In a recent Salon piece, Gary Kamiya starkly presents the dire state of the traditional newspaper. As he says, 2008 was an unprecedently awful year for the publishers of newspapers, whose shares fell, on average, 83%. The market value of newspapers fell a dizzying $64.5 billion.
Though newspaper proprietors are, by and large, an unlovely lot, the dire state of their businesses should still concern the rest of us. Why? Because, to date, no one has stepped forward with a digital alternative to old-fashioned newspapers. As Kamiya says, despite the proliferation of online media, the vast majority of stories still originate with the press. Despite some notable exceptions, the majority of bloggers and web publications offer commentary more than reporting. There’s no obvious online model to fund newshounds pounding a beat: it’s much cheaper to aggregate existing content and pay freelancers to opinionate.
In Australia, the death of the press might still seem largely hypothetical. But you can already see the early symptoms of the fatal disease, not least in the massive job cuts taking place in both Murdoch and Fairfax.
What to do? In passing, Kamiya mentions David Swensen and Michael Schmidt’s recent proposal that newspapers become non-profit, endowed organisations which philanthropists could fund in the same fashion they do US colleges and universities. It’s an intriguing idea. The reason we care about the state of newspapers is that we see them as possessing, in all the ways Kamiya explains, a social function extending beyond the revenue they earn for their proprietors. Hospitals can be run for profit, too, but, because we think a health service matters, we don’t leave our sick to the market’s tender mercies.
As soon as you make that comparison, the conclusion leaps out. American-style philanthropy is all very well but, if, here in Australia, the state supports a TV and radio network, why shouldn’t it also fund a newspaper?
All the arguments that justify state funded electronic media apply even more so to the press. If, without a taxpayer funded television channel, there’d be no quality drama, news or current affairs on TV, it’s increasingly clear that, without some new model, the in-depth reporting that once came from the broadsheets will vanish. ABC television and ABC radio are no longer enough, since the written word can do things that images or sound can not, conveying ideas of far greater complexity or subtlety.
A state-run newspaper might conjure up visions of Pravda, but it shouldn’t. We’re all accustomed to government funded TV, and there’s no reason why editorial independence in print should entail any different challenges.
So how might a government paper happen?
You wouldn’t need to forcibly nationalise the Australian and send its commentators to mine salt (as satisfying as that might be). The process could be as simple as building on ABC radio’s websites. Because a government-run newspaper would not need advertising revenue, the new publication could function without a dead-tree version: it could, in other words, support salaried reporters in a way that other online ventures simply can’t. Unencumbered by the costs of print and distribution, it wouldn’t necessarily even be tremendously expensive.
What’s more, though serious news journalism would be its main charter, a government funded publication could also provide a forum for other services once provided by the press. For instance, across the US, newspaper book reviewing is utterly collapsing. That’s going to happen here, too — indeed, rumours suggest that the Fairfax book pages might get the chop sooner rather than later. If, as a society, we think that a literary culture matters, why not hang a review magazine off the back of a government newspaper?
You could make the same argument for other sections, too.
Of course, all of this runs into the sand as soon as you actually think about the Rudd government and the likelihood of it adopting a proposal requiring a modicum of boldness. But that doesn’t mean the idea itself doesn’t warrant consideration.
Having now read Kamiya’s lengthy opinion piece, I’ve realized that he’s fallen victim to one of the most pernicious tropes of the “end of the newspapers” argument: that we’ll all be so hypnotized by our own ability to “pick what we want from the internet” rather than “take what we’re given from newspapers” that we will effectively infantilize ourselves.
In truth, this simply can’t happen. I can choose my news – surely – but if I choose unwisely, I’m going to end up in a heap of trouble, and that quickly. I can choose to ignore my next-door neighbor’s attempts to turn his home into an “arsenal of democracy”, but at some point – perhaps when shots are fired – I’m going to have to get really knowledgeable, really quick. That means there is a demand for news, and there will always be a demand for the news.
What we’re seeing is a search for a new form of marketmaking between the reporters of news and the consumers of news. It isn’t catastrophe, even if the news-makers see it as such. It is revolutionary, even if the news-makers prefer to ignore the revolution playing out right before them.
Newspapers come and newspapers go, that’s how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government popaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth.
Here is the difference – there are state supported TV stations, specifically run to provide a balance and perceived unbiased position on news, drama, arts etc. The government could remove funding, and the medium itself – television – would still continue as a cost effective method of communication of ideas and other content. Some of the private TV stations still seem to be making a profit, albeit reduced – but that is more to do with inflated business models and unreasonable cost structures.
The issue with newspapers is their ability to adapt, and to understand what people want from their product. It is a hybrid of print and digital, with the ability to sit down for a couple of hours on Saturday morning with the Ramsey’s, Priors, and God help us, Devines – whilst still having the ability to access online up to the minute content written by real journos. Here’s the thing – people will pay for this service. We subscribe to Crikey. I subscribe to The Monthly. I buy The Big Issue. Because I value the content, I am prepared to pay for it. I personally think the $1.30 per day for the SMH undervalues the publication. I would happily pay $3 if I could get journalism of the quality of Annabelle Crabbe and Rodd Gittins on a daily basis.
So, rather than cost cutting and reducing perceived value, why not investigate increasing the value of the product, lifting prices to a sustainable level, and re analysing the mix of subscription price in conjunction with advertising dollars to determine the optimum spend?
Just a thought.
Newspapers come and newspapers go, that’s how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government propaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth.