Ouch, Picard. Since I've already Twittered about this article (literally) and asked for micropayments from my comment section (still waiting, guys...), I guess the only thing left to do with this piece is blog it. To value creation and beyond!Wages are compensation for value creation. And journalists simply aren't creating much value these days. Until they come to grips with that issue, no amount of blogging, twittering, or micropayments is going to solve their failing business models.
Let's begin where I agree. Picard writes: "The primary economic value of journalism derives not from its own knowledge, but in distributing the knowledge to others." Journalism should bring new information and ideas to readers. I agree
Content, he argues, has a social value. It gives readers useful ideas, it helps build a sense of community and, as the fourth estate, it monitors and challenges government. But it also has a material value that is completely distinct, which comes from advertising. Advertisers don't care about journalism -- only its audience. So "the real measure of journalistic value is created by serving readers" whom advertisers target. I agree.
But then he writes this:
Today, ordinary adults can observe and report news, gather expert knowledge, determine significance, add audio, photography, and video components, and publish this content far and wide (or at least to their social network) with ease. And much of this is done for no pay. Until journalists can redefine the value of their labor above this level, they deserve low pay.But didn't we just establish that journalism wasn't a function of technology but readership? If my friend, an "ordinary" adult, can report news with video components and draw enough people to consume his stuff, then he can join an ad network and begin to profit of his "ordinary" work. If he produces something truly distinct, he can join the ranks of bloggers who have, with relatively little technological skill, turned their daily musings into ad revenues.
The trouble I see with Picard's argument is that if you define value by readership, then it's hard to see how the Internet could possible suppress the value of journalism. In 2000, the New York Times' circulation was about 1 million. Today online, it's monthly unique audience is 15 times larger, and it's stories are picked up and blogged throughout the Internet world. Would Picard argue that a New York Times reporter deserves to be paid significantly less today even though his readership has increased potentially by 15-fold?
I appreciate Picard's respect for journalists who attempt to add value in addition to reporting (I haven't left my desk during this post). But I'm also concerned that a journalistic model that re-spins a dwindling core of reportage is a journalistic model dangerously leveraged on ideas instead of information.
The problem with newspapers is that they were a bundle of hard news, classifieds, sports, weather, financial information, comics, lifestyle, etc. People were willing to pay the cover price for the whole package, but were mostly interested in the non-news items.
All of those non-news categories have fled to the net, where they are done significantly better. Craigslist really is better in every way than the newspaper classifieds. Other categories are also covered in much greater depths out on the net.
The newspapers themselves thought of their reporters as the core, and the other stuff as just fluff to fill out the paper. With the "fluff" gone, they are discovering there's not enough taste for hard news alone to pay the bills.
This is why micropayments or paywalls for online papers are not going to save the business. Hard news just doesn't pay for itself, not in advertising revenues or in subscriptions. Sorry.
I would add that (ideally) you aren't just paying journalists for the work they produce - you pay them for adhering to some form of ethical standard in reporting.
You could argue that TV news has never had standards, and that some editorial pages fail miserably. But when you pick up the NYTimes, you can be reasonably sure that its reporters have been trained, have adequate resources, and more importantly, are held to a strict expectation of factual reporting (take the blowup over their reporter making up stories a few years back (which I have absolutely no inclination to look up)).
You lack those standards in non-conventional media outlets, and until they evolve, there's a place for regular reporting. The mix of blog and third-person media outlets that have no accountability, together with a readership that doesn't have a great deal of appetite to enforce it, is dangerous indeed.
Strawman,
The NY Times are some of the worst offenders when it comes to journalistic malpractice. There was new evidence just this week that NYT editors spiked a story just before the November elections that linked ACORN's illegal activities to Obama. We're better off with amature journalists than with those at the NY TImes.
I would agree that most journalists do not deserve much if anything in pay. I remember my first Journalism class in college back in 1985 where my teacher talked about the concepts bias an objectivity, libel and slander, but most important - getting the story right and fact checking.
Today's so called "Journalists" break every rule they were supposedly taught. They are advocates for their causes. They will openly lie, mislead, omit important information, take out of context, Photoshop or just make up anything they need to make their point. With the internet busting up the monopoly that the newspapers and even network TV enjoyed, the supply of this lousy product is so much greater than the demand for it. Do we really need the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago, Times, LA Times, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN and all the others echoing the same leftist propaganda?
In short, No. It's time to thin the herd.
The public knows you are liars and socialists. When you start doing your jobs and creating something of value - then we can consider paying for it.
I think (minus the philosophizing and such) the author's main point that most "journalism" has been commoditized is pretty accurate. For example, why should every paper in have a "national business" reporter or division when they could just license Reuters/AP/etc stories of likely higher quality for less money?
He also mentions that many journalists are not sources themselves; they seek-out, sort-through, and disseminate the information gathered from them. In our modern world, though many sources ("experts") provide information/analysis/whatever for free (via e.g. blogs) thereby cutting out the middleman, i.e. the journalist.
Sure, as the author indicated, some more skilled journalistic endeavors still provide value, but (often poorly) regurgitating the same crap as everyone else is a waste of resources.
As I've noticed from a few business/finance/econ journalist-types I've discussed such issues with, I notice a slight (or not) defensiveness to your account of the situation. While business reporting - especially of the quality the Atlantic provides - is mostly out of the way of the author's argument, you can still see a tinge of his argument regardless. For example, many finance/economics professionals and academics maintain their own blogs, which I think the author would argue renders (somewhat) moot the role of the financial/economy journalist in some cases.
This should not constitute an accusation, just another perspective. Keep up the good work!
Anal_yst
http://1-2knockout.typepad.com
Would Picard argue that a New York Times reporter deserves to be paid significantly less today even though his readership has increased potentially by 15-fold?
Isn't there a difference between 1 paying customer and 15 free riders? A CPA who gives free advice to 15 people deserves to be paid significantly more than a CPA with 1 paying client?
Water is important - we need it to live. It's also cheap.
Start "thinking at the margin" (an introductory econ text can help with this), and you'll understand why the price of water and journalism are so low!