If “Real Journalism” Fails As A Business, Should Government Step In?

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Mickey
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:03 am

   Here’s what I don’t get — why don’t news sites leave stories up for more than a few weeks? Have they never heard of the long tail?

   I run a few fairly popular blogs, and I often link to news stories on local news websites. I find that after a few weeks, those links go dead because the stories have been removed. Over the course of a few years, you’re talking about many thousands of stories that are no longer available, which destroys the amount of traffic going to the site.

   Any clue why they all seem to do this?

2. Shane
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:04 am

   The BBC seems independent to me. So does the BBC2.

3. Floppy
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:05 am

   Dirty little secret: Legally required foreclosure notices at premium prices are fattening news classified revenues again. Newspapers are the first businesses to benefit from the housing crash.

4. Jon
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:07 am

   I think the whole idea of “journalism” as a career (or field of research) is in search of an identity. Anybody and everybody can become a journalist… there is no “special” skills required as the democratization of information through the net makes what use to only be available to a select few, available for the masses to consume and write about.

   Jon
   http://woodmarvels.com - Create Unique Memories

5. Floppy
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:07 am

   Mickey, they sell archived stories, mostly obits to prove death, and annual archive subscriptions to legal firms. It’s a steady revenue source. And they’re still “up,” you just can’t find them.

6. Michael Arrington
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:07 am

   Shane - the BBC does an excellent job of staying independent. But imagine if the government financed all or even a substantial portion of big media. Competitive pressure to remain independent would become secondary to ensuring continued funding. The only “customer” would be the government.

7. christopher
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:10 am

   They should be run as non-profits like the st petersburg times and receive “government support” in the form of exemption on federal income tax. this also keeps them relatively independent of government or advertisers or special interests for content and programming. see kexp.org for example of successful non-profit radio.

8. ocean
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:11 am

   It’s hilarious how Americans think the government stepping into anything is “dangerous.” Yet in Europe not only is government funding of the press the norm but the European press is far and away better than the joke that Americans are served up each day. Mike to avoid looking like a fool next time don’t just go with your obvious prejudices and biases. Next time do some research about how things work elsewhere and give alternatives some serious thought.

9. Chris
   

   January 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am

   —When the business model of “real journalism” fails, what should society do in response?—

   I don’t know what you mean by “society”….but individuals are already declaring with their wallets that resources used by print journalism are no longer desired and should be sold off and used somewhere else.

   I see no reason why anyone would want to waste resources and finance a losing venture unless they’re willing to risk their own capital….Government risks other people’s money, so that shouldn’t even be an option.

   Obviously people have found much more value in “true” free market journalism - on the Internet.

10. Robleh
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:14 am

    The innovative papers will make the transition to web-only and thrive in a global market (e.g. The Guardian), the ones who take state subsidy will die.

11. Shafqat
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:15 am

    I agree that the notion that government should step in to subsidize or support mainstream media is worrying. Apart from the issue of independence, it just doesnt make sense. Basic supply and demand economics shows that people will flock to news sources that provide the highest quality, most credible content. Mainstream media and online news media are free to compete for readers, but if there is no demand for the content produced by some of the struggling print media organizations, why should we artificially create demand? Instead, mainstream media should look to produce greate content, innovate and adopt to the new world. Government support for those who don’t is just ridiculous. Yes, quality journalism is a cornerstone for democracy, but we’ll do just fine if we get that news from a different set of sources than what we’ve gotten used to.

    Shafqat

12. tim
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:18 am

    >Yet in Europe not only is government funding of the press the norm…

    Where? In Russia?

13. christopher
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:19 am

    “Freedom of the press is one of the most important checks on government. If they’re paying the bills, the press is no longer independent.”

    That the principal negative consequence of federal funding for the press is that the press is no longer independent is actually absurd. The press isn’t independent today. All you’d be doing is substituting stakeholders, but the fact that stakeholders’ interests influence programming doesn’t change. Do the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch ring a bell?

14. WTL
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:24 am

    I agree a government handout would be inappropriate. However, it would not be such a stretch to force Craiglist (who has caused so much of the print industry’s woes) to change their business practices. It should be illegal for a “non-profit” to compete in the business sector against for-profit businesses. The Newmark/Buckmaster duo is a plague on capitalism. Why should our government/legal system allow him to nearly destroy an entire industry?

    The IRS does not permit a private individual to continually run a “business”, year after year without showing a legitimate attempt to earn a profit. The IRS calls them “hobbies” and they lose their ability to write off what were once business expenses.

    In the legal system, courts routinely award spouses child support and alimony based not on what the other party earns, but their “earning ability”. The courts do not allow you to escape or evade your legal responsibilities because you are “underemployed”.

    My view is that Craigslist should be forced to operate as a legitimate business. They are cheating taxpayers out of millions in never-paid taxes, causing the loss of thousands of jobs (many of them from the newsroom) and causing the evaporation of retirement funds with the havoc brought upon so many public companies. This is good? This is American? I makes me sick to hear Newmark talk about his values. Oh wait, he’s a socialist. His values are not American.

15. Dheeraj Sultanian
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:31 am

    Broken business model because of a few down years? Are you serious Mike? This is the top story here today. You yourself said journalism is dead, well let me step in and fill in the gaps in your reporting:

    1. Sam Zell just led a group of investors to buy Tribune for $8 Billion.
    2. NYT, WPO, and other papers are cash cow businesses that may not be growing, but are certainly not on the cusp of failure.
    3. News corp just bought Dow Jones for the WSJ - another NEWSPAPER
    3. News”paper” is still read by the large number of non web 2.0 kool-aid sipping tech shut-ins
    4. No blog can replace the Sunday paper - Come on!

