The Future of American Journalism

Our Evolving Media

New eras herald different revolutions.  To impede change is to impede progress in most cases, and tends to be quite futile.  We can go far if we swim with the tide; we just may drown if we try to swim against it.  When we go with the flow, we reach some destination, we arrive safely on dry land, even if on the wrong bank. 

The media has taken a life and course of its own.  Citizen journalism is on the rise.  Journalism has become less professional, often taking blog form and taking advantage of other features the internet has to offer, but this has also made it more democratic.  As was articulated in the articles we read in the beginning of the semester, “Tiananmen + Twitter = Tehran.”  As the people begin to recognize their own power to disseminate news, naturally, they try to make it more economical.  If the professional reporter has become superfluous, then it’s time to cut.  The current recession probably also played a roll, contributing to more frugal sentiments. 

In their article, “The Reconstruction of American Journalism,” Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson offer a solution that seems quite sound to me:  collaborative pro-am journalism in which the citizens, the amateurs, gather the information, and the professionals revise and edit it so that it is “fit to print.”  As technologies have become more accessible, citizens’ contributions to media have grown significantly. 

Another dilemma faced by journalists is that content online is free.  If journalism is not profitable, it cannot survive.  This is a question of economics.  The economy functions on a system of supply and demand.  At present, the supply is exceeding the demand, and therefore, a price cannot be set.  We might solve this by making the news less freely accessible, but that would probably entail shutting down the world wide web, a highly implausible scenario.  Or we might let what is free be free, and find niches or more exclusive things that people will pay for because they cannot get this information anywhere else.

The hard news, basic events or famous statements, like what is going on with the healthcare bill or the war in Afghanistan, will be very available.  This should not be a focus of all major media.  What is now mainstream journalism should become its own niche, its own monopoly.  The basic information will still be available, but a more researched report with expert opinions should not be as accessible, and that can be charged for.  While the basic information will be available for free, a more extensive and thoroughly researched report should be done by a more limited amount of papers, maybe only very few.  Once this kind of journalism becomes its own niche, it will be easier to charge for it.

Or, perhaps something like the opinions section, op-ed and editorials, should not be included with other online content.  This should be available only in print form.  If the New York Times posted only “News” online, but omitted other sections from the online content, the sneak peak might whet readers’ appetite and give the readers a reason to still by the print edition as well.  Print sales might then increase.

Something else that might be wise to revive is narrative journalism.  This is a much more engaging form to read, and if you can hook your reader, you can sell your paper.  Stylistically interesting and captivating articles should be reserved only for the print edition, accessible only for a fee.

This final point will sound drastic, and perhaps iconoclastic to any journalism devotee, but maybe we should just stand by idly and let what happens happen.  Is there enough of a demand for journalism to flourish without any intervention?  If there is no demand, then maybe there is no need.  When people stopped using candle light and moved on to electricity, it would not have been a good idea to promote candles and discourage the use of electricity in the name of keeping things the way they always were.  If traditional journalism is like that candle, maybe it would be best if we just let it not die, but certainly take more of a back seat.  But I don’t think that will happen.  I think that if we really decreased supply, demand will remain constant, and will not let journalism die.  And maybe the fear of losing journalism, and newspapers, will stimulate a greater demand and give the current situation the boost it needs.

Before we ask how we might preserve traditional journalism, we must ask what is the purpose of journalism.  And if it can be better served through some new venue, we must be prepared to move on.