I’m always amused by the photograph of fellow Arkansas blogger Jason Tolbert wearing a t-shirt that says “Print is Dead,” and not because I took it. Mr. Tolbert declared the newspaper’s death many weeks back when Think Tank fan John Brummett was giving KATV’s Kristin Fisher a hard time over her Choose Your News venture. The photograph was taken at the infamous Royal Rumble between the two.
The topic of the newspaper is often discussed in this space. My friend and fellow blogger Lance Turner also dedicates a substantial amount of his space to it. In light of very bad news at the Tribune Co. and The New York Times, I’ve wondered whether the U.S. government – which seems to be throwing money at anyone who can make a large claim for it – should consider infusing dollars into the newspaper business.
At first glance this seems rather nonsensical. After all, what it the world does the federal government know about the newspaper business? If anything, the scholarship on the current crisis suggests many problems and zero solutions. What will an infusion of capital do except prolong the problem?
But Michael Kaiser of the Kennedy Center has asked for a bailout of the arts community. If you must know I’m on board with his idea because, as he notes, “It takes as much time to play Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony today as it did when the piece was composed, and the same number of actors are required for “Hamlet” as when Shakespeare wrote the play more than 400 years ago. Unlike other industries, the arts cannot cover the cost of inflation by improving worker productivity.” The short of it is this: America is better off when we fund more productions of plays, symphonies, films, and concerts.
On Sunday, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reprinted a piece in the Perspectives section by Paul Greenberg (no relation to the Dem-Gaz writer of the same name) arguing for a bailout of writers. Mr. Greenberg’s commentary probably deserves more attention here, because of this point: He polled several hundred writers and asked this question: “if given a subsidy with no strings attached that would support you at a comfortable income level for the rest of your life would you write as much or more than you do now?” 96 percent responded yes.
But the newspaper argument, often a haven for writers and their good products, would, unlike both proposals above, require a change in the business model. But change to what? That’s the question I’ve been pondering along with many others, including Joseph Duggan, a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, who argues a “let market forces decide” position in this piece in Real Clear Markets (Thumbs Up: E Star). Change, or wither and die. But whatever you do, the free market will be the final arbiter.
A free market approach is fair-minded, conservative idea that makes for a good sound bite. After all, why throw money at bad companies (I’m lookin’ at you, Hank Paulson!). However, for a free market approach to work, the market must support the creation of new publications. Put another way: newspapers can be substantiated if publications aimed at generating community-based content are created through new ventures and under new terms. But investors are going to have to jump into this business. Do you think they will?
Maybe, although I am skeptical. The most intriguing idea I’ve heard is from Joe Mathewson, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and a lecturer at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. He argues for a non-profit model. It’s exactly what you might think: take the profit margins off the table. Make the news about the news and not about the bottom line.
Still, with no discernible solution in sight and the market bearing down on newspapers, I propose this hypothesis: Allowing the market to dictate the future of the newspaper business will result in a recognizable void – perhaps for an extended period of time – in the ways news is reported at the community level.
What’s the end result? Lots of people are out of work and communities become more disconnected. Infusing capital into publications with sound business models, an effective approach to community-based news reporting, and a demonstrated ability to adapt to life on the Internet isn’t a terrible idea. Neither is running them as non-profits. Particularly when you weigh the alternative.
UPDATE: I’m late in getting this up, but thanks to the folks at the Arkansas Times blog for posting a link to this entry. It generated some good discussion on their site, which I hope you will read.
UPDATE II: Lance Turner takes a look at this issue, too, over at his blog. Have a read.
The non-profit model for newspapers has really worked well in some areas. The well-known journalism training ground and think tank, The Poynter Institute, owns and is funded by the profits from the St. Petersburg Times. A little closer to home and on a smaller size the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in Tupelo is owned by the non-profit CREATE foundation which has given milions of dollars to organizations in Northeast Mississppi. Both of these foundations were started by newspaper owners who passed the newspaper into the hands of the non-profits rather than have their family forced to sale to a newspaper chain when they died and the family couldn’t afford their (death) tax bill.
[...] I Read (via Google Reader) Blake’s Think Tank » Blog Archive » Don’t save the newspaper?Google Now Features Blog ThumbnailsWhat Will It Take to Be a Web Worker in 2009?Online video ads put [...]
Non-profit journalism, great idea so long as the funding sources are publicly identified so as to avoid astroturf news. But government infusion of capital? Terrible idea. The problem is that choices will have to be made as to which outlets get the funding, and the very fact of that choice will forever compromise the independence and objectivity of the outlet. Not to mention that history proves pretty conclusively that bureaucrats will inevitably funnel the cash in a manner that suits their own interests, not necessarily the interests of the public.