There’s no shortage of takes on the news industry’s ills, and on the possible strategies that could preserve and sustain costly reporting. Yesterday, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism released one such report by Michael Schudson, a communications professor at the school, and Len Downie, the former longtime editor of The Washington Post.
Downie and Schudson’s report, available as a 100-page PDF here, and in a more reader-friendly excerpt on CJR’s Web site, starts with a broad overview of the business models and animating philosophies of the many non-profit, for-profit, hybrid, and university-housed journalism startups that have come to life across the country in the last few years.
Schudson and Downie argue that these efforts are fragile, and are in danger of disappearing without significant financial help from private foundations and government.
The responses are rolling in, not only on CJR’s Web site, but in various newspapers, on Twitter, and on blogs.
But we’d like to extend an invitation to readers of the report to discuss its findings here. What do you think of Schudson and Downie’s diagnosis of the causes of journalism’s financial and readership declines? What about their summation of the state of play today? Which of their recommendations would you support and which give you pause? And, perhaps most importantly, what do you think this report misses or gets wrong about the past, present, and future of journalism?
First of all, journalism has to leave the arrid and repetitive environment of Washington insider and New York City's collegiate biases and coverups. Trust is gone. GONE.
Next your studies should be broadened to encourage workable suggestions as to how to draw consumer - not foundation or tax - revenue into those good dailies that survive. The rest is just more elite hot air.
#1 Posted by Douglas L. Turner, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 02:30 PM
I commend the report for outlining the six specific funding structures -- from low-profit limited liability corporations or L3Cs to foundation support beyond specific programmatic objectives, and university support and development of investigative, community journalism functions. I think any and all of the recommendations will help to foster what the authors call "accountability journalism."
However, the report barely discusses efforts to bring diverse voices and news about diverse people into this new media landscape. While the J-Lab report about foundation funding cites $128 million to news nonprofits, just a small percentage of that funding went directly to people of color for projects related to underrepresented populations. Of that $128 million, about 10 percent or $12 million went to one project called New American Media, according to Jan Schaffer, director of J-Lab.
The funding structures outlined may help in diversifying this media landscape or may perpetuate mechanisms that have limited diverse voices and news from being part of mainstream conversations. With newsroom diversity at risk in the shifting landscape, our new funding structures must be accessible to all with a desire to serve the public interest with news and information.
#2 Posted by Michelle Ferrier, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 05:45 PM
Journalists and editors who practice advocacy ("accountability") journalism are destroying their employers and their jobs because they refuse to acknowledge that most literate adults would prefer to read, view and/or hear straight news stories reported and analyzed by persons with subject specific knowledge rather than being told by ill-informed but highly certain reporters and editors how they should feel about the persons and issues that the story covers.
By comparison, the Economist, the FT and the WSJ have maintained relatively profitable print and digital businesses because they neither afflict the comfortable nor comfort the afflicted. Some of you should consider that the afflicted don’t buy news (or support its advertisers) and the comfortable have grown weary of paying to be afflicted.
#3 Posted by Marshall Davidson, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 12:41 AM
Non-profit news will only generate small audiences. Loss of mass audience newspapers or newscasts translates to powerless news, and consolidation of political power.
#4 Posted by John Tupper, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 02:40 PM
caught a story on the News Hour tonight.
Here's a few stray idea for structuring of potential revenue streams:
Break out certain types of news (and other departments) of local papers and set them in local schools (tasks of appropriate level to match - ie: community colleges, etc.) Not the bleed to lead stuff, more like community interest, civics, sports, some business, fashion... and incorporate an educational function with the process. Justify a level of funding based on services related to education and instruction w/ students. (Maybe our youth could pick up on more interest with civics in the process as an added bonus.)
Keep the heavy lifting and investigative smarts at the big table, farm out the fluff. But keep it all under the company banner!
Next: work out some serious deals with local TV. Share the glory within the collaborations. Bend the FCC to see the light on the true role of public mission for this medium.
#5 Posted by qwhat, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 01:59 AM
I'm not so sure we have to write the obit for the newspaper yet. What we need to get away from is the corporate ownership that requires huge profit margins. Many of large newspapers are in bad financial situations because of the huge debt burdens and profit demands of corporate owners.
The non-profit model, foundations and all the other proposals in the CJR report have merit and should be tried. A newspaper is no longer going to be money making machine for multi-national corporate. The internet is certainly the future delivery system, but I'm not so sure a locally owned, marginally profitable newspaper with a progressive web presence isn't still capable of providing professional journalism in most cities.
We also have to move away from the "star system" where some reporters make huge salaries and the rest of us just get by. Most of us didn't become reporters to get rich, but a decent middle class salary is still necessary to draw and keep good talent. Getting by with bloggers, stringers and citizen journalist is not the answer.
#6 Posted by Robert Storch, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 01:55 PM
I think the report has offered some very good recommendations to deal with the crisis in the traditional business model of journalism. However, with more than 1400 hundred small, medium and big newspapers in the country the strategies for restructuring will have to be localized and tweaked at individual news organization level. No one solution that will fit all.
The proposal to lower taxes paid by news organization is perhaps the most significant recommendation. To begin with, in the meantime before new models emerge, I will suggest that in this period of bailouts government should give news organizations some type of tax break, which will help them stop cut backs in the newsrooms.
Instead of direct government funding of news organization should be treated as a public service and like other businesses such as hospitals, universities, museums, art institutes etc. t As non-profits they will be able to apply for grants, sponsorship and direct funding by the public. Diversity of funding will enable news organizations to be independent of any one benefactor be it government or a foundation. This is not exactly like the public sector BBC model, which is funded by tax paid by citizens.
#7 Posted by Anup Kumar, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 03:35 PM
You seem to confine this effort to Newspapers. My main concern is the deteriorated state of the t-v and radio media. I have just been in Arizona and heard information on the radio which at one time would have brought the station into trouble with the FCC for racist, defamatory and erroneous commentary which was part of both the news and comment on what purported to be news.
#8 Posted by Alice Hoffman, CJR on Sun 21 Aug 2011 at 04:33 PM