    When you have smart media people buying newspapers left and right, does this signal the end of the industry or just a shakeout and rebirth? As the founder of techcrunch and surviver of web 1.0, the answer should be very clear.

16. Shafqat
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    @13 - Fair point. I think media consolidation and ownership by corporate giants is also worrying - we never discounted that fact. I guess it comes down to which one is ‘less bad.’

17. Jon F
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:34 am

    Great post. The free market is not great at solving all things (E.g. the environment, telecom, etc.) but it is great at solving things like this. Consumers will demand news in many forms and someone will figure out a model to make this work. It may change, it may cause some companies to go out of business, even companies like the New York Times that many people embrace but the market will sort this one out. There will be news and those who provide it will be compensated for it. It just may take some time but it will create new opportunities for entrepreneurs.

18. ITrush
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:36 am

    Very Interesting.

    nhick
    http://www.itrush.com

19. add
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am

    man, once a government pays for a newspaper, the speech isn’t free no more, you can’t bite the hand who feeds you.

20. Jorg van Gent
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am

    I am not sure what to think of this post. I guess America’s free speech movement has created the likes of News Corp, which is a money machine first more than an institute of journalism.

    This post seems to come from some one who fundamentally mistrusts governments. I am not sure if this is right or wrong, but there are many countries where an institutionalized, government backed broadcasting organization provides the better product (there is more than just the BBC in this regard). In the end, both types of journalism have got their pitfall: commercial journalism compromising independence over money; while wrongly structured government backed news organizations can end up replacing government spokes people. Competition between these flavors should guarantee quality.

    If we agree that online news media are an addition rather than a replacement for hardcopy newspapers, than there should be a more creative solutions than the cost cutting programs our hardcopy friends are enduring now for years.

21. George
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:45 am

    The argument for the preservation of the press is that a working democracy needs an informed citizenry. But how has that worked out with privately owned media? Profit comes from pandering to the lowest common denominator, which usually means Britney’s crotch shots, rather than actual news. The election coverage focuses on such tough questions such as “will they vote for a woman or a black guy” rather than cover the actual policies of the candidates. Yesterdays headline on CNN pondered the existence of Sasquatch on Mars.

    And let’s not forget how the independent media saved us from a pointless and ruinous war by exposing the lies and duplicity of those that wanted it to happen. Oh wait.

    I say let them be funded by a government grant, one that is legally mandated to be a certain amount no matter what. And forbid coverage of fluff - private entities will always be there for that.

22. Autodope
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    Michael,

    I understand your point and it makes rational sense. Fear of government control is a tenet of a free-market democracy. But in practice, I’ll take government control (the government funding and media) over corporate control (corporations owning and funding the media through advertising). Although a mixture of both is acceptable as well.

    Many people forget that government is merely a collection of the people. So, in essence, the people control the government funded media. One doesn’t have to look far to see quality successful, reasonably unbiased government funded media (Australia, Canada, the UK, even NPR and PBS) far out of reach of the halls of power.

23. Morgan
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Government should not step in, and I think you can easily make the argument that neither national parks nor highways, are necessarily government-only tasks. James Hill had zero tax dollars given to him to create a railroad from the Mississippi to the Pacific. That’s easements across more than half of the US, privately purchased and justified through demand. I personally way prefer private parks, and public ones have direct user fees anyway. Without central planning we might actually get a lane or two for traffic instead of billion-dollar light rail that no one uses except for political resumes.

    Further, we already have our NPR and government-sponsored news at the state level, at least they have to compete for viewers/listeners. I have no idea what the government needs to be involved in this for. If, for example, there is not enough demand for ‘news’ in the traditional sense, then you just force people to pay for it? Makes no sense.

24. Doug Richardson
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Why should the government step in? Just because the NY Times prints on paper? As a taxpayer, I fund the U.S. government and I think it’s absurd that the government should invest my money in a company that professional investors think is a bad investment (see stock price for investor opinion of the NY Times).

    This is simply natural selection in the market. Keeping this old, sick, and maladapted creature alive through government intervention is pathetic.

    Why do people (whether in congress, Davos economic forum, the executive branch, or whatever) think they know how and can fix the world with their great ideas. Just leave us alone and stop spending our money on your pet projects. The same people who support this would probably call $50 million bridges to nowhere in Alaska pork barrel. Only other people’s pet projects are pork barrel.

25. Erick
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:53 am

    @Shane

    “Seems independent” is completely subjective. Govt should stay way the hell out of journalism/news reporting.

26. Erick
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:56 am

    @Autodope

    Most of our federal govt is a collection of people who don’t have to face a vote for the decisions they make. Sure, the senators, reps and president can be voted out but there are many parts of our govt that make huge decisions that dont have to face the people.

    You dont hand that type of control over our media to them. Not a chance.

27. Perry
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am

    The CBC (Canada) is independent

28. techmine
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am

    I don’t understand what do you mean by “Real Journalism” because journalism is still flourishing, only thing that has changed is the media. I go to NYT.com every day and read a news or two. That is also real journalism. I think you meant print media is on decline. Well that is more of a life style change and the internet in our lives. That is what is breaking the model. I think this is a natural and inevitable decline of print media. Isn’t it simple or am I missing the point here. I agree with all those who are against govt. shadow on the media.

29. Duncans Donuts
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am

    MA,

    You forgot to mention Banks, Lending institutions as well as Bond insurers to your list of folks the Feds will bail out.

