I came away from Wednesday’s Congressional hearing encouraged that a consensus could emerge around three hard truths about the future of American journalism:
- We’ve now entered the most critical phase of the transition from our analog past to our digital future: the chaotic gap between the erosion of the old and firm footing for the new.
- The most difficult, important challenge we face, as Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Coll told the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet of the Senate Commerce Committee, is “how to protect the public interest in this transition.”
- Closing the gap will require more than one bridge — think hybrid solutions as opposed to any sort of silver bullet business model.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D.-Wa., a former software executive, framed the gap in daunting terms Wednesday: “Technology evolves but a business model can take 30 years to develop.” The problem, she said, is figuring out “what we’ll do in the meantime until those (business models) are developed.”
If it’s in the public interest to preserve high quality reporting in local, state and international arenas, Coll argued, “its sudden diminishment is a matter of urgent public policy.”
What roles might government play, if any, in potential solutions for journalism’s funding crisis — the bridges across the gap?
Pegged to a similar hearing conducted by a House subcommittee, I put together a checklist last month of seven criteria to filter my preferences for possible government action. I kept my list in mind Wednesday as I watched Wednesday’s debate about such ideas as:
- Nonprofit and low profit ownership models. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D.-Md., testified about his Newspaper Revitalization Act that would qualify newspapers for the tax and other advantages of nonprofit status if they met certain requirements. Also under consideration is the L3C Low Profit Limited Liability Corporation that would enable newspapers to attract a wider range of investment and donations.
- Affordable broadband access for all Americans. Alberto Ibargüen, president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, argued that Congress should be more concerned with effective delivery of journalism to people who need it than with the preservation of particular companies. And he put universal Internet access at the top of his list of what people need.
- More imaginative publishing models. Interestingly, at roughly the time Sen. Cantwell was expressing her desire for a $12 monthly subscription fee that would get her print and electronic access to her local paper, Detroit Free Press Editor and Publisher Paul Anger was describing just that model to an industry convention in New Orleans. Wednesday’s hearing followed by several hours the announcement by Amazon and The New York Times of their partnership on the new Kindle DX. Is there a role for government in encouraging such experimentation and innovation?
Deep disagreement continues to divide various stakeholders, with Google vice president Marissa Mayer and Dallas Morning News publisher James Moroney serving as Wednesday’s leading examples.
Sen. Kerry appeared determined to play the match-maker between Google and newspapers, and both Mayer and Moroney acknowledged some common ground. It’s hard to believe that two players with so much to be gained from collaboration will continue a course of talking past each other on such issues as fair use and intellectual property rights.
But the current chaos in the news business could get much worse before it gets better, with the talent pool of professional journalists continuing to “leach,” as author David Simon put it Wednesday.
Breaking out of that chaos will require some bold new moves on the part of newspapers. Are they up to it?
Among other things, Moroney argued that his industry needs an antitrust exemption to enable newspaper execs to plot a more effective strategy for dealing with the likes of Google and Amazon. (Unlike The New York Times, the Morning News has reached no agreement for Kindle distribution. Moroney said he objects to what he characterized as Amazon’s insistence on 70 percent of subscription revenues as well as distribution rights of his paper to other mobile platforms.)
Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington objected to an antitrust exemption, contending that equipping newspapers with such license could render them “too big to fail,” just another bloated institution that couldn’t survive the demands of the marketplace.
Kerry, seeking middle ground, pressed Moroney on how such an exemption might be limited in “time, scope and duration” to avoid potential abuses.
Right about then, the Twitter traffic following the hearing produced this Tweet from Josh Stearns of Free Press, the media reform group:
During last month’s hearing before a House Judiciary subcommittee, Committee Chairman John Conyers, D.-Mi., all but dared publishers to spend less time worrying about antitrust and more time innovating.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the publishers took an innovative approach to the antitrust question and sought forgiveness rather than permission?
If you were otherwise engaged between 3 and 6 p.m. Wednesday, here’s the archived video of the hearing from C-Span 3:
