Comments on: The Next Bailout?

By: David Reich

David Reich — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:49:33 +0000

I know it would be very tough, but I wouldn’t necessarily write off a political/government solution.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:58:12 +0000

Yes, a political solution is a non-starter for a number of reasons.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:54:39 +0000

“Cam, I am not automatically assuming market failure at all but just positing that there is a worse case scenario where nothing fills the crucial gap.”
If such a worst-case scenario does come to pass, and the market does not respond by filling that crucial role that we all seem to agree the press is supposed to play in a free society, I have serious doubts that the problem can be solved by legislation and taxpayer money.
The roots of the problem would go much deeper than that. It hearkens back to our collective desire for liberty and the wherewithal to maintain it.
Like David, though, I tend to agree that the industry will figure this one out.
As you said, it’s good to have these discussions.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:42:43 +0000

David, I have noticed that the NY Times has been doing pay-per-click type stuff. I think we will see more and more interesting developments as media adjusts to new realities.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:34:17 +0000

Cam, I am not automatically assuming market failure at all but just positing that there is a worse case scenario where nothing fills the crucial gap.
Seth Godin has done some good posts on this topic lately, including this one:
Time to start a newspaper
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/time-to-start-a.html

By: David Reich

David Reich — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:48:56 +0000

Call me a pollyanna, but I am hopefully confident that newspapers will eventually figure it out and develop a business model that works for these times. It may be a combination of revenue from online subscriptions, pay-per click and advertising… and some papers may still see some financial viability in producing a print edition as well.
The key thing is that newspapers as news-gatheribs need to stay alive, with or without help from philanthropies and the government.
And Alan’s point about newspapers teaching people how to read and be curious is well-taken. Hopefully, that can be accomplished by reading papers online too.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:36:14 +0000

Cam, I agree 100% on business failure and do not assume that nothing will replace it. I said in my post that a worst case scenario is that nothing with the infrastructure of the press replaces it.
Let’s take Afghanistan as a point. With due respect to bloggers and the like, who has reporters on the ground there? Who will send more as the U.S. increases its presence there? I would guess it is mostly traditional media, though correct me if I am wrong.
If your local newspaper goes out of business who covers your local city council, school boards, etc., etc.
It would be interesting to know are the businesses that replace the ones that fail able to perform the functions of a free press in a free society? Most of us I think would agree a free press is key to a democracy.
This is not just a local restaurant or something that is going out of business but something that provides a public good. If someone will explain to me what is flowing in to take the place of the traditional media that fail, I am listening.
Cam, btw, a government bailout would not fly politically so I do not even think that idea is on the table. It does, however, bring up the important question of whether news is a public good.
Seth Godin did a couple of good posts on papers recently:
Time to Start a Newspaper
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/time-to-start-a.html
and
When newspapers are gone, what will you miss?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/when-newspapers.html

By: Alan Hirsch

Alan Hirsch — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:17:56 +0000

The most important thing to do to keep newspapers alive is to teach people how to read. The next most important thing is to encourage people to be curious about what is happening around them. With those attributes, people will realize they will get a clearer picture of the news from newspapers than from any other source.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:30:06 +0000

Neil -
I think you have to make a distinction between market failure and business failure. Business fail in a working market all the time. The market doesn’t promise that all businesses or business classes will always be successful. That’s not the point of a free market.
“If the media infrastructure set up to provide that information is collapsing then what replaces it?”
Why do we automatically presume that nothing can?

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:28:36 +0000

Ah, sorry, I am tired. Above I meant the following: These are things that society needs but are not immediately profitable and some of these things clearly cannot be put wholly into the **private** sector for obvious reasons even if they were profitable.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:21:42 +0000

In my last sentence I meant a free press that gets out and covers stories has to be part of that. The word not was a mistake.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:19:24 +0000

Cam, first, I believe the original idea was philanthropic support of media (foundations and the like) and David added government to that. The government part is *very* unlikely but it is a good discussion to have.
The problem we have here could be one of a classic market failure.
There is a public good in knowing what is going on in the world and locally. If the media infrastructure set up to provide that information is collapsing then what replaces it?
For some other examples of public goods: clean water, clean air, parks, basic research, military, police, fire, etc. These are things that society needs but are not immediately profitable and some of these things clearly cannot be put wholly into the public sector for obvious reasons even if they were profitable.
So what I am about to say is a worse case scenario but worth considering: what if the infrastructure of covering the news collapsed? Do the alternatives really have the resources and experience to cover capital hill, send reporters to war zones, cover city council meetings, etc., etc., etc.
If they do not then do we just accept this massive gap in information flow or do we consider such information a public good? I take it as a given that a free press is core to a functioning democracy. But not a free press that gets out and covers stories has to be part of that.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:25:38 +0000

I understand your concerns, Cam. Hopefully, others venues will emerge that will support solid journalism. So far, I haven’t seen a lot of it online, but maybe that will change as the marketplace changes, whether those sites are run by newspapers or by other news-gathering organizations.
I am not so sure, however, that the problems with the solutions mentioned would necessarily render them “unacceptable.” And when I talk about keeping newspapers alive, it doesn’t mean in their present print format. It could be an online-delivered product. Much as I like newsprint, I know that it’s quickly becoming an obsolete technology.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:08:14 +0000