30. Jason
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Hell no the government shouldn’t step in. Journalism/Newspapers are just the beginning. Next is television. After that its corporate America. Its a pattern that is being caused by the next industrial revolution. The knowledge worker has finally figured out they don’t need a corporation to earn money. The rise of the knowledge worker is just beginning. You also have to factor in the advancement of technology, such as the ability to create applications in days, rapid/mass production of parts (mfg.com) from your house, etc…

    They say gen y, gen x, and gen (n) are lazy and just want to be famous. No they just don’t want to work for a corporation. Corporations are nothing more than a group of resources working together to produce an output. Why give your energy (resource) to a company who will profit off you when you can do it yourself and make just as much if not more money, set your own hours, and work from where ever whenever?

    So back to the topic. If the government steps in the US is going to be in a world of hurt, because our economy will be screwed more than it currently is. This will be beginning of the end (Rome) when we have to uphold something that cannot support itself. Whatever happened to the phrase let the market decide?

    Lets put all the old boys out of business….keep it up everyone!

31. Humble Pie
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am

    I have to agree (with reservation) with Shane @ #2. And Mike, there have been numerous conflicts of interest within traditional journalism in the past as well — major corporate sponsors have sometimes exerted far too much influence, sometimes at the expense of journalistic integrity; some news outlets report all stories from the political perspective of the company’s executive(s) (i.e. Murdoch’s FOX News).

    Reservation: It really depends on execution, and equally brave/committed management teams — the BBC serves as an excellent model in this.

    And to Jon @ #4 — while, in principal, I laud the ideals of citizen journalism…it suffers from the same ills as Digg: “The illusion is that Digg is a system typically referred to as ‘direct democracy.’ As such, denizens of that democratic environment want a system they can count on to put across their agenda, especially the long time users of Digg. They’ve formed the online equivalent of coalition governments with their sizable friends list, so when they post something to the site, they can reasonably expect it to make front page if it is of a certain quality.

    This is one of the major components the new algorithm looks to combat, as well as another problem involved in direct democracy: self-interest.” — quoted from Mark Hopkins, at Mashable ( http://mashable.com/2008/01/23/digg-revolt-again/ )

    Now, ask yourself:

    1. How many of the top blogs reported the trouble in Kenya?

    2. How many actually conduct original investigative journalism to expose misconduct and questionable actions in the VC, Tech, or whatever professions/markets/etc. that encompass their spheres of influence?

    Now compare those results with:
    – How many simply echo what appears in the NYT, CNN, or some other established “real journalism” outlet.

    Heck, Jon, you have two serious grammatical errors in a total of 4 lines… Hardly a hallmark of bigger and better things to come for the world…

32. Jason
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am

    The short version:

    Decentralization of media, wealth, etc… It is scaring the crap out of them.

33. Grasping Hands
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:14 am

    Michael:

    You’re looking at state-subsidized “news” through a market lens. You’re not wrong in your analysis of the likely outcome, but I think you’re missing the real dynamic that’s going to be at play.

    In the USA there’s no real direct line of communication between government and normal citizens. This holds both for reporting on what government is up to — debating such and such proposal, investigating such and such scandal — and for reporting on what it’s done — raised postal rates, deployed troops, and so on.

    In a system that’s supposed to be “democratic” a lack of transparency* is problematic and it tends to result in a broad-brush de-legitimization of governmental action; the lack of easy, direct communication between citizens and their government makes a lot of government action really opaque.

    Since the founding of the republic the print media have been a sort of “buffer” for increasing transparency: the government, proper, is quite opaque most of the time, but the media’s reporting efforts get the information out and thus make it seem much more transparent than it really is.

    The resulting symbiosis has rewards for both parties: the government can continue on doing what it wants while only making minimal efforts at transparency, and the media can gain influence — and, occasionally, profit — from what amounts to a primitive form of information arbitrage.

    If the traditional media like print and broadcast were to fall away, one half of the government-media symbiote would be effectively dead. To survive the other half would almost certainly have to adapt, becoming much more transparent; we know it doesn’t want to do this, b/c if it wanted to be transparent, it already would be.

    So, if you start to see real movers and shakers floating this idea, it’s less about preserving antiquated business models and more about preserving a particular operating environment for the funders (aka the government), in which only nominal transparency is needed. Or, differently: the internet and the huge increase in efficiency of communications it brought with it have a tremendous possibility to make our system of government tremendously more efficient, accountable, and effective, and as a result the incumbents will be fighting a ton of rearguard actions to prevent those changes from happening any time soon.

    * Technically a fair amount of information is publicly available over the web, but usually in obscure locations, inappropriate formats, or highly technical or legalistic verbiage, which means the disclosed information is useless to non-professionals.

34. Humble Pie
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:18 am

    And perhaps this is hitting too close to home, but is TechCrunch totally free of consideration/influence regarding its major corporate sponsors?

    Would YOU skewer VC’s or potential TechCrunch conference attendees — possibly putting their hefty registration fees in jeopardy — for inappropriate behavior and/or business practices?

    Have you conducted any original investigative journalism of your own to bring such improprieties to light?

    Just a few things worth considering… So as not to have a situation of the pot calling the kettle “black”…

35. Brian Boyko
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Re: Humble Pie

    1. How many of the top blogs reported the trouble in Kenya?

    More than the top news outlets did in the U.S.

    2. How many actually conduct original investigative journalism to expose misconduct and questionable actions in the VC, Tech, or whatever professions/markets/etc. that encompass their spheres of influence?

    More than the top news outlets did in the U.S.

