E-Media Tidbits

Tracy Olson, via Flickr (CC license) Who will pay for journalism? That might not be the right question...

"Here, I believe, is the ultimate ethical question: If the American public does not want to pay for journalism -- in other words, doesn't find value in what we as journalists do -- should we simply stop doing it?"

It's an intriguing question, but I think it contains a few fallacies.

First, it seems to me that the "American public" has never wanted to pay for journalism -- not very much, anyway. Advertisers have always been the ones who cover the bills for the vast majority of news orgs. Subscriptions and cover prices paid by readers have always comprised just a small fraction of the revenue required most news orgs. (Hence the recent proliferation of free newspapers and magazines.) The exceptions to this have been public broadcasting, and the occasional journalistic work that emerges in long-form media (books or film/video).

Second, just because people aren't willing to directly pay cash for something does not necessarily mean they don't "find value" in it. For instance, when's the last time you personally chipped in for a clinical trial? And how are you paying for that air you're breathing right now?

Some benefits are assumed to be part of the environment in which we exist. That's what it means to have an environment. If a benefit grows scarce to the point that people feel they must directly pay cash from their pocket to keep getting it, there's probably a far more dire calamity at hand than that single point of scarcity. Most people will almost always seek other free sources of a benefit first.

RELATED RESOURCES

Read more E-Media Tidbits. Get E-Media Tidbits as an RSS feed: * Copy this link and add it to your feed reader Subscribe to receive E-Media Tidbits by e-mail: *Sent Monday-Friday, 5 p.m.

I think it's important to bear in mind that people value benefits, not necessarily forms. The key benefit that journalists and news organizations have provided has been relevant, timely, accurate information that helps people make decisions, take action, and form opinions. For over a century we've established an ad-supported business model around packaging that benefit in a form known as "journalism." But that's not the only form this benefit can take, and many parts of the "American public" (and the advertising industry) are figuring that out.

...Therefore, I think the real question isn't whether we should "stop doing journalism" if people won't pay for it, but rather: How can society continue to receive the benefits of journalism, given the current media environment? Also, which players might provide those benefits, and how?

Probably that solution (or more likely, set of solutions) won't look or work like traditional journalism. It might not be done by "professional journalists" or "news organizations." It may have different values and standards. It might not even be "a business." And yes, the big risk is that society could experience harm during this transition. But society also can participate in finding new solutions.

I'm not trying to trivialize the value of traditional journalism. But the established journalism business model simply doesn't work well enough to keep as many journalists employed as before.

So which is more important: the form of journalism, or the societal benefits? Can journalists and news orgs really see past their own survival enough to consider that question fairly?