For anyone following the declining fortunes of the newspaper (and perhaps of journalism), there’s some interesting reading on the intertubes today. At Inside Story, MEAA communications director Jonathan Este takes a look at the trends – and the different strategies of media moguls (now making a comeback, it seems) and public companies. Meanwhile, Robert Corr examines Nicholas Sarkozy’s bailout of the French press and discusses the arguments for government intervening in the newspaper business to correct market failure that have been proposed recently.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
No, it isn’t. It’s supposed to be more, but it failed that ideal years ago. It’s not interested in being a fourth estate, it wants to be a player. Well, players take their lumps when they bet big and get it wrong. They’ve been worse than worthless at their stated purpose for far too long to be worried about who’ll fill it when they’re gone.
Absolutely it should be excluded. The only thing stopping stupid, arrogant people from doing stupid, arrogant things is the fact that they eventually starve. If I’m not willing to buy their activist journalism at the newsstand, then I’m definitely not willing to buy it at the tax return.
Sarkozy needs his head read for offering this bribe, and the papers should all commit ritual suicide for accepting it. I mean, more than they already are.
The Plan B is for them to face the consequences of their obstinate stupidity and arrogance. And good riddance too. The world will keep turning. The current spate of newspaper and magazine bankruptcies is the greatest comeuppance so far this century. Why prolong the inevitable?
The central problem is degraded product. After the smoke clears from all the stale and predictable public-private palaver (oh go on, let’s have David Marr v Tom Switzer and see if they come up with any fresh insights, oh come on let’s – it will chew up a fair bit of billable media space, eh? Eh?), this problem will remain unresolved and, it would appear, unaddressed.
Quality journalism? I think it would be a great idea.
Craig Mc is spot on. And I would not be pinning too much hope in media moguls, given the track record of the most prominent Australian media moguls – Frank Packer and Kerry Packer, John Norton and Ezra Norton, Keith and Rupert Murdoch, Sir Warwick Fairfax and Warwick Fairfax and that big fish in Tasmania, Edmund Rouse.
In various ways, they all used their newspapers to advance their particular ideologies and economic interests.
They were seldom on the side of progress. To name but a few, I suggest a reading of newspaper editorials would find little support for the miners at Eureka Stockade, the 48-hour week, the 44-hour week, votes for women, equal pay for women.
And the stupidity of the executives they appointed is mind-boggling.
For years, the major newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne, for example, ran campaigns against public transport and promoted car travel, apparently not realising that the more people travelled in cars to and from work, the less time they had to read newspapers in public transport.
They saw new technology as a means of increasing profit, not bringing news more quickly to their readers. After new technology, edition times were earlier (and generally fewer) than under the old system of hot means
For instance, up until the late 1960s, it was possible to buy an afternoon newspaer at Wynyard Station which would have the closing stock exchange prices. There were editions published at 4pm with drop-ins (for stop press and breaking news) at 5pm.
By the mid-1980s (after new technology was introduced) the last editions were around 2pm. The paper readers bought at Wynyard at 5pm would be hard pressed to have anything that happened after noon.
Sure, one problem was distribution. Clearways meant that in order to have papers delivered to newsagents in the outer northern suburbs (for example), it was necessary to have the paper trucks start very early in the afternoon. The result? The news in the paper was completely out of date.
One answer would have been to have a ring of satellite printing presses around the suburbs, so that the technology could be used to provide a better service to readers.
No, that was too expensive. So what did the bright executives come up with? Giveaways. A favourite example is that when a battleship was sunk during the Falklands War, one afternoon newspaper had a poster saying: “Win a free washing machine”. The excuse? The newspaper could not be expected to police newsagents.
Yet, the newspapers set the rules on how many newsagencies could be owned by the same interest.
Then, the marketing people took over. The result was the lifestyle segments in newspapers, heavily skewered to promoting the products of advertisers. After a while it became so blatant that even the dullest reader could not believe anything in these sections.
You want to know why newspapers failed? Try stupidity.
Oops. That should read: “After new technology, edition times were earlier (and generally fewer) than under the old system of hot metal.”
So much nonsense.The crisis in the newspaper industry is no more about the
‘Death of Journalism’ than the crisis in the recording industry is about the ‘Death of Music’.
All that has happened is that the model of production and distribution has been rendered redundant by new technology. But as with the recording industry, the owners and managers of media companies either could not or would not fully embrace new business models.
Journalism will survive -IS surviving. But an increasing number of practitioners may no longer ply their trade within the cosy confines of big listed publishing and broadcastiing conglomerates.
The NEED of people for accurate and useful reporting and analysis of world and local events has not changed one bit.
How that need will be serviced has. This is an opportunity to remake and redefine journalism.