    Sadly, most of the investigative journalism is happening because of bloggers these days. Maybe the story gets advanced by traditional coverage (although it’s more likely to be buried) but the breaking news is more often happening in the blogosphere.

    The reason why is not because blogs are somehow really good at investigative journalism (although they have a certain knack for harnessing the power of crowds) but because traditional news outlets have just stopped producing good quality news that investigates and informs.

    – Brian Boyko
    – M.A. University of Texas School of Journalism
    – Professional Blogger, http://www.networkperformancedaily.com

36. Don Clark - Atlanta, GA
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am

    No, the government should not step in. Thats what the internet is for - information. I dont even watch TV news, or read the paper. I get my info from the web. Once something is printed, that info is outdated relatively quickly. The web helps with this problem. One of the main things I think news reports(blogs or articles) are missing is that they dont follow a story completely - thru all the details, court cases, related info - everything! Talk about boosting readership!

37. bs
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am

    this is such a biased pos article, the nytimes stock doesnt represent the print journalism industry, and it isnt declining because of some delusional fuck who thinks print is going out.

38. Bobby Dang
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:36 am

    I’m still in University, so I’m a bit ignorant when it comes to commerce, but how can Mr. Arrington conclude the failure of print journalism as a business model based on near term trends of its stock price? Moreover, he used the NYT as a paradigmn case. It seems like a slippery slope argument sprinkled with a generalization based on an insufficient sample size.

    If anything, the decline in stock price will force the dailies to re-examine how they package and distribute their content.

    It’s my opinion that what is occuring is a divergence of content from its traditional medium. The medium is changing but the content is still valuable. Once the dailies figure out the best and optimal new medium (kindle, e-paper, mobile devices + wifi bill boards) to distribute the content, they will be viable. The bigger question is: what do we mean by ‘print’?–printed text on paper; or digital print displayed on LCD screens.

39. CanCar
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:37 am

    Everything is a high marketing strategy. To call the attention is all the purpose behind all of this.

40. Craig Newmark
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Just a clarification regarding craigslist:

    – we’re a for profit corporation, have never claimed or implied we’re a nonprofit.
    However, we act as a community service, hence, the site is almost completely free.

    – fact checking is good; while we have an effect on newspaper revenues, it’s minor. Most of the chatter just reinforces the urban myth otherwise.

    Thanks!

41. blowski
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Two observations:
    1. The US media is independent from the government, and yet the average US newspaper is far less neutral than most news-outlets in Britain. This contributes to the polarisation of public opinion - people either get ‘democrat news’ or ‘republican news’. This is getting worse with blogs such as ‘Huffington Post’ which will publish pretty much anything if it’s anti-Republican. In the UK, people are exposed to a range of opinions.

    2. Mike: you said that it would be scary if the government became the main source of media, and I agree. But the bloggers will still be there, as will Time, Newsweek, Economist, etc (and are all doing pretty well). That’s a big part of the reason why the BBC is independent - if people see the BBC as being biased, people complain, and another independent arbitrator judges whether they are right. Who is going to be the independent arbitrator of the Huffington Post?

42. Bobby Dang
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    err..

    I forgot to add that the newspaper can compete with craiglist, if they provide location based news (neighbourhood news coverage ie: events listing, business reviews (yelp clone), traffic report, etc–essentially answering the question: what’s happening in this neighbourhood) + local advertisement.

43. Humble Pie
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Brian — As a M.A., you have to know that one-line unsupported declarative statements are hardly credible answers (I’m sure you NEVER tried such a tactic in your academic career…or it would have been quite short-lived).

    Any stats and/or figures to back that up? I realize comments (and even blogs) are hardly a suitable place for scholarly discussion, however, I cannot let you get off that easily.

    And yes, I’m also well educated. But feel no need to state my credentials in such an informal forum as blog comments… sheesh.

44. Tom Clarke
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am

    All that’s happening is that the dominant medium is changing. There will always be room for the very best writers with the best journalistic skills at beacon publications, whether on paper or online.

    As to government subsidy for media, it’s not a completely bad thing. But naturally, it is somewhat risky. The BBC, for example, was completely decapitated after revealing that the UK government had misled Parliament over WMD in Iraq. Also, they produce the most hagiographic nonsense whenever a member of the royal family corks it. National anthem 3 times on the radio and all that crap.

45. Scott Yates
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Jefferson said if he had to choose between a country with government and no newspapers or newspapers and no government, he would choose the latter.

    Government-run papers or only a few good papers and lots of blogs? Jefferson would clearly choose the latter.

46. Mad Hatter
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Agence France Presse

    Government corporate charter, indirect govt subsidies through subscriptions that distribute news to a wide variety of government agencies, third largest news wire in the world.

    As another poster, Americans are too paranoid about government subsidizing. Relax and have a beer.

47. Tony
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    “NYTimes omits second place NEVADA winner”

    So an “8 year-old” fixed it:

    http://img242.imageshack.us/im.....vm8fx2.jpg

    Another person sent NYT this email:

    ==========
    “Subject: Need official statement on your website censoring Ron Paul from Primary Seasons Election Results (European documentary)

    Dear,

    We are writing this email to you regarding the censoring of Ron Paul on http://politics.nytimes.com/el.....index.html
    Since he is not being mentioned there although he is considered top tier and won 2nd place in Nevada, we assume you are actively seeking to censor Ron Paul.
    We are making a documentary in Europe on how the American media is manipulating the public and are seeking an official statement from the New York Times regarding this censorship.

    Please reply with your statement within 7 days, otherwise we will mark down that you did not wish to address this issue.

