"How to Save Your Newspaper:" Another Journalism Biggy Misses the Bias Part of the Story

Yet another media biggie has written an article about the crisis in newspapers—which is all too real—and missed a huge reason for the problem. There must be a template circulating for these kind of articles, because it reflects the media’s notorious “group-think” by focusing solely on technology as the cause of the problem. From the column by Time’s Walter Isaacson:

There is, however, a striking and somewhat odd fact about this crisis. Newspapers have more readers than ever. Their content, as well as that of news magazines and other producers of traditional journalism, is more popular than ever—even (in fact, especially) among young people.

The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn’t see fit to charge for its content, I’d feel like a fool paying for it.

That last statement reminds me of the politicians who tub thump about the patriotism of taxpaying—and then avoid every dime they can, and even some they legally can’t. But I digress:

Newspapers and magazines traditionally have had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. The new business model relies only on the last of these. That makes for a wobbly stool even when the one leg is strong. When it weakens—as countless publishers have seen happen as a result of the recession — the stool can’t possibly stand.

Those first two tools wouldn’t be so short if journalists would get a clue! As I wrote here in “We Need Newspapers,” it isn’t just the technology. That alone would be a big problem, but the MSM have also alienated about 1/3 of their potential reader base by repeatedly insulting their intelligence with a highly biased and condescending attitude—even viciousness—toward people with a more conservative or less cosmopolitan bent. Often stories on crucial social controversies only give one side and are clearly trying to drive the way people think. Pertinent facts are ignored. Stories that matter go unreported. Blatant falsehoods spread. And people know they are being spun.

Isaacson concludes:

I say this, too, because I love journalism. I think it is valuable and should be valued by its consumers. Charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value. I suspect we will find that this necessity is actually liberating. The need to be valued by readers—serving them first and foremost rather than relying solely on advertising revenue—will allow the media once again to set their compass true to what journalism should always be about.

Exactly. But that is good, even-handed reportage—not advocacy for the liberal political and cultural POV. Perhaps if newspapers and news magazines quit spitting figuratively in the face of tens of millions potential customers they wouldn’t have to worry about shuttering their doors.