Reconstruction — October 19, 2009 01:00 PM

The Reconstruction of American Journalism

A report by Leonard Downie, Jr., and Michael Schudson

By Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson

• One Page
• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

• One Page
• Print
• Report an Error
• Email
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.

Comments Post a Comment

This is not a plan for the future of journalism, it is an epitaph for its death.
Begging from Foundations and from the government are no solution.
The entire Internet Explosion was about journalism, more or less, the gathering and distribution of information. We missed the boat on that one because we have an innate aversion to anything 'business'. We should own Craigslist and Google, but we don't. Instead we are the beggars.
We have to rethink what journalism is - a holistic approach that embraces and glorifies making money and owning the business instead of being the leather patches on the sleeves schlubs.
The plan should be trashed. Start again. Create an aggressive robust journalism for the web and the 21st Century.
This plan is pathetic. It is all that is wrong with the journalism industry today.

#1 Posted by MIchael Rosenblum, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 12:49 PM

Begging? what is with the hidden complex? Visual arts, classical music, film (including the mainstream one) - all publicly or privately co-funded and no one is ashamed of that.

All that is wrong with journalism today is that inability to accept that perhaps the high quality journalistic piece does not have the market value we once thought it had. People won't pay as much as it takes to investigate and write a decent piece. This doesn't mean it should be scraped, it's as culturally important as a piece of high quality movie making (like for example Where the Wild Things Are, which accidentally grossed over 30 million USD on the opening weekend).

We should own craiglists? what for? perhaps we all should be google! yeah, lets forget what journalism really is about and sell our bottoms left and right to whoever will pay, that is so much better than begging. That, if anything is pathetic.

#2 Posted by Ana Bierzanska, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 01:27 PM

Page 96: "The perils are obvious." No; Actually, they're not. And that's the problem with this stuff as it's coming from journalists. Respectfully, journeymen don't have a clue what functional role information plays or where and why it's essential. It's like asking Wisconsin dairy farmers/suppliers how McDonald's should approach the Chinese Mainland. It's absurd!

#3 Posted by Brian Connolly, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 03:55 PM

Downie/Schudson’s argument that accountability journalism is especially threatened by current economic woes is not backed by the AJR press study they cite, which suggest that accountability journalism actually dropped in 90s -- local, nat. & internat. coverage down almost 10% at a time when the business model still worked. Biz news coverage actually doubled during the same time frame which paralleled the run up to the current crisis, yet missed it entirely. Does American journalism need reconstructing (Downie/Schudson?) or reformation? If the latter, what needs reforming besides the biz model? That the decline of accountability journalism predates the current economic difficulties suggests that American journalism has long been threatened by something more than the collapse of the business model. Much of the rumination seems to be limited to the arrangements of American journalism, not is substance.

#4 Posted by Chris Bugbee, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 03:56 PM

It's a small point, but it's inaccurate to cite Voice of San Diego's IRE award as "the kind of national journalism awards typically given to newspapers" ... The Web site won in the category of "Other Media: Online" .. No newspapers (or their Web sites) competed in the category...

* CERTIFICATE:
* The Redevelopment Investigation— voiceofsandiego.org; Will Carless, Rob Davis, Andrew Donohue
* FINALISTS:
* Tobacco Underground series; The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Center for Public Integrity; Stefan Candea, Duncan Campbell, Te-Ping Chen, Gong Jing, Alain Lallemand, Vlad Lavrov, William Marsden, Paul Cristian Radu, Roman Shleynov, Leo Sisti, Drew Sullivan, Marina Walker Guevara, Kate Willson, David E. Kaplan
* Perils of the New Pesticides; The Center for Public Integrity; M.B. Pell, Jim Morris, Jillian Olsen
* Secret Money Project; NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting; Will Evans, Peter Overby
* Mental Disorder: Failure of Reform The News and Observer (Raleigh, N.C.); Travis Long, Juli Leonard, Michael Biesecker, Judson Drennan, Valerie Aquirre, Scott Sharpe

#5 Posted by Ricky, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 05:33 PM

The report lists so many ways that reconstruction is already happening, it might be best to just stay out of the way of these "financially fragile" projects and let them grow. To the extent the report promotes government involvement (less than I thought it would), it still doesn't answer the crucial question of who will decide which newsrooms get the news grants. The report looks to universities to do much of the journalism, like a teaching hospital or an agricultural research center, which is intriguing, but I wonder: If j-school students do the work, they'll have no jobs when they graduate, because j-school students will do the work.