    Regards”
    ==========

    The current and corrected list:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/el.....index.html

    

48. Leo Dirr
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am

    When this topic comes up, inevitably someone somewhere will say, “The best newspapers will find a way to survive online.”

    But I wonder if more technologically savvy people than newspaper editors and publishers might just figure out a better way to present the news and then start hiring the experienced and talented newspaper journalists. I believe that may be the better model and the true salvation for “real journalism.”

    And I think most of us can agree that “real journalism” is essential to democracy and to the U.S. and therefore must be saved.

49. Glenn Kelman
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Government involvement isn’t necessarily evil, just premature. This is a time of enormous change in how people get information, but if the technology settles down won’t the winner once again be the one with the best writing, the breaking news, the most insightful analysis, the most trust, whether that be a blogger or the NYT?

    And the NYT site has gotten much better in its digital delivery, incorporating video, blogs, social news, eliminating registration. In fact Michael, you just posted on how the NYT’s traffic has surged since the ending of Times Select.

    The whole debate between blogs and journalists is a little tired because the differences between the two are harder to discern: journalists now blog, citizens often contribute to newspapers, and the major blogs have become such institutions with an entrenched audience that in many ways the barriers to building a large audience are once again fairly high.

50. antje wilsch
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:12 am

    Good Craig stepped in b/c I was going to post that: CL is not a non-profit, although many people still seem to think they are (I think it had a lot to do w/ the .org for a while). They have their own non-profit foundation inside but it’s nothing to do with the CL operations http://www.CraigslistFoundation.org that helps other non-profits (their boot camp is great for anyone working in the non-profit world).

    Just noticed that job posting in most major cities is now $25.

51. venkat rao
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am

    Blogs, such as techcrunch where there are low or no standards of reporting, are exactly why I hope traditional media never goes away.

    Also, traditional media provides non opinianated accounts on issues(except the NYT), which most blogs do not do.

    But there definately should not be government handouts to these companies, since the have failed to adapt and evolve to technical advancements.

52. Keith Duarte
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Well said, Mike. Change always brings opportunity. The newspapers have done very little to embrace the opportunities created by the internet. So others have filled the void. Traditional print isn’t dead, but if they don’t want to save themselves, the rest of us (our government) shouldn’t have to do it for them.

53. Eric Scherer
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Information is the currency of democracy.”

    “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Reading the “quality press” and keeping up to speed on public affairs has gone the way of “eating your greens” and “family dinners”. Call it collateral damage in the digital revolution. The press – which Thomas Jefferson called “the currency of democracy” – is in deep crisis and the threat of collateral damage to the vitality of our democracies are at risk. Yet unlike the other big problems of our times – climate change, poverty, food security, HIV-AIDS – there are few audible voices calling for a plan to safeguard the press as a sentinel/guardian of democracy.
    Right now we are facing at best a stabilization of the current model of advertising-driven information, or at worst a complete and rapid collapse of mainstream media outlets to deliver the current range of online and print news. There is an urgent need, right now, for citizens, the public sector and corporations to pitch in and find workable solutions to help the press weather this current transition.
    In my view, to go through this transitional period until the market forces find the right business model, the only solution to save a mass media which can objectively inform citizens and keep watch on the business of government is to fund this media through charitable associations, philanthropy, subsidies and non-profit associations, on the condition that they allow total editorial independence.

54. WTL
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am

    RE: Mr Newmark @ #40.
    1. Craigslist runs on a .org domain. That implies not-for-profit status whether or not you really are a NPC. What’s worse, Craigslist brags that it charges “below market fees” for job ads in 10 cities while the rest is free. I’m no lawyer (Mike, help!) but is this not the definition of unfair trade practices?

    2. Your claim that Craigslist’s impact on newspaper revenues is “minor” is self-serving and simply untrue. By the end of 2004, it was estimated that you cost SF newspapers alone between $50-$65M in classified revenue. By now, the cumulative effect must be in the hundreds of millions nationwide. Sorry, this is no flesh wound.

55. Techcrunch is Joke
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am

    There’s nothing wrong with New York Times Company.

    People see you are liar, mike. You trying to save blogging companies.

56. TechcrunchBook
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am

    I don’t think the media would allow the government to own it no matter how much money they are losing. To tell writers, editors & publishers they would have to give Conservatives a fair shake in the media would send them into a coma!

57. Jon
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am

    “NYTimes omits second place NEVADA winner”

    So an “8 year-old” fixed it:

    http://img242.imageshack.us/im.....vm8fx2.jpg

    The current and corrected list:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/el.....index.html

58. Erick
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    @TechcrunchBook

    Nice.

59. josh
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Amateur and semi-pro bloggers do not have the time or the resources to properly research, fact-check and report stories. There is no replacement for full-time journalists but there will always be the potential for bias in favor of whomever is paying their salaries, whether it’s the government, advertisers or shareholders.

    “Real Journalism” is an absolute necessity as a check on government and business, and there are plenty of examples to indicate that government-funded media can have an independent voice in a society like the US - there’s already NPR and PBS, the BBC, ARD in Germany. At the very least, those outlets aren’t be any less independent than corporate media.

    I’d rather see the government foot the bill than let the bloggers take over.

60. antje wilsch
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am

    @WTL: CL has the .com and the .org.
    I agree with the misnomer of rolling the URL to the .org while not being one (ie .org implying a non-profit). But they don’t say they are a non-profit. They are making a profit. Their costs are kept to a minimum, charging $25/post is not a loss leader, so by saying he’s charging below market rates means they’re cheaper than currently accepted, going rates, not that it’s an unfair practice or policy violation. When the market demands a lower price and someone can offer it without resorting to vioations, then people will buy. It’s capitalism.

