People want news that matters
The brussel sprouts vs. cookies argument is one of the first I remember in respect to “future of journalism” conversations. In fact, I would say that in J-school, I did not study journalism, but instead, I studied the changing face of journalism. We never talked about what journalism is, we talked about what it once was and what it is becoming. Maybe academic study has always been this way — I don’t know.
Brussel sprouts and cookies notes that, with declining numbers, some publications ramped up celebrity coverage to keep up circulation. And some people see this as a slippery slope, where reported news just goes further and further to shit.
Meanwhile, this happens: The web allows anyone to create a blog and publish easily and for free. Now a person can get science news from a scientist who likes to write, rather than a writer who likes science. (Jonathan Stray calls out science blogging here).
Thing is, solid, civic, hard, brussel sprouts-flavored news will exist somewhere. Maybe aggregating tweets from local political pundits is better than writing three paragraphs in your own words. Maybe this is even cheaper for a newsroom and an easier task for an employee, and a better experience for the audience.
My point is that we shouldn’t have a cookies vs. brussel sprouts argument. The change we are seeing is in tools and distribution.
Edward Wasserman pointed out that digital tools (which are also companies that need profit of their own) come with strings attached. I wholeheartedly agree with this point. But I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game. Just because Facebook makes money off WaPo’s content doesn’t mean WaPo can’t also make money off that content.
Bringing me to another point: Nobody ever bought content. Once, 25 cents bought distribution of a newspaper. And advertisers bought an audience.
From Wasserman’s blog: “What’s under way is a deliberate marketing campaign to deputize the rising generation of journalists as auxiliary recruiters for an industry of [social media] giants whose business requires assembling vast populations for advertising targeted by age, location, interest, taste, preference, alignment …” (Brackets mine).
Couldn’t this have been said about print journalism, and about broadcast journalism?
A friend of mine called fashion magazines a marketing ploy. Haven’t journalists always been part of a marketing ploy? The difference is that before, it was Tribune Company’s marketing ploy, and the ad sales revenue supported editorial. Now, Google’s ad sales do not stream back to the content creator (unless you’re Jeff Jarvis and run Google ads on your blog).
For me, the answer is entrepreneurial journalism. A smaller machine can swerve more easily, and can utilize and then drop these new tools faster (in the case the tools begin using us). The second answer is verticals rather than a single general appeal publication. Advertisers are looking for a specialized audience.
My dream is that every newspaper would reinvent itself as a blog collective, each with its own lead product manager, programmers and editorial staff. Ads could be sold across the network. Additional revenue could come from events, ebooks or even better ideas that I know we will see soon.
People want the news that matters to them, and they want community. Content enables both of these things. Long live content — let’s just play with the packaging.
Excellent points, Dani. We can lament the changes taking place or we can work for a healthy future for journalism. I appreciate that you can see the possibilities for the future.