#6 Posted by Brian Cubbison, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 06:50 PM

Comments here are very useful. There's SOMETHING ELSE at play, as pointed out by the reference to the 'decline' BEFORE the perfect storm of internet and fractured audiences. Professional journalists tend to describe the problem as something that happened to them, not as anything they did. Asking reporters to figure this out is like "asking Wisconsin dairy farmers/suppliers how McDonald's should approach the Chinese Mainland." Well put. We've all been to a hundred earnest conferences these last few years. Has there ever been a panel that asked "What did we do to disengage our audience, to inspire this lack of trust in our publications and suspicion about our role in society?" The non-profit palliative, the emergency relief of the moment, will not foster the kind of self-criticism needed to work our way back to value. If anything it will put off the hard questions that need to be asked by the generation of reporters and editors on whose watch American journalism declined.

#7 Posted by Bob Calo, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 07:03 PM

NewsBusters: New Columbia J-School Report Advocates Government Support for News Media
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/10/19/new-columbia-j-school-report-advocates-government-support-news-media

#8 Posted by StewartIII, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 08:45 PM

Its looks like a non-profit, decentralized, networked structure is possible and is developing. This would be locally based, focused on cimmunities of interest, but with interchange of ideas using the internet to exchange between coordinators of these local nodes in the structure. I have studined networked structures; it would not take very many briging people to for a robust structure of interconnections. Just like the airlines, the older, centralized hub and spoke model for journalism is a structure in decay. I notice too, that the alternative weeklies, the local weeklies (in smaller suburban areas), are doing fairly well.

The model that existed from the early nineteenth century until late in the twentieth century is collapsing. I used to receive the papers in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, and other places where I have lived. I still get the local newspaper where I now live. But in the last few years, its quality has declined considerably. I sense the downward spiral for the media. Yet, the void will be filled in some way. The new structure is emerging, and will come into full form during the next few years.

#9 Posted by Vultwulf, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 09:23 PM

So... The path to maintaining the so-called "integrity" of so-called "professional journalism" is to fund it through unregulated political and agenda-driven agencies? You guys are a damned hoot!

I have news for you people. Journalism isn't a profession. It's a trade.

C'mon people... The NYT puts out its liberal nonsense at a 10th grade level.

You want money? Earn it

The process is remarkably uncomplicated.

Find news. Observe news. Type. Repeat.

Don't explain the news. Don't try to dodge the news, or bury it. Don't decide what news readers "should" be interested in. Report the news.

And profits shall ensue.

#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 09:39 PM

I am afraid that the authors deceive themselves mightily about the quality of "mainsteam" journalism. Reporters and editors seem just about as ignorant of science, history, English composition and points of view not sanctioned by the government and large corporations as ever. They are not independent--particularly not independent of preconceptions (often government-approved preconceptions) that color and reduce the value of their product. The primary question is one of QUALITY--quality that is not to be found in newspapers and certainly not in television, and which IS accessible via the Internet. Any reasonably educated person can sit down and demolish the journalistic content of the New York Times (for a single example); and people of more modest critical ability will be able to at least faintly perceive the difference in quality (not to mention timeliness) available on the Internet.

The Internet has a great similarity to print journalism that often goes unremarked, and that gives it a long-term advantage over television newscasts: information density. Television news (and radio for that matter) by its very nature has very low information density, and is totally passive--one cannot flip to the next section of interest, or just read the first paragraph of a story and ignore the rest or come back to it later. One cannot read the beginnings of two or three stories on page A1, then read their conclusions on pages A9 and A9. The Internet is like a super newspaper--one can flip from section to section, from newspaper to newspaper, here and there in the world, even go back in time and do research as one proceeds. One learns how poor the local newspaper is, how limited, how untimely. How little worth.