    I still read (real) papers every day although much of the news now comes from the same sources like the AP and I’ve already read the major stories the day before online. I don’t read classifieds though - I use the internet (CL, Oodle, whatever). The market has changed. Newspapers need to adapt.

61. george
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Any economists want to share their thoughts on how Baumol’s Law might apply to this discussion?

62. sloan
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    PBS has some of the best news journalism in the US. With media consolidation there has been a shift of focus from journalism to opinion. That is more dangerous to a “free press” than government subsidizing of news. Look at how many newspaper editors are quitting recently over new “standards”, how departments and budgets are shifting to entertainment news and opinion pieces instead of research and thoroughness. Capitalism does not equate to freedom, especially when government refuses to properly regulate industries, the power of the few heads at those corporations grows exponentially. Newsrooms at networks used to be considered money losers that were part of their responsibility as networks using the public airwaves. Now that profit runs them alone, freedom of press is equating to entertainment for $$$, and that is a huge threat to democracy.

63. P. K.
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    It is not fair nor accurate to assert that public sector subsidy = bias. BBC has been running as an enterprises funded by the UK public (through a tax deceptively named as “license fee”). RTHK of Hongkong is run by a government department and, guess what, since the handover it’s so independent of the government’s stance that it’s accused by the pro-government parties as not being backing the government enough.

64. Z
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am

    @WTL #53

    It’s a free market. If someone finds a better business model they shouldn’t be punished for it. You’d be punishing the consumer and stifling innovation.

65. Bokon Too Koonet
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    To the prospect that established media outlets will be wiped out… I say good riddance.

    Perhaps truth will fill the vacuum

66. antje wilsch
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am

    @george, can’t entirely offshore newswriting yet, although most papers get their world & national news from the same few sources anyway, so those salaries have already been consolidated.

67. Gordon
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am

    Mike, it seems you are the one who didn’t think through the implications. Independent, government subsidized news agencies exist (and are quite popular) in many developed nations (UK, Canada, France, etc). As long as checks are put in place to ensure independence, there is no need to fear.

    We have seen the affect of capitalism on news services, with the most important headlines focusing on “Who’s Anna’s Baby Daddy” and the like. Bloggers, for the most part reflect what’s current in the mainstream media and in general shoot for controvercial headlines since their paycheque comes from the number of readers they can attract. Blogging cannot replace mainstream news as unpopular issues will get tossed to the wayside simply because the professional blogger has no guaranteed steady income stream. Look at your own posts on Facebook, or the excessive coverage of Apple. Why are people continuously writing about the same things? Because it gets them paid.

    Large independent government funded news bodies are, in my opinion the only way for ’society’ to continue recieving fact checked, quality news pieces on things other that what everybody else is talking about.

    Not to mention, where would world news and reporting end up if left to the bloggers. Let’s be real Mike, you write about a few Tech startups and offer your opinions on stories that broke elsewhere. You and blogger nation are no where near ready to take over as the source of ’society’s’ news.

68. WTL
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Hate to break it to you but “Free” is not a business model — which is the case with the vast majority of their listings. And charging below market rates (far below actually) for advertising is illegal. Nearly every state has unfair trade practices on its books. See the Bay Guardian/VVM lawsuit going on right now.

    Competition is the mechanism by which the consumer benefits. I fail to see how a business like Craigslist which may well monopolize the classified industry will do this. Just because it’s free now does not always mean it will be. I’m not saying NewBuck will suddenly become Standard Oil, but the mechanism by which they may achieve their monopoly position is highly suspect. Make the product free and gain near 100% market share because all other significant players are out of business. This is not how capitalism is intended to work.

69. Roman
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am

    Seems like everyone is ignoring the fact that the US already has government subsidized news agencies: PBS and NPR Radio. Both are far from balanced news sources… and hence their funding has been getting cut as of late, which is probably a good thing.

70. Greg
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am

    Interesting (but wrong) take Roman #67. PBS and NPR funding was not in danger because of their lack of balance, but because of the zealous partisanship of the agency head who went after them.

71. Josh
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am

    @Roman, could not agree more. PBS and NPR could never survive without government subsidies.

    State sponsored press is a bad idea. Those that say look at everyone else who does it…”everyone is doing it” isn’t a reason for the United States of America to do it. Many of the other countries mentioned have tremendously different belief systems…some might even be called democratic socialists. Americans, by nature, lean towards freedom…it is our roots. If print media outlets die, let them.

    The New York Times has been plagued with poor journalism (the blair incident among others). Their editorials and stories have a definite political slant that many people do not agree with. This is why I told a NYT sales rep to kiss off when he called me. I am not the only one.

    One other thing to mention is that as online advertising matures online versions of newspapers should become more profitable. I can’t see a reason for state-sponsored print media.

72. Z
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am

    @WTL

    You must be new to the internet if you think free is not a business model. Value can be found in more than just direct transactions. And if they start charging someone else will step in with a better service for less. The cycle continues.

73. John
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Without the newspapers there would be even less “news” to blog about online. I’d imagine google.org would be interested in buying something like AP or nytimes and if they thought that they could make money off page impressions on their properties or through 3rd parties with adsense.

74. Steven Noble
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    In Australia and many other countries we have government funded media (TV/radio/online) in addition to private funded media and not-for-profit media. Like the other forms of media, the government-funded media comes with its own systems for insuring editorial independence — systems that work to an extent but are never perfect. The result is that government-funded media is another source of influence in society, similar but different to privately funded and not-for-profit media. With it, there is a greater diversity of debate. The existence of this additional form of media has never resulted in there being less debate in Australian media.