David – I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately, too.
As I was considering it last week, I pondered whether we were destined to nationalize the newspapers or to adopt some sort of 3rd-party payer system (like health insurance) to maintain the viability of newspapers in their current state.
Both solutions have enormous problems that render them unacceptable.
Then I started to question my premises.
Who says newspapers need to continue in their current form? Why is it generally accepted that “good journalism” will disappear if newspapers go out of business?
If there is a need for it, I thought, then the market will find a way to produce it.
Just because it will be in a form we can’t predict doesn’t necessarily mean the quality will be inferior.
I haven’t come to any conclusions about it yet that I’d be comfortable sharing, but I wanted to throw that out there to get your feedback. Obviously I’m still struggling with it, too.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:09 +0000

You are probably right, Neil. This would be a political hot potato, especially the way many like to bash the media.
It would be fun to try, though.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:12:03 +0000

I do not think your idea would get much political support, though. Do you think such a proposal would go over well with the public?
There is a much better chance of getting the foundations involved and so on. Someone could even form a foundation just for this purpose. Foundation money might serve as the bridge from old to new that we. The media is in a bit of a chasm at the moment and nobody quite understands where this all leads.
Once workable business models start to take form, private investment will flow back in.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:34:32 +0000

See… my idea can help support a stimulus package since it will keep some journalists on the job.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:27:20 +0000

What a shame. I hope these local and national papers can figure out a way to make money with online versions and keep reporters working.
If local, national, and international coverage suffers because of this shake out it will be a tragedy. Also, think of all these talented journalists sent to the bench. What a shame.

By: Jeanne Byington

Jeanne Byington — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:45:25 +0000

Neil, I spoke with a reporter who was recently cut from a daily Westchester newspaper. She said that more and more articles in the paper come from syndicates. In my opinion, this paper is doing a disservice to its readers–there are many places people can read national news. Syndicates won’t be covering the local press.
And David, even if we had Internet access, it’s easier to check out a page of a paper with all the movie listings, which I can take along with me in the car, than finding four sites on-line.
I also can’t be bothered to visit six real estate sites, when in a second, I get the lay of the land in the paper–or on the paper’s site.
But maybe I’ll have to.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:35:04 +0000

Something does need to happen as I am concerned that in these times of great flux in the media that important reporting will fall by the way side. A free press that has the resources to send reporters into the field is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy.
Everyone complains about the press but I know how hard a life it is. Both my maternal grandfather and grandmother were journalists. It has always been a hard knock life and we should be grateful there are those out there doing it every day.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:45:50 +0000

I see your point Neil, but the way I envision it, taxpayer money would be funneled to papers via some formula, but with absolutely way for government to try to influence the press’ freedom.
Again, I realize I may be pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but I am sure a way could be worked out to make this work and avoid the pitfalls we are all concerned about regarding freedom of the press.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:39:32 +0000

I am concerned about the state of the media as I think that we are in such a state of flux right now that some very important things could fall through the cracks. Who sends reporters to the far corners of the globe and to your city council meetings? There need to be reporters out there covering these things.
I like the idea of foundation grants and the like. Traditional media is, rightly, scrambling to adapt to modern realities, too.
I do not like the idea of government media as that smacks too much of “state” media. If you have nearly all major media accepting government money it creates a dependence and possibly symbiotic relationship that is unhealthy. We need independent, free media always.
I think NPR does a good job of maintaining its independence from the state in its reporting but we cannot rely on that if the state were to fund media across the board.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:38:55 +0000

Jeanne, when a community loses a local newspaper, it loses convenient access to local news and info. I know where you live, you don’t have access to hi-speed online connectivity, so it’s difficult to go to online sources for info the local paper used to carry, such as news of town meetings, movie show times, etc.

By: Jeanne Byington

Jeanne Byington — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:38:07 +0000

David,
One reason newspapers are failing started happening well before the economic downturn. Papers have not yet figured out how to maintain readership with all the other time-gobbling activities pulling them away.
Were I in charge of the science grant in your example, I would first want to know what the paper planned to do to distribute its science news to middle and high schools in the vicinity. For other grants, I’d want to see the scheduled newsroom visits by classes, the number of journalists who visit classrooms to help infect some children with the news bug.
I don’t agree with the model–as profitable as it must be–of not paying most writers that some popular news web site/blogs follow. Mature businesses have always needed to reinvent themselves. Newspapers might well turn to marketing gurus such as you before tossing in the rag or passing the hat.
I live in village that lost its community newspaper last week. It feels like a death. People are trying to cobble something together. I’m told to stay tuned.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:34 +0000

Perhaps, Lewis. But I wonder if a system could be established to ensure transparency and lack of interference or influence… or even the perception of it.
I fear that if nothing is done, much of the 4th Estate will cease to exist, or what is left may not be worth too much in terms of real journalism.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:04:25 +0000

David,,
Normally, we are on the same page. As a former journalist, however, I don’t want a federal monies going to private companies–especially those we depend upon for news. There is reason news is called the 4th Estate. It’s primary job is to be a government watchdog. Federal money compromises that role, even if it’s only by perception.