I am not an economist (despite working at the LSE) and like most British political journalists, I can’t read a balance sheet. Normally, I write about the social, political and editorial aspects of media change and especially about the opportunities (and challenges) of what I call networked journalism: using new technologies to work with the public to create better news media

Beckett, Charlie

LSE Research Online

Here’s the problem: Guardian’s Rusbridger at theirOpen Weekend2012-9-24How do we save journalism?blogs.lse.ac.uk /polis/2012/09/24/how-do-we-save-journalism/I am not an economist (despite working at the LSE) and like mostBritish political journalists, I can’t read a balance sheet. Normally, I writeabout the social, political and editorial aspects of media change andespecially about the opportunities (and challenges) of what I callnetworked journalism: using new technologies to work with the public tocreate better news media.But what about the money? Who pays for it? All this online, digital, data,multi-platform stuff is (potentially) great but how do we generate therevenue to fund the skills, effort and infrastructure needed to make ithappen?In a moment, some ‘answers’.First of all, let’s acknowledge and define the problem. Thousands ofmainstream professional journalists are losing their jobs. Of course,mainstream media is growing in much of the world such as Asia and Africa,but they might well face similar structural problems in the future. There is asense that certain editorial areas are disappearing; especially expensivebut dull journalism such as council/Town Hall coverage. At the same timethe cuts in newsroom budgets mean that foreign bureaux are being‘trimmed’ and overall standards threatened by what Nick Davies haslabelled ‘churnalism’ – journalists not having the time to do any original research or even thinking.Secondly, let’s acknowledge that the economic crisis is making it all much worse. Restructuring on a rising tide isalways easier than at a time of shrinking wealth.Thirdly, this is more than just about the long-term, pre-Internet decline in newspaper readership. It is about a crisisin the advertising model itself. Not only is revenue going online but the whole idea of top down, mass marketing isbeing undermined by social networks. Content is also difficult to protect as property – even behind paywalls – so it’sharder to charge for your work. When you think about platforms changing it’s important to realise that Amazon is asmuch a model of new forms of distribution as Facebook or Google.Fourthly, there is a particular problem for newspapers (and to a degree broadcast) in that they have additional digitalexpenses without being able to lose their dead wood press costs. About 40% of a paper’s costs are the distribution,printing etc. Digital revenues are rising, but not fast enough to cover the loss of traditional revenues. Likewise,broadcasters have flashy studios instead of the bedrooms where YouTube videos are made. They can’t turn off thepresses or shut the studios because those are still their main source of revenue.I could go on. I could mention how people have such rich lives that they don’t want to waste time reading half-bakedjournalism anymore. There is far more quality and entertaining competition out there for people’s attention, fromLoLcats to Sunday shopping. So, there’s the downside. Do we give up?No. But before we get to the good news, a little context.Structural ShiftsFirstly, it is vital not to equate ‘journalism’ with ‘existing news media organisations.’ Whenever an industry changes1/4Pricey to printThe public wants to helpprofoundly because of social and technological shifts, someone gets hurt. Go talk to coal miners or car makers.Journalism itself has changed every generation. In some ways we are a19th century trade in a 21st century world.I am impressed by how media organisations have responded to the threatof the new, but at the same time I suspect that it’s hard for companies toreinvent themselves in the face of such a seismic shift. It may be that newentrants rather than legacy organisations will adapt best.There has always been an oversupply of material that most people did notwant. The on-demand world tells us precisely what people will reallyconsume. The days of hundreds of hacks all attending the same pressconferences and churning out very similar stories is over. Every platformhas to add something: quality, quantity, speed, intelligence, amorality,campaigning, investigation, wit. As we can’t all be special, we have toaccept a loss of jobs and institutions.This means that new jobs and organisations are emerging. And journalismis increasingly being created beyond the media profession. The citizendoes not want to become a journalist. They have other things to do. Butthey are contributing a vast amount of deliberate and ‘accidental’journalism. Much of this is done interactively with mainstreammedia but there’s also a vast amount of reporting, commentand analysis happening in social networks and other ‘nonprofessional’ platforms that counts as kinds of journalism.Much of it is trivial but some of it is also highly serious andexpert.I would argue, however, that in this environment of informationoverload there is more need, and even demand for peoplewho can do what journalists have always done: edit, filter,connect, analyse, package, report, investigate, etc. They haveto do it differently. Perhaps they have to be on Twitter, or theyconstruct complex data visualisations. But much of it isfamiliar: being there, telling us, explaining.The institutions might change but there is still a value ininstitutions. They provide a brand, training, legal protection, team support, cross-subsidisation, a community madeup of audience and producers. And as a commercial concern they can be a structure for investment and profit in acompetitive market.So back to the key question. How do we get people to pay