75. Muhammad Schwarz
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Whatever is not needed any more, must go. Dressing up dead men is like stretching the daylight with a candle.

76. Rob C
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    I trust NPR and the BBC to give more accurate news than any of the major news outlets in America. What we should be more worried about is when those news outlets are held by a few large corporations that need to worry about ratings, advertising, and shareholders!

77. laurence haughton
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    If journalists were really concerned about their broken business model they’d use their professional skills (deep research, quality interviews, careful reflection) to figure out “why” their share of the trillion dollar plus US marketing budget has declined and why so many clients have defected. They would avoid easy answers and look for the long term root causes.

    Here’s a hint: “the ROI they offer to their ad clients is disappointing and has been declining for over two decades.”

78. Terry Heaton
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    There is no such thing as “real” journalism. Hence, there’s no need to support it. “Real?” This is a symptom of oxygen-deprivation suffered by those who sit atop self-constructed pedestals. “Real?” Come on. If there is such a thing as “real” journalism, then describe to me what’s “unreal.”

    Journalism is such a great trade (not a profession), because nobody can define it. And, frankly, the First Amendment wasn’t written to protect a codified set of principles that place facts above argument. Besides, what exactly ARE facts anyway?

    Welcome to the participatory culture.

79. Joe M.
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    @WTL,

    Not sure I follow you on how charging for below market rates on advertising is illegal. If I set up a blog right now and wanted to charge .01 cpm, I could do it. If I started a new newspaper and wanted to give away free advertising, I could do it. Craigslist would be the first company to get sued.
    There is a big difference between a company specifically going after another company by reducing their rates and a company being smart about how they start their business.

    And “Free” is a business model. Google allows us to search the internet for free, Facebook and Myspace allow us to setup profiles for Free, TechCrunch allows us to read their content for free. Free is good because it makes the marketplace more efficient and benefits consumers and not big business. None of these companies made money when they started out. A lot of the work in the beginning was done for “Free.”

80. francine hardaway
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Funny, I just wrote about this today. I think that’s why the NYT invested in Wordpress. I think there will be a free press, but it may not be print. Slowly but surely, it will shift. And the Times wants to be part of the shift. It’s another kind of convergence — between print and online.

    Great posting from Davos, Mike. I appreciate you, Scoble, and Loic sharing with all of us.

81. Leigh Anne
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    Great post and comments. Much to consider here. Two thoughts:

    1) Libraries will continue to purchase print, microfilm, and electronic database access for “the long tail.” It’s why we exist. It’s what we do. Anybody who rolled their eyes or thought “fuddy-duddies with buns” upon hearing the word “library” clearly hasn’t been to one or used one lately - librarians are just as concerned about preserving access to information, esp. as the world continues to become more technologically complex.

    2) So long as we have a generation of people who take pleasure in opening up a physical newspaper and reading it with the morning coffee or evening gin and tonic (perhaps spending some time over the crossword puzzle as they munch a bagel on a sunny Sunday), print will exist. It may not thrive, but until we have a nation of folks to whom a slow, rich, meaningful life is important, print will hang on. Squinting at the screen just doesn’t cut it for me, and I’m a technogeek deluxe (though I am one of those folks over thirty you aren’t supposed to trust).

    Just my two cents.

82. Leigh Anne
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    My apologies - mean “unimportant” in paragraph 2.

83. Steve Boriss
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Michael, You are spot on. Keep up the great work. (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)

84. anthony
    

    January 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    >>Here’s what I don’t get — why don’t news sites leave stories up for more than a few weeks? Have they never heard of the long tail?

    I run a few fairly popular blogs, and I often link to news stories on local news websites. I find that after a few weeks, those links go dead because the stories have been removed. Over the course of a few years, you’re talking about many thousands of stories that are no longer available, which destroys the amount of traffic going to the site.

    Any clue why they all seem to do this? <<

    I work at a newspaper website and have fought for this and lost. We can’t sell enough ads as it is now with our inventory of 14 days of stories. My boss says we can make more money selling the stories out of the pay archives than making them free.

85. Humble Pie
    

    January 25th, 2008 at 7:21 am

    @Anthony — Good Lord! Your boss must be fairly representative of the market too, from what I’ve seen.

    Many papers and TV stations have pitifully poor design, and accessibility/ease-of-use (i.e. navigation, etc.) hasn’t been updated since the site was created (sometimes, 10 years ago). Most also also have not bothered to hire anyone with any grasp of Search Engine Optimization (SEO), so perhaps their long-tail potential would be greatly diminished. Now, I’m basing that on the dozens I’ve seen, but I’d wager that it’s a fair characterization.

    If your paper had the right folks on staff to fully optimize the hundreds, or thousands, of stories in your archive. Well. Your boss would probably wonder why he/she hadn’t done this sooner.

    And if there is no ad inventory, simply fill up the slots with AdSense or Yahoo! ads. A few cents a click, a few cents CPM, multiplied by thousands of well-optimized pages generating significant organic (i.e. FREE) traffic….and you’ve got a business that can survive — even thrive.

86. Philippe Borremans
    

    January 25th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    Hi Michael,

    It is true that in Europe a lot of daily newspapers were born out of the propaganda machine of political groups (later parties) way back in the 18th an 19th century and that in some cases you can still sense the political “background” of some newspapers.

    Here in Belgium almost all newspapers were born out of political struggle. However, the quality of their reporting is so high and their bias so limited that you can refer to them as “independent” newspapers.

