Paying for the news, and letting the public in
I just posted a new blog at the Center on Communication Leadership and Policy. Its premise is that the public needs to be brought fully in to the discussion about journalism's future and sustainability.
I know some people are up to speed. But many others are not, and it's in everyone's interest to have this conversation spread as widely as possible. Why? Because Americans need to know that a fundamental institution of civic life faces an uncertain future, and because they might well have some interesting ideas about what to do about it.
I'm pushing back here against what strikes me as an unhealthy response by many new-media thinkers. As a group, they've been scornful of recent ideas for paying for the news, including proposals involving philanthropy and online micro-payments. There are good reasons for their skepticism, but my view is all hands on deck for this discussion. There's already been more idea exchange on this front, in the last 10 days, than I've seen in a long time.
About Me
- DAVID WESTPHAL
- Executive in residence at USC's Annenberg School for Communication. I'm also a senior fellow at the Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, and affiliated with the Knight Digital Media Center, both at USC.
2 comments:
Jerry Swerling (director of PR studies at Annenberg) was a guest speaker this afternoon in Michael Parks' class on reporting decisions. He laid out a lot of great info about how companies should work with the media to get their stories out fairly.
The discussion cemented my belief that mainstream media are perhaps the worst companies around when it comes to getting out their message. They simply don't know how to tell the story of the role they play in democracy or simply how important they are at holding up a mirror to a community.
First, look at internal communications. How many editors or publishers have tried to dress up layoffs as a way to "better serve our readers"? All this does is show contempt for logic. It infantilizes the staff and the public.
Second, how are media telling the story of their economic decline and uncertain futures? Does the public really understand what's happening and what's at stake? If not, blame the messenger.
And a final thought: Has anyone effectively told the story about just how much Drudge, Google News, Digg and other aggregators profit from what newspapers produce? At best, it's mentioned anecdotally and defensively.
The last big-time journalist I recall showing some cojones was John Carroll, when he called out Bill O'Reilly.
We don't need whining. We don't need arrogance. But we do need some attitude. Otherwise, just freshen the obit for MSM.
A part of me thinks that citizens will start noticing lagging coverage and waning quality of reporting and realize what they are losing before it even gets advertised.
Another part of me thinks the shake up is more of a paradigm-shift. I wonder if the structure of democracy itself isn't changing because of the growing availability of information and transparency that technology brings. If this is the case, is it possible to pin down the exact role of the institutions of government and press when it seems like the effects of technology are shaping politics, government, and the press almost in real-time? Maybe change is the one thing we can count on right now.
I don't know what kind of ground that puts us on for a public discussion, but my feeling is that continued open dialog would be much more productive than the closed discussion that continues to drive the nail into the proverbial coffin. I don't know why new media thinkers are so resistant--get used to it--nobody really has authority over information anymore. Let's move on.
Post a Comment