Should what we do as journalists be worth nothing –- in coin?
This isn’t a question about value.
It’s about longevity: How long can we keep people interested in the journalism we’re doing?
It’s about reach: How easy can we can make it to reach as many people as possible?
And it’s about our responsibilities in a democracy: How well can we reach the many different people who want access to journalism that helps them stay informed?
One response is that many newspapers offer online news free of charge.
But why do we make a distinction between our online and print editions? It is, after all, the same news. In some cases, what’s online is an expansion of what we offer the print reader. Yet it’s free online.
So why don’t we make the print version free? If we did, we might be able to engage in another expansion — one of readership. We might get our newspapers into the hands of people who may not want to pay, or be able to pay, for it now: the poor, immigrants, young people, ethnic and racial minorities, the disenfranchised, the disconnected.
Our value lies not just in what we say but also in how many eyeballs we can reach with our stories. If our chief and most noble obligation as journalists is to give readers and viewers the information they need to make good decisions, aren’t more eyeballs better than fewer?
Wider readership will mean a more informed citizenry, betterable to make those good decisions that enable a democratic republic to function.
This column is about Journalism with a Difference. I’m suggesting that free journalism — in print as well as online — can make a very big difference in whether we get to fulfill our very necessary journalistic obligations to reach all the people.
Why we don’t give away free newspapers may have something to do with a piece I read recently in The New York Times. In the story — which focused on recent travails in the auto industry — the Times quoted Thomas Hughes, professor emeritus in the history of science and technology at the University of Pennsylvania, who said that when industries fall behind in research and innovation, it’s often because of the “overwhelming momentum” of who they are, and what they do, which seemingly precludes making the changes necessary to right the course.
Hughes’ point can apply to just about any industry that finds itself at a competitive disadvantage because of technology, or changing consumer needs and desires.
Does this sound familiar?
If you work for a newspaper, it should. Increasingly, news consumers demand several things, immediacy key among them. Online editions have been the industry’s answer. Even, if we’ve gotten here in a plodding fashion.
Another thing news consumers expect is a free product. They not only want what they want, when they want it, they don’t want to pay for it. What I’m suggesting is that print editions can help accommodate this expectation.
Essentially, readers tell us they want their news free. I’m asking whether they are talking beyond online news. I’m challenging newspapers to find the answer. Forget, for the moment, the “overwhelming momentum” that dictates that we cannot forego the circulation revenue that augments our total revenue sources.
No industry can survive by telling its customers that they are wrong. That’s what Roger McNamee, author of “The New Normal,” told conferees at the recent Associated Press Managing Editors conference in San Jose.
I realize that some newspapers have already launched initiatives heading in this direction. But in that list (just Google “free daily newspapers” and you’ll see what I mean), I’m still not seeing broad challenge to the “overwhelming momentum” of charging in print for what we provide free elsewhere. I’m not talking about starting new, free niche publications to hit certain demographics. I’m talking about the daily newspaper.
Free. On paper.
Yes, some newspapers are charging for online access –- The Wall Street Journal and, more selectively, The New York Times, to name two. But, frankly, most of our newspapers currently lack the cachet to pull this off.
There may be a presumption readers will not value what they do not pay for. This displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of the new readers we need to capture to remain viable. It’s not about price point. It’s about expectations.
Giving away (and still delivering for those who want it) what we charge for can challenge the inertia now dictated by the newspaper industry’s “overwhelming momentum.” It could make readers we do not now have, well, read. Those now reading us faithfully will continue to do so. But free papers might promise more readers generally.
Maybe newsrooms — journalists — ought to be leading this revolution at their newspapers.
Here’s where value comes in. These readers will not tolerate a lessening in quality, even if they’re not paying for it. A loss of circulation revenue might make cutbacks in newsrooms in particular very tempting. Hmm. Let’s see. People read us for our content. So, how then, does it make sense to cut back on the resources that make us content leaders?
Change the content to suit shifting needs. Change how we do things, certainly. But we can’t continue cutting news resources and then wonder why we’re losing readers.
Purely from a journalistic standpoint, is this the direction we should go?
To answer my own question, yes, journalism should be worth nothing — in coin. Because it is already one of the most priceless items in existence.