    I think that in principle, a government should stay out of any kind of medium (be it press, TV, Radio) but that the day to day reality of private and state owned media is here to stay…

    And let’s face it, we all know that in the US Fox is as good as the government’s news channel and that some newspapers are so biased that their reporting has to be taken with a serious pinch of salt…

    A more interesting phenomenon is the creation of a citizen journalism school by the founders of OhMyNews… but then we’re into another debate of course…

    Kind regards from Brussels.

87. Marco Almondine
    

    January 25th, 2008 at 10:03 am

    I read the NY Times every day online. My roommate just subscribed to the paper version. The differences: online it’s easy to filter out the sections I don’t care about (e.g. sports) - just don’t click on them. No big pile of paper to cart down to the recycle bin. And, it’s free. I can sit on the couch with my notebook computer, so the old desk chair vs. couch problem is no more. The only upside to paper is you can read it on public transit and leave it for someone else when you’re done. Maybe the ads for Broadway shows and such that are not replicated online.

    The website is simply a more convenient version of the newspaper - one less packet of newsprint does not mean one less reader. The paper version might pack in more ads (and they are not filtered out by Adblock Plus), so revenue per subscriber might be less online, but this is a problem of how to make ads tolerable, not a problem of decreasing readership.

    Blogs are great at swarming a special event with coverage - major news events like Hurricane Katrina, SF Bay oil spill, etc. The information comes in sooner and in far more detail, especially photos. For niche interests like trade shows, blogs go far deeper than other media. However, in many cases, blogs are just somebody’s opinion, or personal experience reported as though their first impression is the whole story. Or worse, a link to somebody else’s story tagged with their opinion. For large-scale news stories with diffuse impact, like global politics or economic issues, the blogosphere seems more like a tool for keeping big media honest than a meaningful engine for reporting the big picture, unless you spend all day reading feeds and act as your own editor.

88. John
    

    January 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am

    “The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

89. Confused Philosopher
    

    January 26th, 2008 at 12:32 am

    Mike, there words for you:

    Military-Industrial-Media complex. Look it up. Better yet, look at it. It’s in your own backyard.

90. Rachel Sterne
    

    January 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Agreed out of principal at first, but Columbia J-School Dean Nick Lemann’s response to the Forbes post made me think twice. He cites BBC, PBS (Frontline), stock structures and indirect government subsidies that have long supported journalism, especially long format. He might be towing the party line with Bollinger, but his thesis is:

    “Right now the mismatch between the social mission of journalism and the market support for that mission seems to be growing, so I think we should explore other means of support for serious journalism.”

    Yes and no.

    Yes, in that sometimes market forces don’t act in the interest of the public good– the idealistic potential of media. Witness Murdoch’s brilliant media strategy and his mind-numbing sensationalist rags. They fill a popular need for mythical archetypes and good guys vs. villains but they are not an effective source of objective information. The private Knight Foundation is hugely important to supporting growth in journalism. PBS, NPR, BBC and government-financed media in democratic nations (i.e. NOT Egypt, NOT Saudi Arabia) have a pretty good track record. And who’s not to say that independent, commercial media organizations (FOX) aren’t in bed with specific political affiliations? (Though the skepticism is healthy.)

    No to Lemman in that serious journalism does not necessarily equal “traditional” journalism, and there is no need to drag our heels to try to slow an irreversible tide change. Journalism is evolving, and the new media vs. old media divide is counterproductive; an effective Fourth Estate will embrace elements associated with both. It would be more useful to focus on reality–how people really get their news today– because this is rapidly changing. My college-age sister has never purchased a print newspaper (picked up free dailies and The Onion, yes). Newspaper publishers will do well to observe what happened to music publishers: try to stop a paradigm shift in the consumer behavior of millions, try to enforce an obsolete business model, and you will fail.

    Why not support serious journalism for a changing media landscape? Imagine if the US government supported “serious” but innovative news efforts online? (Sorry Perez and Denton.) Global Voices, citizen journalism, participatory media, etc. Talk about a force for the free exchange of information– and a true check on the government’s influence.

91. Andria Krewson
    

    January 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    How about “Report for America,” borrowing from the Teach for America idea?
    Support the journalists and would-be journalists, not the companies.
    Or consider a revival of some of the programs that came out of the New Deal, without the taint of being beholden to one political party.
    Like this:
    http://globalvue.wordpress.com.....aked-idea/

92. 
    

    February 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am

    And this is why newspaper are trying to push their readers to get into RSS, desperately so even. My local one regularly uses unfilled ad space to promote rss…

93. hyokon
    

    February 11th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    I don’t think there is any such thing as ‘real media’ to begin with. The notion of an ‘industry’ is only a specific period in history, not something fixed and permanent. They all change to better reflect the time. Before, you had to join a newspaper company, not because it was ‘real’, but that was the most efficient way of making and distributing the news, given the scarcity of paper, communication, transportation, readership, etc. Nothing special. Likewise, there is no such thing as ‘real’ (vs. those little, wired, funny) bank, school, hotel, art, whatever. They all change.

    Have a look at Mass Niche, my another writing(book?) work at http://www.paragraphr.com/pages/show/11, especially ‘Rise of online fashion boutiques’. It is about ‘That’s not fashion’ outgrowing ‘real fashion’.

94. hyokon
    

    February 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    One more thing. I predict that pretty soon there will, if not already, be something like “Association of Professional Blogs”. That (establishing a trade organization) is the sign of becoming an established industry, which is followed by government adding an industry code. And 100 years from then, people forget and they think blogging just was.