Thoughts on "Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and what can be done to fix it" - part 1

I’m currently meandering my way through another book as provided by Netna Nguyen.

This one, rather than being the work of a single author is actually a collection of articles written by many different journalists and analysts, each pertaining to the collapse of journalism.

This makes reading both easy and difficult. It’s divided into manageable chunks, but lacks and easy path through which to travel it, with much of the material overlapping.

Despite these difficulties the insights it offers into the current journalism framework are thoroughly intriguing. Here are some of the more interesting points I’ve had running through my head from what I’ve read so far:

The Rise of Print Media, and its failure to monetize itself online

One report briefly outlined how something as a common as the newspaper came into being, and how active it has been in shaping society, and vica versa, their impacts curious things to ponder, being so deep and diverse that one could read books worth just getting a grasp of it. It seemed like a great subject I’d like to study one day. 

More curious though was an outline of where Newspaper companies failed to make the jump to the internet in a way that ensured their survival. Their failure to charge for information is now the main reason that newspapers are failing left right and centre, advertising space not being enough to generate sufficient revenue. Still it would’ve been difficult for anyone to predict the turn of events that the internet would bring in those times.

And it’s curious to see what’s being suggested to remedy the situation, one contributor suggesting that the two largest outlets should collectively set up a pay-wall as soon as possible. One can imagine the backlash of such an action however, especially in the face of so many online outlets that provide their journalism for free.

But this leads somewhat onto another point that has been playing around in my head.

Good Journalism costs money

An idea I’ve never really stopped and considered. 

Good journalism takes time, resources, networking, agents, contacts, and people. It doesn’t just happen. And historically the only institutions capable of pulling these resources together, or to put it more simply, paying journalists, are the print media; Newspapers, magazines, etc. As these fail, so do the amount of full-time journalists. 

Add to this the increasing amount of online information sources that are built more on conjecture and opinion, and you get a significant impact on the industry’s quality. Who’s going to do the hard yards if no one’s going to pay them to?

The answer isn’t easy either, because talk can be cheap, and there are an increasing amount of people who are propagating information solely based on what their audience wants to hear.

Forced Learning

Another problem with the increasing number of news outlets is their ability to cater for individuals, or niche markets. Fewer news sources back in the times of newspapers, meant that the public was forced to read information that at least strives to be objective and factual. Now things are as partisan and disconnected as ever, as the public is permitted to meander around until they find an outlet that will indulge even the worst of ideas and views.

Some people need to be shown the counter-argument if they are to ever change their minds. Perspective is important for democracy, and that was more readily available or even forced onto people when they could not so easily pick their news source.

That will do for now. I’ll keep posting as I get through the articles. At the moment I’m about half way through the first section ‘The Crisis Unfolds’.
I recommend it for anyone curious about the world of journalism, or who might have a stake in it (which is most people).