#11 Posted by Alan Barbour, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 01:59 AM

Bob Calo wrote, "What did we do to disengage our audience?" Reread that question -- several times -- because it's an astute question.

#12 Posted by Diane Tucker, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 02:00 AM

This looks like the General Motors model - try to fix a beleaguered industry through government subsidies and top-down mandates drafted by people with little or no business experience. How's GM working out for you so far?

Would Rupert Murdoch benefit from this largesse or it is only for the "good guys?"

#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 04:29 AM

Excellent comments!

Chris Bugbee on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 03:56 PM: "the decline of accountability journalism predates the current economic difficulties suggests that American journalism has long been threatened by something more than the collapse of the business model."

Bob Calo on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 07:03 PM: "Professional journalists tend to describe the problem as something that happened to them, not as anything they did."

An Anthology of Journalism's Decline

#14 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 05:54 AM

Can someone tell me where the citations for this 100-page report are? Did I miss them? From where did the facts come? Especially when we talk about accountability and I take this in to my classroom, I would like to show the students how journalists and researchers do hold themselves accountable. This is a great report, but without citations, I am left wanting -- and needing -- more.

#15 Posted by Robert Gutsche Jr., CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 11:22 AM

While it's nice to see footnoted.org mentioned in the report, the model for sites like mine is still pretty sketchy and has largely been a result of trial and error. Although trade publication advertising is well-established offline, it's very difficult for small sites like mine to tap into that market without hiring sales people, which leads to expensive overhead. $2 and $3 CPMs and Google Ads barely cover my monthly VPS bill and there's lots of studies that show that more sophisticated readers rarely click on ads.

While attention from big media outlets has been nice in helping to build the brand and credibility of the reporting, it doesn't exactly pay the bills.

#16 Posted by Michelle Leder, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 11:42 AM

Journalism died during the 2008 election coverage; no one really misses the mangy creature because it served no useful purpose.

#17 Posted by Joe Drager, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 06:33 PM

This paper is not a plea for journalistic excellence- rather, it's a reaction to the greater democracy and the huge number of independent voices that the Internet has spawned. The nation's largest newspapers have been fighting a losing battle against new media since the invention of radio, and are now in the position of the buggy whip makers demanding that the internal combustion engine be banned,

As for a government-subsidized press, how many independent government-subsidized of funded news sources are there in the world? Somewhere between zero and none. Letting the government control the media is the first step toward a dictatorship- but it appears that the editors of the Post and others think this is a small price to pay to keep their empires intact.

#18 Posted by michael, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 12:17 PM

It's true that enterprise/public service journalism began to decline long before the internet became an force. The problem was that, with the rise of chains and the shift of ownership from families to Wall Street investors, newspapers and other media began "harvesting market share," slashing budgets, newsholes and staffs in order to pump up their profit margins from their traditional good/great range up to the obscene range. Newspapers became less and less committed to being must-reads that dug below the surface and told people stuff they didn't know. Readers noticed and began drifting away as other alternatives became available.
Combine this weakened connection with the audience with overleveraging on debt brought on by M&A activity and empire building, and the news media were left in a decidedly vulnerable position as the 'net became a true monster.
Had they invested in good reporting and writing and cutting-edge delivery mechanisms, news orgs would still be facing huge challenges today. But they'd wouldn't be in as bad a shape as they presently are.

#19 Posted by mwh, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 02:59 PM

I think the report is an impressive survey of where the profession stands today, makes sure to underline that it is not all doom and gloom, and ends on a somber tone by underlining that serious, concerted action is needed, by state, market, and civil society actors, if "accountability journalism" as we have come to know it in the 20th century is to survive on a large scale in the United States.

