Paul's Web Space 2.1

The Future of News & the Knight Commission

I've been working on this post for a couple months, and it keeps getting longer and longer, so here goes - the Future of News:

In February, Walter Isaacson kicked off a flurry of commentary on the state of the news business with a provocative article in Time Magazine – How to Save Your Newspaper – which asserts that news media must start to charge for content to survive, and that micropayments a-la Apple's iTunes store offer significant promise. That month I saw David Bollier speak about his book Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own. As he discussed the sharing economy of the Internet, he spent some time looking at the difficulties that the news business is having dealing with these new realities. Bollier also mentioned micropayments as a possible tool, but was more excited by a public model for funding that wouldn't threaten journalistic independence, but rather could be modeled on the early days of newspaper home delivery, which was subsidized by the Post Office.

Bollier referred to a recent article by Eric Alterman in the Nation "Save the News, Not the Newspapers," the writing of NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen, and the local citizen journalism project Spot.Us. The concept of micropayments also came up in an interesting Yi-Tan conference call I listened to that week on the Future of News — featuring Mitch Ratcliffe, Dan Gillmor, and Liza Boyd, whose blog is also titled The Future of News. Spot.Us founder David Cohn also stopped by for part of the call.

These were followed by the March release of the annual report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, State of the News Media 2009. It outlines economic trends that are rapidly worsening for traditional news media, while the adoption of online news offered by both traditional news operations as well as a growing variety of alternative sources continues to accelerate. This offers both challenges and opportunities for traditional journalistic entities to move as quickly as possible to migrate to the web and embrace new possibilities offered by interactive multimedia and participatory interfaces.

Later that month came two eye-opening pieces. Clay Shirky wrote "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable," which pretty much shredded the business-as-usual, digital version of what we were doing before solutions tried by newspapers to date. Dan Conover on the blog Xark wrote 2020 vision: What's next for news, which contained numerous provocative ideas for what's in store for journalism over the next several years. Along the same lines this month, CPSR colleague Andy Oram blogged about how we might obtain the important contributions we receive from journalism – expertise, diversity, and debate – without relying on the institutions that provide it today. A fascinating (and long) article in Vanity Fair details how the current publisher of the New York Times has made several strategic blunders recently, and thus the Times finds itself in more financial trouble than it might — in spite of publishing one of the best newspapers, with one of the best web sites, in the world.

At the April meeting of the Newspaper Association of America in San Diego, AP Chairman Dean Singleton declared war on news aggregators and search engines. Responses were fast and furious, from the likes of Jeff Jarvis and Danny Sullivan. Taking the side of the newspapers, Michael Moran wrote No Such Thing as Free News in the Nation. I saw a Tweet from Jay Rosen at the conference, asking what readers thought of a proposal that Google favor articles of "real newspapers" in search results. I say newspapers should liberally link to each other to boost their SEO, rather than Google favoring any content over any other.

Given the level of the crisis in the newspaper industry, and various proposals for government policy to assist newspapers, it was inevitable that Congress would get involved, first with House hearings in April, then with Senate hearings this week. Forbes has a nice summary of six proposals offered to the Senate explaining how they might save the newspaper business.

In my previous post, I explained how the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy seeks comment through today on the draft introduction to its report. I'm an informal adviser to the commission staff, and in my comments I say that I like a lot of what they see as possibilities for new funding models (public and/or nonprofit) and organizational structures, but there is too little about embracing alternatives to traditional journalism, about enabling citizens to take advantage of access to tools and data transparency, and of new forms of civic discourse springing up, enabled by new technologies. I believe that we need to figure out ways to help some version of the existing journalistic enterprise survive and adapt, but also encourage the development of these alternatives — only by pursuing both tracks to we hope to deliver the most information possible to enable communities to effectively govern themselves and prosper into the future.

Labels: community, democracy, future, journalism

   Link: http://future-of-news.blogspot.com/

¶ 11:00 PM | Permalink | |
Sphere: Related Content

Links to this post:

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home