Journalism On The Brink - Can Digital Save It?

Last week a group from the PN Seattle office attended a panel discussion on the current state of journalism at the University of Washington. Our city may be only weeks away from losing one paper, The Seattle P-I, and on the way to losing another due to financial problems, which is why this discussion has been especially relevant for many in Seattle. We put together our own panel from PN Seattle to discuss the questions that many newspapers are asking themselves today. Feel free to add your own .02 on whether or not you think digital can save journalism in the comments section.

Do you think people should have to pay for journalism?

Angie: Yes and no. Yes in the sense that good journalism is not free. Besides salaries, there is a real cost to that travel to Iraq, to that server holding news archives and streaming videos, to that coffee with a trusted source. But the question is what does “pay” really mean here… by suffering through advertisements, product placement and other cost supplements we are in a sense paying for it, which I believe is a necessity. But paying for each article via an iTunes-like model or paying for “the rest of the story” to me doesn’t seem sustainable. The Internet will find a way to = free.
Jessica: Nope. Supplementing the cost of journalism with advertisements allows everyone to get what they want. Journalists get paid and the people get the information they want.
Rob: I don't think they should "have to" pay for it. Honestly, no one "needs" journalism to survive in this world so really the onus is on journalists to prove their value, just like any other service-based profession. Some argue that democracy is dependant on the fourth estate, and therefore it should be taxpayer funded as it contributes to the greater good of society. But as long as there are open records laws, journalism is basically an "aggregation" service that does the leg work that any individual citizen could do on their own. That's not the same as a military or a social service safety net that does something that regular citizens can't do and therefore requires collective funding.
Matt: Of course. Sorry, this is simple for me. There are plenty of other industries using aggregation tools to pull information or synthesize their products. Additionally, if we’re honest, name an industry that consistently puts forth quality products/services – and I mean CONSISTENTLY.
Lindsey: I’m all about journalists being paid…however; I’ve grown very accustomed to my free online content.
Kizha: I agree with Angie that people will have to pay for “good” journalism, but don’t know how it’s going to happen. I donate money to public radio stations that I like and could see myself doing the same for newspapers, but which ones and for how long? That’s where it starts to get sticky.
Sydney: I know I wouldn’t pay for it. I think lead generation and the referral process is a good place for papers to look for generating money.

Do you think online papers should build a wall around their content, i.e. WSJ?

Angie: If too many start to do it I sense a backlash and focused hacking so we could all get to it anyway. The WSJ gets away with it now because they are the behemoth and their readers have money to pay extra.
Jessica: No, because as long and information is posted online people will access it for free if they want. The cost can again be supplemented by advertising.
Rob: Walled content will only work when the value of that content justifies the cost AND there are no suitable alternatives. Most outlets can't meet both of those bars. Those that do better also need some sort of barrier to entry, otherwise a competitor will emerge that will find a way to fund it without charging.
Matt: Yes, but there needs to be added return – beyond news consumption – for subscribing. There should be a social network-like community behind that wall to engage with loyal subscribers. Perhaps journalists are available in an online forum to discuss their notes and process for creating the piece? This would help communicate the “true cost” of journalism.
Lindsey: I think it can work in certain isolated situations, but most online papers don’t have the audience or the credibility of the WSJ necessary to pull it off. I don’t think it is a long-term solution.
Kizha: Heck no! It seems stupid when the online walled content is only available to subscribers, who presumably read that information in the print publication already.

Should local papers only focus on local content?

Angie: What local papers?
Jessica: I disagree. As a consumer of journalism I want to be able to get a broad sweep of news in one place. Also, a local twist on national news can be extremely interesting.
Rob: Yes. Because of the proliferation of information sources, I no longer consumer news "generally." I consume news in a very "specific" way. I only visit sites that I trust will provide me with the best and deepest pool of information on a particular topic. For Seattle tech news, I'll visit TechFlash. For sports news, I'll visit ESPN. For news on my friends, I'll visit Facebook. For weather news, I'll visit weather.com. The only area that local papers can possibly compete is on local news and even there they are starting to be replaced by blog sites like myballard or PhinneyWood that provide news on my immediate community.
Sydney: Good Point Rob. I don’t think the local community blogs will be able to compete for ad dollars though, but I don’t think they necessarily have to either to survive.
Matt: I agree with Rob here. A special part about local papers is their ability to service niche audiences. They understand the local scene.
Kizha: I do think they should focus primarily on local content and I get frustrated when most of the content in my local paper is syndicated from other national papers or wire services.

When papers go will investigative reporting go with it along with the budget?