Of the six recommendations, number five, quoted below, has caused quite a ruckus:

"A national Fund for Local News should be created with money the Federal Communications Commission now collects from or could impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers and which would be administered in open competition through state Local News Fund Councils."

This suggestion made the New York Times' David Carr's mind "reel" in his coverage of the report, Jeff Jarvis calls the idea "desperate" on BuzzMachine, and Michelle McLellan, writing in the Knight Digital Media Center newsletter, finds it "troubling". Each offer somewhat different nuances of criticism all based on the same basic premise: public subsidies fundamentally undermines journalistic independence.

That can certainly be true, but to hold it to be true always and in all cases is a dangerous misconception that rests on a staggering ignorance when it comes to the history of journalism in the United States and the realities of journalism here and elsewhere.

1) Journalism has, as Paul Starr has shown, always been directly and indirectly supported by the Federal Government and many other public entities.

2) Much journalism today is at the receiving end of direct public support (Committee on Public Broadcasting, NPR), but hardly reduced to slavish dependency by it.

3) Many journalists around the world that we laud for their independent and critical scrutiny of people in power (whether public office holders, private businessmen, or union presidents) are working for institutions that are funded largely through public support--most notably of course the BBC.

To suggest that these historical and contemporary examples of accountability journalism are fundamentally undermined by their partial reliance funding sources is simply wrong, and an insult to the professionals who work there.

Newsgathering professional journalists have and will always have a complicated and sometimes uncomfortable relationship with those who pay their bills (whether these are advertisers channeling consumers' money or public officials channeling citizens' tax dollars). All-out dependence on any one source of funding (one large advertiser, complete government funding) will almost always lead to problematic situations. As James Curran and others have repeatedly argued, a mix of different sources of support is preferable to reliance on any single one.

To suggest that public subsidies have no role in saving American journalism from the serious short-term crisis facing it today (and in helping it prepare for medium- and long-term challenges) is a dangerous knee-jerk reaction that we will hopefully only see from a few people who are in a position where they can afford to gamble with their profession's future.

Journalists and others working in the trenches will hopefully seize on the arguments offered in the report and use this critical moment to ally with outside partners to build a better journalism for tomorrow. Whether we get it is a political question as much as one of business models or professionalism, and I hope that the libertarians and free-market ideologues won't dominate the discussion.

(full disclosure: Michael Schudson is the chair of my dissertation committee)

also posted as
http://rasmuskleisnielsen.net/2009/10/21/the-public-option-and-american-journalism/

#20 Posted by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:08 PM

Here is an alternative plan for the restructuring of American Journalism. Personally I think it's a much better one:
http://www.rosenblumtv.com/?p=3778

#21 Posted by Michael Rosenblum, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 05:33 PM

All the older news outlets whine about their decline yet talk radio and Fox News both grow.

Does it really take a rocket scientist to realize that the move from impartial journalistic integrity to become liberal propaganda outlets has essentially cut viewership in half?

Bring balance back by either going to old school neutrality (that includes story selection as well!) or be rigorous about including the opposing viewpoint in an equal positive light.

When half your audience gets up and walks out you should take a hint!

Give what that other half wants or accept that declining partisan support will be the endgame.

#22 Posted by Zeke, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 08:07 PM

TV revenues are the missing link!

A call for reordering of the basic responsibility of the public mission of broadcasting and the airwaves could hold some key in advancing news and information in the public interest.

Print journalism may have to negotiate from a weak position within whatever established "news and information" matrix that would be advanced, but it should think to incorporate itself with some increased forms of lateral connection and ride the wave.

First, entertainment programming should function as a revenue generator to the total budgetary picture of any broadcast entity. More revenues related to public sporting events should accrue locally as well. Current contracts for this stuff is warped beyond belief. Bust the anti-trust abuse of professional sports. One team - one business - multiple leagues - open competition.

Local boards or commissions would need to provide budget oversight and determine levels of need for news coverage. (i hear you groaning, but that could go to either extreme... and you still have independents.)

