The Media Standards Trust* is organising a series of events: ‘Why Journalism Matters’. The keynote speakers, Lionel Barber and Alan Rusbridger have both argued that journalism does matter and that it is being practised by more people than ever before.
Both speakers pointed to innovations such as blogs, Twitter, Google docs and Wikileaks as the means by which so many more people can engage in – and with – journalism than ever before. The Guardian’s technology desk has 900,000 followers on Twitter – more than double the print circulation of the whole newspaper.
Neither were particularly gloomy about their newspaper’s prospects of survival although both predicted problems: a shrinking of the “mediocre middle” (Barber) and the shrinking of the regional press (Rusbridger). Neither had any viable solutions to the financial crisis facing big news organisations.
Lionel Barber predicted that “almost all” news organisations would be charging for online content in 12 months. Alan Rusbridger said that the commercial aspect of The Guardian was not really his job but speculated that they could monetise Twitter followers by charging for access to high profile people (which sounded dangerously like becoming a lobbyist).
The lack of clarity and innovation was also apparent at News Innovation, an unconference the MST hosted earlier this month. At a session on the future of news the audience discussed how newspapers could finding new revenue streams or apply their journalistic skills to more lucrative sources of income. As someone who has run a sometimes struggling business, such solutions were eerily familiar – and destined to fail.
But without big news organisations, journalism will not succeed. It’s the difference between busking on the street and being on the X Factor.
In some regards, news organisations have been truly radical. The Guardian’s open platform, the Daily Mail’s comment sections (with the up and down ratings) Sun Talk, Comment is Free et al. But the core product remains remarkably unchanged. Newspapers are still predicated on the notion that they need to give ‘a little bit of everything’ as if it were the only source of news for that reader. There isn’t much price differential. The USPs are unclear.
Big news organisations need more thought, more innovation and more focus. If some are to survive it will be because others have tried to be different and failed. That requires a courage apparently lacking. But big news organisations aren’t short of options. Of the 9 national daily newspapers why doesn’t anyone try:
- A cover price that reflects the cost (and value) of the content?
- Specialising in a particular aspect of journalism (investigation, celebrity, whatever)?
- Targetting a particular demographic (why no newspaper for older people?)
I’ve picked these examples because they aren’t radical and because newspapers are doing bits of all of them. But not enough and not to the logical conclusion. Tabloid editors are convinced that only the News of the World would have broken the Max Mosley story. But the others all reported it after it had broke. New outlets are succeeding (Heat magazine, Saga, Guido) but not sufficiently to fill the gap left by mass circulation daily newspapers.
I read Red and White Kop for Liverpool news (and make a small donation). I pay for LFC TV. I subscribe to The Economist because it’s delivered to my door and covers the world in more depth, and with more analysis, than I can get elsewhere. I would pay for the PoliticsHome top 100 feed. I don’t buy a national newspaper.
Big news organisations need to survive. But it appears they would rather hang together to hang together.
* declaration of interest: The Media Standards Trust pay my wages.