for that?People Are PayingFirstly, the good news. People are.They are paying through taxes. Across Europe public service broadcasters are facing cuts but generally no worsethan their commercial counterparts. In an age of austerity PSBs appear to be holding their own politically.They are paying through subscriptions. At the top end media such as the FT and Economist appear to be makingmore money from their digital (and paper) subscriptions which in turn allow them to develop other premium services.The Times pay-wall seems to be gathering significant numbers, too. Key to this is clever use of the new screens and2/4mobile apps.They are paying through free. The Evening Standard might not be the editorial powerhouse it once was, but it hasmore readers and we are told it is solvent.They are paying online. Digital revenues are increasing. The Mail online is apparently profitable (although that’s notthe same as making enough to pay for their newsroom full of journalists who produce the paper). For organisationswith a clear digital strategy that pursue targets relentlessly there is the opportunity to dominate certain marketsenough to make money through scale or specialism. In the Mail’s case, it is millions of people around the worldogling scantily clad celebs.They are paying more realistic cover prices. Newspapers are ridiculously underpriced. For brands with relativelywell-off readers and a decent product (FT – Sunday Times) it makes sense to charge a lot more and invest it in theproduct. This seems to help stem losses. For more denuded brands (The Observer) this may be harder to turnaround, but worth trying.People will pay journalists for other stuff apart from news. In fact, news is the one thing that people never reallywanted to pay for. It was always part of a package of sport, sex, food, travel, arts, etc. So why not charge peopledirectly for what they like? The Guardian has pioneered this with its dating site and its Masterclasses while The Sunhas long been one of Britain’s biggest budget holiday providers. If Amazon (a book shop) can sell fridges, why can’tThe Telegraph?There are some people who are prepared to give journalists money. Foundations fund excellent initiatives such asthe Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Increasingly, universities or journalism schools such as City or Goldsmith’sare also supporting local journalism. This kind of funding is not a replacement for mainstream media newsrooms. Iworry about the agendas of some of the funders and the sustainability of the financing. But, especially when workingwith MSM, they can be vital areas of experimentation, development and specialisation. I would like to seeinternational NGOs think about how they might support good foreign coverage and local authorities invest inproviding a healthier environment for grass roots media.There are other structural policy changes that will help sustain journalism.  The BBC needs to open up its facilitiesmuch more to providing facilities and platforms for independent journalism. Organisations such as Facebook andGoogle that benefit from the content of journalism can do much more to redirect funds towards its creation.Leave Out The LevyHowever, I don’t think that ideas such as a £2 internet levy to fund mainstream media  are the answer. It’scommercial nonsense, politically impossible and grossly unfair. [‘Hello hard-pressed internet user, I’m from thegovernment. We’d like you to pay more to do your online shopping and Facebooking so that we can give the DailyExpress a subsidy’] Why should broadband users pay for mainstream media?How would it work? Yes, the loss-making Guardian will make a case that it provides ‘public service’ journalism, butwhy fund them and not the Murdoch-owned and profitable Sun newspaper? Why not give the money to a hyperlocalwebsite in Stoke or the hugely partisan and rude political blogger Guido Fawkes.Who would decide? Civil servants? Politicians? That doesn’t work in the interests of independent or efficientjournalism where it happens in places like France or Italy. Or perhaps we should leave it to the industry, the kind ofpeople that ran the PCC? Well, that worked out well didn’t it? But worst of all, that kind of sticking plaster solutionassumes that the product itself doesn’t need to change.Are You Worth It?In a post-Leveson world, of all worlds, the UK mainstream media has to answer the L’Oreal question. Are you worth3/4Media as a beacon of public service?it? And once they’ve done that they have to come up with much imaginative ideas than a broadband levy.In a country where we are shutting hospitals, cutting disability benefits andcharging students £9,000 a year to attend University, journalism is moreneeded than ever. But professional journalists have to justify what they domore honestly, efficiently and imaginatively than ever before, too.The boring answer to the question posed at the top of this blog is that therewill be many different answers. That’s the point of journalism in this newcomplex media world. I think that the Guardian’s Open Journalism modelsuits their culture and audience, while The Times pay-wall suits them. Wewill never go back to the Golden Age where by a wonderful coincidence,display and classified advertising of cars, lipstick and houses funded newsjournalism by huge media organisations. I don’t want to go back either. Ithink that where it works, the journalism we are now creating –professionally and with the public – is better than what went before.*****************If you want to help fund my journalism and,more importantly, find out more detail abouthow to ‘save journalism so it can save the world’ [sic] check out my book SuperMedia.It’s a few years old now (aren’t we all) but I think the general thesis still makes sense.Copyright © 2014 London School of Economics and Political Science4/4

How do we save journalism?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online