How to award the ascension of journalists and news programming within this system? ... This would necessarily need to conform to democratic principles over the current market model. Individuals and private business could still compete to advance their programming and "players" within the model, but inclusion would be determined by a popular demand instead of market forces. Advertisers don't really care that much, as long as the ratings prevail.

(if interested, additional comment posted on educational angle here: http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/the_reconstruction_of_american_2.php)

#23 Posted by qwhat, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 03:00 AM

fixed link from my last post: http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/the_reconstruction_of_american_2.php

And I'll also add that those internet tubes could be interpreted similarly with the airwaves... just think of "public right of way" when you consider cables, fiber optic, phone, or even satellite transmissions. Windfalls currently enjoyed by the gatekeepers are traveling over our streets and airwaves with an implied responsibility of public utility. Have you totaled your annual TV, phone, internet bills lately?

#24 Posted by qwhat, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 03:22 AM

Journalists arise! Let us storm the NY Times building and take what is ours. A call to revolution. It turns out that the most progressive profession was actually the most primitive.
http://www.rosenblumtv.com/?p=3790

#25 Posted by Michael Rosenblum, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 06:58 AM

Downie is dangerously delusional. Imagine a VP from one of the most prominent news outlets in the country essentially asking for a bailout for his industry -- and having the guts to claim that's not what he's asking.

"We are not recommending a government bailout of newspapers," he claims. Then he goes on to recommend exactly that. "A national Fund for Local News should be created with money the Federal Communications Commission now collects from or could impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers and administered in open competition
through state Local News Fund Councils."

Has he noticed what happened in Detroit when government bailed out that industry? Massive government interference. Our government treats bailouts like invasions and once it enters the fray it will never leave.

To look at some of the obvious flaws in Downie's world view, here's a report I released the week before his.

The Great Newspaper Bailout
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2009/Newspapers/NewsBailout-execsum.asp

#26 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 09:18 AM

As a former small-town weekly newspaper editor who watched Main Street businesses disappear as Wal-Mart arrived on the outskirts of town, and who saw his newspaper's advertising revenue dissolve at the same time (Wal-Mart does not advertise in most small, weekly newspapers in the communities in which they thrive), I think there is merit to considering a community foundation-funded hyper-local newspaper product. The numbers of small papers that have disappeared due to economic hardship on Main Street USA are legion.

The loss of these papers have rendered the fabric of community life in countless small towns here in Kansas (which has boasted more weekly newspapers in its history than any other state) and, in the end, their deaths can be attributed directly to a lack of funding, and not, as some seem to be suggesting, from a lack of reader interest.

Hyper-local community foundation funding could be a life-saver for hyper-local community journalism, which has great value when practiced the old-school way, as was suggested above. The funding wouldn't be a think-tank payoff to promote a high-brow agenda, but rather assure that grassroots citizens (most who have no other media outlets in these small towns) have access to local news. Another purpose for community funding would be to assure that there is a chronicle of local history. With the demise of the small town newspapers, the histories of our small towns vanish as well.

#27 Posted by Grant Overstake, CJR on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 12:00 PM

Yesterday, I was part of a focus group at the offices of the local public television station. The new General Manager informed us that he was a journalist and that he was proposing a new program focused on community issues. He said that it would be different because he would maintain the highest journalistic standards. The reaction from the people in focus group was interesting. He was challenged about what that meant. (More surprisingly, the purpose of public television was questioned.) A number of people mention that they no longer watch any television at all nor did they have newspaper subscriptions. There was a fairly lengthy conversation about how one stays informed on current events using a variety of online sources. The reaction of the General Manager was stunned silence. Keep in mind that the focus group was mostly drawn from cultural and social non-profits. It was my turned to be stunned. I knew that had been a change in attitudes toward mass media, but I have to admit that I had no idea of the demographics of some of the change.

#28 Posted by Louise, CJR on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 06:01 PM

The USSR paid for Pravda. What harm could there be in Uncle Sam owning the press?

#29 Posted by Guy Macher, CJR on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 09:32 PM

I just wanted a copy of the PDF of the report. Why's that so hard to find?

