I have long held that the biggest threat the Internet poses to the publishing industry is the disconnection between where revenue is generated and where primary news reporting takes place. Gateway companies like Google collect advertising revenue, and sites that publish analysis and opinion draw the eyeballs advertisers want to reach.
Yet, all this analysis and opinion has to be based on good primary reporting. As a columnist myself, I cannot overstate how important accurate and timely reporting performed by smart and experienced journalists is to me.
Reporting, however, is not where the money flows. Things used to be simple. A single newspaper would contain reporting, analysis and opinion, and the advertising revenue would pay for all of it. Now, each article stands or falls on its own, without the "rising tide that lifts all boats" of advertising across a newspaper.
The Wall Street Journal understood this, and placed its content behind a pay-wall. Everyone said it was mad to do so when there was so much free content out there. The experiment would fail, taking the Journal with it. However, the Journal's publishers, Dow Jones, were convinced of the quality of the paper's reporting and opinion, and forged ahead regardless. It worked.
Journalists live in perpetual fear of seeing their earning potential eroded.
Ivo Vegter, ITWeb contributor
When Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, it was one of the few newspapers not in freefall. While most competitors were losing paying subscribers, reporting mounting losses, and laying off staff, the Wall Street Journal thrived on its hybrid free/paid model. However, while Murdoch extended the print and online pay-walls to mobile readers, there was a backdoor, via a deal with Google that let searchers view articles for free.
Now, he is boldly threatening to place his entire media empire behind pay-walls, and withdraw its content from search engines like Google. His argument is that aggregators and search engines are profiting from content that cost his companies a lot of money to produce.
He's right, of course, they do.
Leaving aside the jeers of derision from people who disdain Fox News or his numerous trashy tabloids, the question is whether Murdoch's power as a media mogul trumps the power of Google and Yahoo as the gatekeepers to the online world.
Will Murdoch succeed, and rebuild the funding model for primary reporting that is under threat from aggregation and derivation? Or is he spitting into the wind, trying to resurrect a cause that is long lost?
On the one hand, not all his publications have the heft and quality of the Wall Street Journal. Fox and Sky might have a chance, capitalising on their appeal to conservative audiences, but do you really need a Murdoch tabloid to read lurid tales of minor celebrities or hysterical alarms of city invasions by diseased sewer rats?
In the general case, is it possible to compete with paid-for content when most free content is as good, or good enough?
Moreover, will journalists themselves accept it? Some writers no doubt prefer the one-way monologue of print, either because they have an ego suited to preaching, or they fear live fact-checking by their audience. Having written both online and in print, I have to say that while print brings with it the luxury of time to craft your writing, not to mention a certain prestige, the pleasure of engaging with online readers and seeing your work spread virally is a great attraction.
On the other hand, journalists live in perpetual fear of seeing their earning potential eroded. The financial reward for writing original news has, over the years, declined in real terms. Many journalists have been forced to turn to public speaking, consulting, or other income boosters. This undermines the value of professional journalism in several ways: it introduces potential conflicts of interest, it reduces the ability to dedicate full-time effort to journalism, and it puts those who are good at writing, but not at public speaking or corporate gigs, at a disadvantage.
In addition, what Andrew Keen calls "the cult of the amateur" presents a real problem to some readers. While "citizen journalism" can be a valuable complement to professional news reporting, amateurs who do not follow or even know the principles of quality journalism tend to be less reliable, less trustworthy, less objective, and less professional than their full-time counterparts in the "old media".
That the Internet poses a threat to professional primary reporting is clear. That it would be a good idea to solve this problem, few would doubt.
Whether Rupert Murdoch, for all his clout, is the man to do it, is rather less clear. Do his competitors stand to gain more from standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Murdoch, or by exploiting his lonely stand as a weakness? Is it even possible to fight the free-news genie and put it back in its bottle?
If Murdoch wins this fight, it will be the crowning glory of his storied career. If not, it will be the spluttering, dying flame of an old man who couldn't face the future.
I'm not convinced he'll win. But I'm also not a reporter any more.
Share