Angie: Sadly I think this is the trend. Activist citizens will always work to uncover the truth in the same spirit of investigative reporting, but there still has to be a filter for truth in there, an objectivity that is missing from citizen journalism. I hope we figure out a model where the big conglomerates still find budget for deep, investigative looks at top issues that affect us, but don’t see any future there for localized reports.
Jessica: Agree with Angie that they will likely go away. I am not sure that bloggers have the resources to dig up dirt may not care about those local stories. But investigative reporting will continue for national stories.
Rob: No. The great thing about the connections that the Internet has created is that it only takes one citizen to bubble up issues any more. Investigative reporting is going to give way to hyper transparency that comes with networked communities. One person uncovers corruption, deception, etc. and carries that message to an interested community that has already formed around that topic. For example, there is a very strong community that has formed around environmental issues. One individual who uncovers illegal dumping can very easily bring that topic to the attention of the environmental community. The environmental community then continues the "investigation" and builds upon the story and may bring it to the attention of other related communities (say a community that has formed around a particular company/brand). Eventually, that issue may reach the attention of the "mainstream media" that survive the current consolidation.
Matt: Doubtful. I’m pretty sure investigative reports will always be valued. We love stories; folks communicating in a unique voice will always be heard. The budget is perhaps another story.
Sydney: John Cook said, “bloggers=beat reporters” and I like the idea of a bunch of bloggers stooping around their neighbors trying to collect dirt for stories. This won’t replace the investigative reporting that we need though so we’ll have to rely on bigger sites like MSNBC.com for this that will have bigger budgets.
Lindsey: I echo Sydney here. I thought it was so interesting that John Cook said, the most investigative pieces of his career were done at TechFlash. Again, I think there will always be a place for traditional, old school investigative journalism, but I think we need to be open to the fact that solid, investigative reporting will have many faces in the future. And maybe that is a good thing.

What are your thoughts on reporters coming out behind their bylines and being a part of the conversation?

Angie: I’m loving the momentum here toward real dialogue. Reporters start a conversation with each story so why shouldn’t they continue it?
Jessica: I am also on board with this but am concerned about premature story telling. When a reporter starts telling the story bit by bit, readers may get the wrong idea and jump to conclusions. But the idea of "celebrity" reporters, which they discussed during the panel, is very interesting. Following a journalist because you like them in addition following the news seems like an interesting idea as long as they remain objective.
Rob: Journalism has long lacked transparency and it has created problems for the industry (see "Glass, Stephen"). The old model is somewhat predicated on the supremacy of the journalist, who is the arbiter of the "truth" for his readers. I think it’s an arrogant assumption and discounts the ability of the reader to apply their own filters, knowledge, etc. to understand the news, which is often not as black and white as it may seem. By making journalism a participatory endeavor, we get more perspectives which gets us closer to the "truth."
Matt: I like the idea. Although, Monica was a bit patronizing in her tone. Bringing down the barrier between journalists and the public is what classic reporting is all about.
Lindsey: I know that I find myself drawn to writers whom I feel I know. There will always be a place for the traditional, old school journalist, but I like where this new direction is taking us as well.
Kizha: I’m all for it, but I do worry about independent reporters having some sort of protection from lawsuits (or as many bloggers today have seen, threats).
Sydney: Overall I support this idea because that is what we encourage our clients to do online everyday to strengthen their brands and I think anytime you can bring people closer to your brand or the news is a good thing.

What do you think about papers partnering with private foundations, do you think that’s a good model for making money?

Angie: Seems like a slippery slope here as I agree that ultimately that influence inevitably creeps over. Like Ross was saying last night, I want to keep the wall up!
Matt: Eh, yes and no. I think for that to be possible the public must embrace partisanship for what it is – a plate of cheeses. That way, journalists employed by a certain publication have no conflicts of interest. They can seek out the publication that works best with their “voice” and let the games begin.
Jessica: Ethically, they should stay away from private sponsorship because it would be easy to fall into a place where the paper becomes a vehicle for propaganda. However, as a business model it may be the only way to keep print publications alive. The PI is for sale and will go to the highest bidder or die.
Rob: I don't see how foundation ownership would differ from Hearst or Tribune or Gannett owning a paper. People somehow think having a profit motive has created the problems newspapers face. The real problem is that they are trying to be generalists in a market where information is widely available. I don't need a generalist's perspective when I'm one click away from a specialist who can provide me much better, deeper information. Because there are a limited number of specialists who report on my neighborhood or Seattle Tech news or the weather, they can charge a premium, both to consumers and to advertisers. It's simple supply and demand. These specialists won't be as big as Hearst or Tribune or Gannett but they won't have to support the massive cost structure of an organization that size, either.
Kizha: I agree with Rob, I don’t see how it would be so different from our current model. And frankly, papers with a strong “voice” are often the ones I am attracted to. Locally, Real Change is a publication run by a non-profit, and although I would certainly never rely on them for all of my news, I think they provide a valuable POV that I wouldn’t be able to get anywhere else.