America's newspapers are struggling to survive and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) wrote those words last week in a letter to the Boston Globe regarding the ongoing financial plight of the nations newspapers. Kerry advocated for newspapers and how they provide analysis and commentary and diverse opinions, which is particularly needed during an era of media conglomerates and agenda-driven reporting. Starting on April 30, Kerry will hold hearings at the Senate Committee on Commerce to discuss the newspaper industries economic woes as advertising revenues continue to plummet.
Writers are jumping into the who-pays-for-content fray as well. On April 12 (Papers Try to Get Out of a Box), New York Times media reporter David Carr wrote about efforts in the industry to get papers a slice of the advertising pie since it appears news aggregator Google News is leaving nothing but crumbs. Carr mentioned how many papers are now pursuing the possibility of putting virtual walls on their Web sites, which would prevent readers from viewing content unless they pay for it. David Denby, a film critic for The New Yorker, doesnt think too much of that idea (Denby referred to the notion as a Bummer, although he didnt follow it with the requisite dude, as in, Bummer, dude.) In a letter to the Times, Denby proposed a single monthly fee paid by consumers, which would be collected by Internet service providers and would allow people to read content on any Web site that was part of the service.
Showing 1-5 of 5
The Nation believes in a bailout. They propose an aggressive bailout. One part of their plan would essentially allow consumers to decide which newspapers get bailout money. How? Through a $200 a year tax credit for the purpose of purchasing newspapers. They feel their is a deeper problem with journalism as a whole. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/nichols_mcchesney?rel=hp_picks
They feel *there is a deeper problem with journalism as a whole. Ugh! I do hate homonym confusion.
Bailouts don't address the fundamental changes going on in the industry. They might buy news organizations some time, but will it be enough to switch to a new and viable revenue model? Here's a note about reporters who were part of reporting team that won a Pulitzer Prize today. Half the team was laid off in October - regardless of the quality or work they were doing. http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/04/20/layoff-victims-among-pulitzer-honorees
Every time an industry gets into trouble they seem to want the government to collect a fee from everyone so they can keep doing the same old thing none wants anymore. Richard Stallman proposed it for computer programmers. The entertainment industry proposed it for Video taps and blank CDs and DVDs. Governments intervention is not a substitute for an obsolete business model.
mominem, It's seems a lot of people still want the print edition: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/print-is-still-king-only-3-percent-of-newspaper-reading-actually-happens-online/ The business model may be obsolete, but the need and the desire for quality journalism hasn't diminished.