Music and journalism were once lodestones of both daily life and collective experience—the newspaper, unfolded and read on the way to work on the subway or commuter rail; the LP, spun in bedrooms and dens, or the cassette tape played in the car those nights when everyone sang along, back when everyone knew the lyrics. Those lodestones are going or gone. The music industry and the news industry were both once the foundation of mass culture. That monoculture is shattering, for better or worse, into “minor cultures”—many different and splintered communities, served by many different sources of music and news.
Both industries have lost buyers. Yet both have gained audiences in the last five years. While there was a total CD sales decline of 15 percent between 2006 and 2007, the sale of digital tracks increased by 48.5 percent in that same period, and God knows how many illegal downloads there were. And while people may not be buying newspapers in droves, many more are reading them online. The print circulation of the daily New York Times, for example, is down to just over a million, but online it has risen to around 13 million unique visitors each month. Both industries, and the individuals who work in them, are looking for ways to draw income and support from those expanding audiences, and maybe journalists can look to musicians for a move or two.
There is one place, though, where the similarities between reporters (i.e. shy egotists) and rock musicians fall apart. Bands have always engaged in adamant self-branding—think David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust or Madonna’s many incarnations. Journalists, on the other hand, have been more diffident and willfully depersonalized. With the exception of New Journalists—those ancestors to the bloggers and the multiplatform authors of today—journalists aren’t usually full-on peacocks. They put the story before themselves and attempt to render others as if with invisible hands. Journalists have been taught to erase the individual—remember the Unbiased Media ideal that was hammered into us as young journalists? (We are also unlikely to go on “reunion tours” during which we discuss our long-forgotten “hit” features.)
Yet some journalists certainly know how to promote their names and personae, and their bylines appear to have multiplied. Images of their faces bob seductively beside their names. In the Too Much Information Age, journalists’ biographies—once not supposed to intrude on the story—have moved toward the center of it. And for better or worse, all of us in all the culture industries not only have to go back to the premodern storytelling mode, but also learn how to give our work away without getting ripped off and how to have fervid e-mail relationships with our audiences. We must also at least pretend we have interesting personalities and act like we are a little larger than life.

Some valuable points, but American journalism has never held as significant a market share as the music industry. There's just no comparison between the demand between the music industry and the media industry. And that makes any further argument stilted.
American journalists for decades have shared the same challenges as American automakers -- they've been producing products no one wants. Of course, there are small markets and we should have both industries domestically, but there's no point in selling ads for cars if American cars have no demand, selling TV ads for newspapers if newspapers have no demand, or marketing journalists if journalism has no demand.
In Japan, yes -- compare the the media and music by all means. For the US, though, I'd be baffled the day when Americans stole journalism articles.
Posted by David Taube on Tue 16 Dec 2008 at 06:13 PM
Your subtitle is apt: "What journalists could learn..." decidedly not "What journalism could learn."
That is to say, the models you describe may be a boon to Thomas Friedman or Andrew Rivkin, or those who wish to emulate them. But what do they have to offer the institution of journalism, which we are told is endangered?
I speak as a consumer, not a producer, of journalism. For me, the success of any individual journalist in producing opinion or criticism matters not a whit.
Can the music industry offer a model for financing, say, a Baghdad bureau or a science desk if the standard subscription model becomes unsustainable?
Posted by Chad Nilep on Wed 17 Dec 2008 at 08:26 AM
We haven't had a "musical monoculture" in this country for more than 20 years. Moreover, Merge is hardly a new label; it's been cultivating its niche audience since 1989 The glimpse of Friedman on tour isn't particularly illuminating. Authors and intellectual personalities have been making paid appearances here in the U.S. for a couple hundred years. This sort of promotion hasn't changed. What's changed is that news outlets want a piece of the action. In any case, the leveling effect of the Web and other Internet resources is something quite different.
Posted by Ed on Wed 17 Dec 2008 at 01:35 PM
Readers now care deeply about the biographies of the people who produce their news, writing or talking or what-have-you. But why? And how to convince journalists who want so badly to get it?
I think the answer lies in trust. It is the general concept and can explain why the "Unbiased Media ideal" worked in the departing era and why the "premodern storytelling mode" will work the arriving one.
It is largely the story of Too Much Information, which is itself a chapter of the digital democratization of the printing press and a chapter of essentially free access to the internet. It is now orders of magnitude easier to produce and to consume the news, in other words. Interaction is cheap, even nearly free, between perfect strangers continents apart, and fast. More and more, trust just happens differently.
This explanation is nothing new. Prominent writers have been talking about these inside-out, upside-down profound shifts in media since many students at the j-school were in the fifth grade:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/08/the-newspaper-indust.html
So what does "cheap interaction" promise? Instead of rewriting what others have already said (because links are free and clicks are convenient), let me point the way to Umair Haque on the erosion of brands:
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/02/the_shrinking_advantage_of_bra_1.html
Extra credit to the brave journalist who groks the flipping of attention from relatively abundant to relatively scarce (see the ppt):
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:oMAXEhvljFoJ:www.bubblegeneration.com/resources/mediaeconomics.ppt+umair+haque+ppt
This isn't a tweak to the old system. This doesn't call for a Friday meeting to develop a new strategy. This isn't a demand for a pretty new website or flashy widget. This simply a new business, a new industry, a new world; this is a return to first principles of old.
So what is the news? It's producers, who write or share the news, and consumers, who read the news. They are be largely the same people; they must trust one another. The news requires sources. The news is stories about people and organizations, about topics or beats, and about events. The news is opinion, and the news is fact. The news is new--sometimes so new nowadays that it can happen in real- or near-real time and can thus morph into a conversation.
So, yes, write about journalists' ripping a page from musicians' script, if you like. But mightn't it be more worthwhile to write our own, pieced together from basic facts and laws like these?
I bet it would be fun.
Posted by Josh Young on Wed 17 Dec 2008 at 02:54 PM
In response to Mr. Taube's comment, it isn't necessarily true that no one wants journalism. People want and need information. I am a sophomore communications major, and what I find increasingly--among my age bracket at least--is that people don't trust large news companies. There's this mentality of "can't believe everything you read" that makes young people, especially, more skeptical and cynical about the credibility of newspapers, from their local news to the New York Times.
These same young people, however, are more likely to trust individuals as news sources, especially if those individuals have built a repertoire of trust with their readers. The downside is, obviously, that many of these "news sources" are not trained in the methods or ethics of journalism, but are freelancing citizen journalists.
The alternative to drawing niche audiences to trained, professional journalists as people and not just as bylines is to watch journalism as an institution perish. It's a mass-media culture business in an increasingly individual-centric culture world. If professional journalists don't adapt, those who want and need news--and that's everybody--will have nowhere to go but to untrained freelancers.
Posted by April Gunn on Thu 26 Mar 2009 at 10:27 AM