|
Aaron's Real Opinions:
Is it Too Late to Save Newspaper Journalism?
by Aaron Harber
June 21, 2009- Print Article
HOW CAN JOURNALISM BE SAVED?
So what is the solution for saving journalism? Newspapers, in particular, know they need to reduce their costs and every one of them is in the process of doing just that. Staffs are being trimmed, newsprint orders are being reduced, newspapers are shrinking page sizes and page numbers, travel is being restricted, and other expenses are being cut. Managers know they need to have a local focus and all of them do. They know they need to have an online presence and they all have one. Unfortunately, all this is not going to be enough.
Sadly, journalism guaranteed its own demise by functioning in the exact manner which is diametrically opposed to what it expects of others. Rather than being transparent and making a point of allowing citizens to see how journalism really works --- hence educating the masses about the value of journalism --- journalists arrogantly assumed everyone knew what they did and knew they were working in the best interests of their communities, states, and country.
JOURNALISM AS A BLACK BOX
In reality, journalism operated in a black box --- with information gathered by reporters somehow being turned into news stories. The public rarely saw how hard reporters often worked to get stories. However, they often did see mistakes which gave the impression reporters were lazy --- depending too much on press releases and quick interviews to accomplish most of their work.
Citizens did not see the careful research which went into many stories. They did not observe the discussions and debates which occurred in newsrooms with reporters, editors, and publishers about how a story should be written, what was appropriate to include or exclude, and what the impacts of certain revelations might be. And when a critical decision was made to not run a story, the public almost never knew about it.
“TRUST ME” DOESN’T WORK ANYMORE
This “Trust us, we work for you” paternalistic mentality was too similar to the “We’re from the government --- we’re here to help you” philosophy so many journalists and members of the public saw as disingenuous (and of which the public is mistrustful).
The reality is very few citizens know what standards to which journalists attempt to adhere. So, when they compare good journalism to what some blogger (such as myself) may write online, it is unreasonable to assume they perceive a significant difference. Most of them don’t make any distinction at all.
And even this entire discussion begs the questions raised about the biases of journalists and how organizations with high journalistic standards seek to address and mitigate those biases. Again, the public never sees any of those endeavors to be unbiased and accurate either. Journalists deal with these challenges so frequently, they are second nature. Unfortunately, they fail to realize citizens are isolated from these efforts to maintain high integrity.
THE ROAD TO SUCCESS IS A LONG ONE
So what can newspapers and philanthropic organizations do which will turn the tide or at least slow down and eventually stop the bleeding? Here are some elements which could be considered for inclusion in a possible recipe for success.
-
PATIENCE. Recognize any real solutions are going to be long-term in nature. Planning and commitments need to be made with this perspective. An initial 10-year plan makes sense. Turning around the industry means turning around the country. It could easily be a two-decade process.
-
HARD DATA. Institute systems to establish baseline information regarding the challenges journalism faces and then measure the progress or lack thereof of any efforts to turn the tide. It is important to know the facts --- especially when they are not favorable. It is this negative information which will help newspapers formulate the most effective strategies for success.
-
OPEN THE BLACK BOX. Have every participating newspaper dedicate a small part of its front page to “The story behind the story.” This also would be prominently promoted and provided online. The feature would be a description of how the story was researched and written. It would make a point of highlighting certain elements of good journalism. The concept would be to begin to educate readers about journalism and what is special about their newspaper. Exploiting the unlimited space available online to provide far more detail about how stories were developed and written is a significant benefit good journalists have in cyberspace. This is one way to use the online world advantageously.
-
DON’T BE SHY. Have reporters, photographers, and editors use the Web, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, et al, to provide a constant (albeit sometimes delayed, if necessary) account of their work and the challenges they face daily. It actually is interesting and even riveting at times. Newspapers already have entered the video world and this will expand. The journalistic process could be a constant storyline which would educate and entertain.
-
RECOGNIZE THE COMPETITION. Begin running stories on an ongoing basis comparing the journalistic integrity and accuracy of various news sources as a way to educate citizens about the range in quality of the information they get. This also will force newspapers to seek, achieve, and maintain high standards themselves because they will have to assume there will be responses to this quality assurance initiative. And it may spread the best qualities of journalism elsewhere in the cyber world --- with unpredictable consequences which could include the merging of old and new entities.
-
EDUCATE EARLY. Philanthropic organizations should team up with journalism producers and help expand the distribution of newspapers --- both print and online versions --- to schools and nonprofit institutions in every community. If annual subscriptions were provided at cost (e.g., perhaps at an average of $20 each (one local newspaper in the Denver metro area already strategically has a $13 annual daily subscription for teachers and students), assuming certain economies of scale and the marginal cost of production, an annual national investment of just $100 million could result in 5 million new subscriptions to students and teacher. With approximately 25,000,000 students in public middle and high school grades, that would translate to one daily newspaper per 5 students or an average of one newspaper for each student on one day of each week --- a relatively high penetration rate. And this would be in addition to the existing efforts of hundreds of newspapers today. The combination of new and existing outreach efforts could have extraordinary impacts if they achieved an educational critical mass.
-
CREATE DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS. Local journalists could mentor students in elementary, middle, and high schools as they develop their own school newspapers. Educating them about journalism careers, journalistic ethics, journalistic objectives could create an entire new generation of journalists --- including many whose work would be online. Journalists are some of the smartest people around (just ask them). Getting directly involved in their own communities can only be a win/win/win for developing readership, finding new sources and stories, and creating a positive understanding and impression of newspapers. Many newspapers already have educational outreach programs, provide speakers to schools, and are otherwise involved in their communities. Greatly expanding these efforts, in conjunction with philanthropic funding, could generate significant results.
-
MAKE THE FUTURE HAPPEN TODAY. Skip silly projects such as having people print out their own newspapers (no one wants to pay for the paper and ink --- and such endeavors foolishly forfeit printing economies of scales and, therefore, are wasteful). Instead, jump a generation or two and develop a holographic or similar high-tech electronic newspaper (maybe even a virtual reality newspaper where your avatar turns the pages for you) which allows the reader to scan and process large volumes of information quickly and then select what he or she wants to read. The concept is to combine the unique experience of reading a physical newspaper with the advantages of online versions. The latter allows one to have pre-targeted information highlighted, read expanded articles, view numerous photographs, watch related videos, see charts and graphs, view and hear interviews, go to related sources (articles, columns, and Websites), and visit advertisers’ Websites as well as get coupons --- all while having information updated constantly. The former allows the reader to use more of his or her brain (still the fastest computer around in this arena), scan headlines, partially and fully read stories quickly, go back-and-forth faster than the Web today while constantly making decisions about what to read (although that will soon be reversed), and view far more information quickly than is presented on a single monitor (i.e., without scrolling). Individually-designed newspapers also are easily done when they are electronic in nature --- the ultimate in customization. If all of these features are combined, newspapers and high quality journalism can survive and prosper --- even if the reality is they ultimately all will be electronic in form.
THERE STILL IS TIME TO SAVE JOURNALISM
The premise is journalists need to begin to educate America on a large scale why they and journalism are so important. If citizens do not know what they are losing, they will not care if high quality journalism disappears. They won’t even know it happened. And the public certainly will not pay for a higher quality product unless citizens conclude that, indeed, they actually are purchasing a higher quality product which has significant value to them.
As more and more Americans eventually understand and appreciate what quality journalism brings to them and what it means to their communities and our nation, press organizations will have a better chance of achieving financial success and stability, even if they still exist only in cyberspace. Now is time for journalists to make their case… before it truly is too late.