#30 Posted by Fernando Diaz, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 04:47 PM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Therein lies the problem with the state of print and main stream journalism today, our current batch of journalists, editors and program editors have a hard time deciphering truth from propaganda. When every headline screams we're all going to die from man-caused global warming, while record after record of lower than average temperatures is broken, more than likely due to the inactivity on the sun (but haven't we heard, the science is settled?). Whatever happened to "follow the money"? When blatant double standards exist in the reporting of scandals involving conservatives or liberals. When political correctness has surpassed logic and truth. When there is no trace of curiosity as self-avowed Marxists, Socialists and Communists parade in and out of the White House. Then my friend, journalism as we used to know it, IS DEAD.

#31 Posted by Pattio, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 12:14 PM

Want to really help?

Stop trying to hatch plans. Let this all shake out. Stop the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and similarly stop the insincere faint praise of the disrupters.

Keep government way the hell out of it. This recent FTC business about "blogger" (a meaningless code word meant to keep upstarts in their place) disclosure must be scrapped before anyone even thinks of enforcing it. Disclosure is important. Even more important for the old-media outlets conveniently not included.

Come to a city like ours, Seattle, and see the thousand flowers blooming to spread across much more than the one plot cleared when an old-media org went away. Yes, these are nailbiting, nerve-wracking times, even for those of us who somehow wound up on the leading edge of this multi-swell tidal wave. That's OK. It'll be OK. You don't have to have focus groups and think tanks sit around and try to make it OK for us. Let us all sort it out.

#32 Posted by Tracy, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 04:44 AM

The report fails to mention one of the oldest and most successful collaborations between academe and neighborhoods from Temple University in Philadelphia, which serves more than 20 communities and collaborates with five other news organizations, including Al Dia, the largest Hispanic newspaper on the East Coast. www.philadelphianeighborhoods.com also maintains the Web site for yourcommunityvoice.net, which replaced the Olney Times. The latter organization went out of business.

#33 Posted by Christopher Harper, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 09:02 AM

Forgive me, for coming to the party a bit late....I did enjoy the Charlie Rose segment and I agree that the "PBS Model" makes sense for online editions. In fact, it's about the only thing that does. But drinking the Freekonomics Kool-Aid, as perpetrated by Messrs. Anderson, Arrington, et al., is something that's more about them than about Reality. The trick, in that metaphor, is to figure out which is the razor and which are the blades. Perhaps moving to Kindle would be one untried option, especially since Amazon have proven that they can update in the dead-of-night (with, of all things, "1984" and "Animal Farm"). Of course, some Journalists are more equal than others.

#34 Posted by John P. Katsantonis, CJR on Wed 4 Nov 2009 at 05:38 PM

A fascinating article, but I agree a rather depressing one. Yes, there is some optimism expressed and good ideas, but talking about viewship and readership being on a precipitous slide is still not cheery news.

I also agree with Tracy, stop worrying and let things take their course. Easier said than done for me because I want to go into newspapers, but I"ll try my hardest anyway. Who knows what can happen within the next year?

#35 Posted by Carrie, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 09:20 PM

I humbly submit that the financial commitment to coverage journalism was never truly there, The bean counters considered newsrooms luxuries not necessities. Accountability journalism simply did not produce enough ROI so they underfunded and undeermanaged the system to prove their point.

Once the early decision was made to monetize the public iright-to know the die was cast. Now the Dollar Signs hand on the Loudmouth Regurgitators who offer no original information but a lot of unoriginal incitement.

Has anyone considered that the special importance of the First Amendment has little to do with its commercial value and more to do with it's constitutional value? But what do I know, I'm just a black veteran and former journalist who believes in the First Amendment.

#36 Posted by Cecil Hickman, CJR on Sat 14 Nov 2009 at 07:34 PM

I'm a manager at a mid-size public radio station and I'd simply like to comment that we wouldn't be having this conversation lamenting the loss or lack of local journalism if Congress had actually funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at the level that the Carnegie Commission once recommended that public broadcasting be funded.

