Jacob Weisberg argues in this week’s Newsweek that there has never been a single business case for news, and that it’s unlikely one will emerge. He makes the important point that news has never been strictly about delivering profits, as evidenced by the fact, he argues, that newspapers do things that are expensive and not directly linked to profit. (I differ somewhat, by the way, on this point: while it’s difficult to quantify, I’m certain that things such as six month investigations build readership, which is of course linked to profit.)
What this debate misses, however, is that, unlike most businesses, serious journalism has seldom been about the straightforward pursuit of profit. Nearly all of the most important journalistic institutions in the free world are hybrids of one form or another—for-profit, but underwritten by generous owners or other profitable businesses; not-for-profit, yet entrepreneurial; cooperative, or government-subsidized.
[...]
The great newspaper companies got away with not maximizing their profits either by being privately held or by setting up two classes of stock, which insulated them from shareholder pressure. When the families sold out, it was usually to less sentimental concerns such as Gannett, Knight-Ridder and the Tribune, which sought higher profit margins. But these chains were more efficient and sometimes significantly improved the quality of the papers they bought. Even rapacious media barons and public companies can protect journalistic values when motivated. Rupert Murdoch, for example, has consistently lost money maintaining quality at The Times of London. Out of some combination of vanity, competitive rage and sheer love of the newspaper business, he now looks poised to do the same with The Wall Street Journal. Many serious-minded magazines—The Atlantic, The New Republic, The Nation, The Weekly Standard—have similarly survived on the mixed motives of wealthy individuals.
–Dubious new models for news
His argument is an interesting one, but I believe he fails to acknowledge that the most popular, mainstream model depending on a mix of ad money and circulation revenue is dead, and while different hybrids will exist, it needs replacing, badly. So I wrote a letter to the editor.
Dear Editor:
Re: Dubious new models for news, March 2
Jacob Weisberg makes a compelling argument against a new holy grail of a business model for news in the post-Internet era. He neglects to mention, however, that while different models exist, the most prolific one, relying on a combination of advertising and circulation revenue, was effectively killed off when no one seemed to be watching. Free sites like Craigslist encroach on paid classified advertisements; cheap google ads threaten large so-called display ads by the major telecom companies; news available free when you want it and where you want it means trouble for circulation revenue.
Newspapers — and, to a lesser extent perhaps, other news media — were slow to act when the Internet came along, and slower to realize that it’s their business model, not just their editorial model, that’s in trouble. Now with the global economic downturn pushing them against the wall, a new model is needed, and fast. If not, we look forward to a future where local news will be written by the mayor’s PR folks.
Magda Konieczna
I’ll let you know if it’s published.