases and concerns right up front.

Joe Hillman: I completely agree. The future of the newspaper industry is a return to what made it trusted: in-depth insights into citizen concerns. I seem to remember a time in the early 70s when that peaked.

[joe hillman]

there are tons of reasons why newspapers are dying. one is that, for whatever reason, newspaper people have tunnel vision and have yet to figure out they are today's magazines. the morning newspaper has day-old news.

rather than writing about what happened (i already know what happened: it was on the web, on tv, before i went to bed), the focus of stories should be "how will what happened yesterday affect you tonight or tomorrow?"

One of the reasons that readership of daily newspapers continues to decline is the failure of editors and publishers to curb subjective writing by its reporters. Readers are increasingly asking themselves why they should subscribe to a publication written by reporters who don't even give much effort to seeming to be objective.

Billy Townsend wrote many, many column inches for The Tampa Tribune about the CSX issue that his wife is so involved in opposing before it was decided that the situation didn't meet objective journalistic standards.

A certain reporter from the Palm Beach Post was put out to pasture this year because of objectivity concerns, but it could have happened much sooner.

In an election year, no one besides the affected candidate even bats an eye any more over the timing of publication of “news stories” that come at the time of greatest benefit for the “preferred” candidate or cause.

Add to the situation the fairly recent development of reporters using blogs, personal and otherwise, anonymous and otherwise, to push their opinions about issues they cover, and you have one more reason for readers to doubt the motives of the self-described “guardians of the public trust.”

The daily newspaper is increasingly seen as just another business using every tool at its disposal to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word or goal. However, what is a reader to think of an industry that uses its news and editorial content to hurt a competitor as it did a few years ago when it pushed legislation in Tallahassee to restrict the billboard industry under the guise of improving the appearance of the state’s communities?

Bemoan the demise of the daily newspaper if you want – believe it or not, I do also. However, the industry need look no further than the bathroom mirror to find who shares the greatest portion of blame.

[Eric Deggans]

Newspapers already are living on less. And this is a trend that will continue and accelerate.

But to continue the radio analogy, there are still big stars in radio who earn mid-six figures and more, and the big managers make lots ofdough, too.

It's the average joes whose salaries go down and positions are cut -- that is simply the way of working world.

[dreaming]

if journalists were honest, they would have to admit that there is still a great deal of fat in most news orgs. i dont mean the 25k-65k reporters. i mean all the fat cats above that level, of whom there are many, at your sp times, as well as the trib, and of course at almost any local tv station and many radio stations.

i mean people earning 100k and up for 'managing' things. you correctly note that 68 million is still a lot of revenue, which should be more than enough to pay for some useful local news orgs, especially if they want to operate as 'non-profits.'

do news org managers want to get paid the same as teachers, firemen, police? would paul tash etc take a pay cut from his/their $500k plus salaries to keep local news going?

is gayle sierens at wfla really worth $600-750k a year to media general? how many newspaper reporters would that salary preserve?

i think newspapers need to start getting real about their own compensations and learn to live on a lot less.

and btw, ap does get some content from its members, but it seems to supply a lot more original content than it steals. ap is a big piece of the future of newsgathering, i say.