I don’t see government subsidies as part of that.
Governments subsidising newspapers? Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea.
Why?
As well as the reasons listed by others, I would add:
1. In Australia, its unconstitutional. S. 51 gives the Commonwealth powers over telecommunications and broadcasting through an extension of its postal and telegraphy powers in 1901. The printed word was deliberately excluded from this by the drafters of Australia’s Constitution;
2. That would mean that state governments would have to subsidise newspapers. And all of the state governmments have much more important spending priorities for their taxpayers’ dollars;
3. State governments already subsidise their state’s newspapers through generous spending on job classified advertising for which there is little attention given to the relationship between dollar spend and the quality of applicants resulting from that spend, as it is a highly centralised relationship;
4. The political consequences of state governments becoming heavy investors in local newspapers would be unacceptable;
5. There is way too much evidence of bloat in numbers and salaries in Australia’s print media outlets realtive to consumer demand and quality of their final product.
The only option that could be remotely acceptable would be to allow a body like the Australia Council to fund some set number of journalists for a year to produce work for publication. This would be premised upon seeing journalism as a form of writing, and there being no prima facie reason why we pay people to write novels and poetry but not do investigative reporting.
But the amount these people get, and the accountability attached to how they used the funds, would be much greater than is the case at present. And the highest paid journalists in Australia at present would not be competitive in such a scheme. Getting $150K a year to rewrite the media releases of Shadow Ministers and recount some gossip passed on over a boozy Canberra dinner would not cut it in any program that actually evaluated the relationship between dollars spent on these people and what they actually produce.
The funny thing is it is possible to run a decent newspaper. The Australian Financial review seem to be about keeping investors informed, not about trying to mold a political agenda. It’s a little expensive but it’s actually a decent newspaper if your interested in news as news and opinion as opinion; further their opinion pieces seem to assume an education above grade 6 and cover topics other than Turnbull’s and Rudd’s latest waffle.
Interesting discussion. I think people are too optimistic about the potential for online to take over in the short term. Newspapers may well die before a viable alternative has emerged, and we can’t afford that.
Terry says a subsidy would be unconstitutional because s 51 doesn’t extend to the printed word, but he forgets the flexible corporations power.
I don’t know that a subsidy is the answer — maybe the moguls will come to the rescue — but I think Jonathan Green’s right that this is a discussion we ought to be having now, before it’s too late.
charles@7: the AFR is the world’s most expensive daily paper and provides little help in understanding (let alone forestalling or mitigating) the present economic predicament. When was the last time it broke a major story? What is the difference between rewriting a press release from a shadow minister over one from an investor relations consultant? The AFR provides little fresh insight into anything, which is reaffirmed by the infiltration of the intellectually bankrupt IPA crowd onto their editorial page. Honestly, it would be like ‘Quadrant’ becoming some sort of refuge for old communists.
Exceptions to the above: Laura Tingle’s columns on Fridays, ‘Alex’, the last of the strip cartoons with real bite (as opposed to nostalgia acts like Ginger Meggs, Snake or Bristow) …
Journos, join the queue (behind the automakers and the banks). This is an excruciatingly bad idea, for all the reasons given by people above.
Sometimes the AFR has some good essays.
Hmmm, I’d lay some of the ‘blame’ (if you can call it that) at the feet of consumers who do not want to know about anything that may disrupt their placid lives.
the fin is the only thing in Australia that even resembles a “newspaper”, and it’s too expensive to actually buy.
all of Australia’s other papers are absolute brain-dead baloney, fit only for people in a comatose mental condition. The surprising thing is not that they are suffering but that they still exist – I find it mind boggling that anybody would actually buy and read a Murdoch/Fairfax newspaper in this day and age. If they all die, then good riddance. the day can’t come soon enough.
The idea of tax money being spent on these shit newspapers brings the bile to my throat. instead of governments subsiding these pieces of print-stained toilet-paper how about reinstating a decent level of funding for the ABC that would allow it to cover the costs of investigative journalism.
Andrew E
I don’t want breaking news, I just want a reasonable summary and a few interesting articles on topics I would never consider reading about otherwise. I started buying it because I was doing a finance course, I continue to buy it because it was a better newspaper than the age, the age unlike the sun assumes you can read, but the age does go on and on about the same old thing. News flash, the port has been deepened, the desalination plant is being built and the pipeline from the Murray basin is almost finished, you lost the campaign, move on.
Since 1970 when I started work I was a regular newspaper consumer. Not any more.
I’ve managed to cut down to one a week and that one is more for the TV guide and sheer nostalgia than anything else. Newspapers are old, we’re young and that’s life.
Hasta la net victoria siempre