I’ve been in public radio for over 20 years mostly at small stations and I’ve always said I wished I could do more locally, but have never had the funding. I discovered the Carnegie Commission’s second report from 1979 called, “The Future of Public Broadcasting” when I wrote my Master’s Thesis. In that report, the authors directed the federal government to fund public broadcasting at $5.00 per person in the US. That was in 1979, and we’re still not up to 1979 standards as CPB receives approximately $1.25 per person today.

Using the Consumer Price Index, $5.00 in 1979 would be $14.83 in 2008 dollars (http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ ), and there are now nearly 308 million people in the US today (http://www.census.gov/ ). SO, IF, and that’s a big IF, the federal government had thought a strong news watchdog would’ve been a priority then AND funded the public media system as was suggested by the Carnegie Commission, today, CPB would be receiving nearly $4.6 trillion.

For a small to mid-sized public radio station like WVPE, Elkhart/South Bend, the approximately $120,000 stipend we receive from CPB now (remember that’s at the approximately $1.25 per person rate) to purchase national programming and fund a staff of 8 would instead be receiving something approaching 10 times what we receive now or $1.2 million.

I promise with that kind of increase we’d have a fantastic local newsgathering operation!

I believe in the public journalism mission, but we’ve never been able to do what we should’ve because the system has never had the capacity to do it. While we do good work, we remain a shadow of what could be possible for as long as we continue to only partially federally funded.

Here’s hoping your report helps launch a recertification of CPB AND a realization that a public media requires a much more significant investment rather than my feeling like this is a “shame on public media” report for not doing its job. UGH.

#37 Posted by Anthony Hunt, CJR on Mon 16 Nov 2009 at 08:30 AM

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Maybe THAT's the "problem."

#38 Posted by Steven Gulick, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 10:45 PM

FUCK THIS SHITTTTTT

#39 Posted by YOU GUYS, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 02:04 PM

Journalism has long been a collusive game among hacks and the government in which the government restricts access to public information and hacks, dressed in superman garb, claim to represent the public by parcelling out tidbits of the entire kit and caboodle that is our franchise as free citizens of a democratic republic.

Established media organizations are not helping Web afficianados gain access to and to distribute public information. We have a couple of narrow gateways -- followthemoney.org, opensecrets.org then that's it. No county-by-county inititatives to get all public budgets, all audited financial statements, all monthly invoice reports online. Why? Oh, maybe it wouldn't benefit the party we work for so much, depending on whether we work for NYT or WSG.

#40 Posted by Guest, CJR on Mon 7 Dec 2009 at 07:24 PM

Anthony, who pushes for more federal funding, provides yet another reason why public broadcasting shouldn't get my tax dollars -- they can't do even basic math. His $4.6 trillion funding request is off by a bit. It should be $4.6 BILLION.

And it shouldn't be even 4.6 cents. Let the CPB elitists pay for the programs they want to watch instead of mandating government propaganda. Local news is great. But local news beholden to government is called Pravda.

#41 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Tue 22 Dec 2009 at 09:01 AM

Typical of American journalists to stick to navel gazing, assume there's nothing beyond their own shores and thereby ignore developments elsewhere that ahve allowed journalism to flourish even in economically depressed times. The *American* model of advertising-funded journalism is over. Time to explore other means of making the profession pay, and no, that doesn't mean government bailouts or philanthropic donations, but it might mean minimum-wage agreements, cooperative models and actually charging the reader for the product of your blood, sweat and tears.

#42 Posted by John, CJR on Thu 31 Dec 2009 at 11:44 AM

I expect better from the report of the Columbia river. Instead, it seemed that most of the summary of want to (http://www.orkutscrap.org/) know what someone is always on hand-wringing. And instead of trying to design a product that people want to create and to find innovative business models, the authors think that the answer is to beg for alms.

#43 Posted by paul, CJR on Mon 4 Jan 2010 at 04:05 PM

Funding something, anything, will not spark the interest of society in that funded project once more. Journalism was once a top-dollar diamond but now is a common jewel that has lost value and interest.

#44 Posted by Luis Damian, CJR on Mon 4 Jan 2010 at 11:50 PM

Let the following article be the epitaph for the MSM. It's an article by the Washington Post that details the journalist atrocity of George Stephanopoulis' interview w/ Giuliani in which Rudy claimed there were no domestic terrorist attacks during the Bush administration, and in which George Stephanolpoulis just sits idly by, nodding his head as Giuliani lies. You'll note that in the WaPo article, there is a tacit acceptance that fact checking is now the sole domain of the blogosphere.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/giuliani-slams-obama-gets-fact.html

#45 Posted by Licentious Maximus, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:53 PM

Michael wrote on Oct. 9:
As for a government-subsidized press, how many independent government-subsidized of funded news sources are there in the world? Somewhere between zero and none.

I work for one: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC also springs to mind.

#46 Posted by Sam Bufalini, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:53 PM

Sam

Thanks for saying that if we go by Downie's insane and unconstitutional plan to takeover and fund the media, we will get a piece of leftist tripe like the BBC. That's all most of us need to know about his plan.

#47 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 08:54 AM

This is a great article. Holding on to integrity is the best way to move forward in journalism. I think a lot of these commenters are incorrect when asserting journalism is not a profession, but rather a trade. Not just anyone can walk into a press meeting or behind the scenes. Not just anyone understands the ethics, laws and rules that go along with reporting honest news.

It is people who have never taken a few classes in journalism who would say such a thing. You see the news and say to yourself, "hey! I can do that!" There is a lot more involved with the news than just observe, report, write and print. I strongly recommend anyone with this view take a few fundamental journalism classes at a four year university and then evaluate whether or not journalism is a "trade."

#48 Posted by Angela, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 10:27 PM

This report sees no business solution to the crisis of journalism. I think that's rather insular. People will pay for value. If journalism has value, people will pay for it. If people are not willing to pay for what we think is valuable, then, we all must rethink and increase the value proffer to people. I don't believe the future of Journalism is in the hands of the government or charity as this report concludes. Government funding is a curse; it'll completely remove the spirit and edge of journalism.

#49 Posted by Henry, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 10:06 AM

I'm from China, the country which described as a nightmare for democracy. In china, Journalists are struggling hard for democracy, but it is not because of business model of media we recently adopted, it is the ideal of this profession or trade or occupation that works.
By saying this i do not mean that I support public funding,or the market model. Schudson's plan may not work, that's true. But holding journalism responsible or accountble is not wrong, without this kind of journalism, with only"two girls one cup kind of citizen journalism", any democracy will fail.

#50 Posted by yihui, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 01:54 AM

ipage review , top host http://technologycanada.com/ipage-hosting/

#51 Posted by ipagereview, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 04:26 AM

justhostt review. qLhesw tqdpq aped

#52 Posted by justhost review, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 10:21 PM

Don't have enough money to buy some real estate? Don't worry, just because that is real to get the mortgage loans to resolve such problems. Thus get a short term loan to buy all you need.

#53 Posted by ChasitySTEIN29, CJR on Sat 17 Sep 2011 at 06:13 PM

I'm in Vietnam, where freedom of speech is a joke so professional journalism is nothing at all. That's why all the youngsters are just killing time with games, games and games and fighting game online is the "job" of many so-called journalists.

#54 Posted by taekwanvn, CJR on Wed 16 May 2012 at 10:41 PM

Depending on the concept that we talk about freedom of speech, the press they see it as the language, I think it is also online games of online message it changes from time to time, people tend to call it a warArt in games

#55 Posted by Nataly Jan, CJR on Thu 29 Nov 2012 at 07:16 AM

Post a Comment

• Name
• Email
• Remember personal info?
• Comments (You may use HTML tags for style. The system accepts comments of about
  600 words, based on a 4,000 character count.)
  
  
  Word Count: 0

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times. Reminder, comments longer than 4,000 characters will be truncated.