Journalism as an "ecosystem"
A large portion of the advertising revenue that has traditionally funded newsrooms will, in the foreseeable future, flow either to search engines like Google or to social networks like Facebook or YouTube. Other once-lucrative advertising markets are disappearing entirely because, for example, online classified ads have long been available for free. Op-ed by Stephan Russ-Mohl, director of the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
There was therefore much talk of wishful thinking when media experts discussed the future of journalism at an international conference in Vienna. The workshop was organized by Medienhaus Wien together with the Swiss School of Journalism MAZ and the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
Phil Meyer, the grand seigneur of US journalism research, is hoping for donations from his fellow countrymen and philanthropic activities such as Pro Publica, a patronage initiative that has just won its first Pulitzer Prize for its journalistic-investigative achievements. Alan Rusbridger, who as editor-in-chief of the Guardian is one of the pioneers of high-quality online journalism, on the other hand, hopes that subsidies will save journalism as a last resort - although it remains to be seen whether the state should reach directly into the empty pockets of citizens who are already groaning under high tax and debt burdens or redistribute the fee money for public broadcasting if the traditional income of publishers from their print media continues to dry up.
Meanwhile, the Project for Excellence in Journalism has calculated in its new annual report that newspaper newsrooms in the USA alone have shrunk by 15,000 journalists in the last three years - that is more than a quarter of all jobs that still existed in 2007. Since then, publishers have saved 1.6 billion dollars in staff costs in their newsrooms. Let's not kid ourselves: The existence of the journalism "ecosystem" is under threat, because even the best newsrooms are dependent on the input of a thousand and one other newsrooms.
Such massive cuts can neither be absorbed by citizen "journalism" (what an absurd neologism: would you confide in a run-of-the-mill citizen lawyer or a citizen doctor?) nor by donations or subsidies. As far as donations are concerned, a quick look at the statistics is enough. The share of charitable donations in the social product of western industrialized countries is in the per mille range. Only in the USA did it reach just under two percent - but that was before the crisis. It is unlikely that the willingness to donate will increase drastically just because journalism is bleeding to death. And for a variety of reasons, patrons such as Bill Gates, as well as average earners, are unlikely to shift their charitable and philanthropic activities significantly to support journalists in need, instead of - let's say - promoting malaria research or helping the earthquake victims in Haiti.
State subsidies, on the other hand, would exacerbate the problems of journalism rather than solve them. Those on the drip lose their independence. And anyone who compares the comparatively lean editorial teams of the NZZ, FAZ, Guardian or CNN with those of the SRG, ARD or the BBC should at least have an idea that state-subsidized quality journalism does not come cheap.
Which is why I can only counter Meyer and Rusbridger with my own wishful thinking: instead of putting everything online for free that they still want to sell in print, may publishers finally convince their online readers - as Le Monde, Le Figaro, the Times and soon the New York Times are trying to do - that journalistic quality and independence cannot be had for free in the long term. (Another dirty word: the "paywall" - no chocolatier or watch manufacturer would think of talking about a "paywall", or even a "wall", simply because they expect their customers to pay a fair and appropriate price for the goods they supply).
What will journalism look like in 2020? The answer will ultimately depend on whether media professionals succeed in changing the public's willingness to pay - but, if you please, in the form of flat rates, online subscriptions or micropayments to boost the self-confidence of editorial teams, rather than donations, which would have to be begged for and which are just as volatile as the advertising market in times of crisis.
Since sophisticated, research-intensive journalism is "only" about a small market segment, the chances are not so bad that this could succeed with skillful, creative and determined persuasion. However, there is now a lack of platforms in Switzerland for communicating what is needed - "journalistically" and not just in the form of PR and advertising, which are far less credible. The New York Times is doing things differently, indeed in an exemplary manner: through continuous, detailed reporting in the editorial section on the newspaper crisis, it has prepared its readers for the fact that high-quality journalism will no longer be available for free.
(PS "Media professionals": I also deliberately chose this hideous, gender-neutral word monster, which is popular in Switzerland, because in this case it is about a communicative "joint task" of journalists and media managers - across the "Chinese Wall", which is in danger of collapsing anyway and should actually separate editorial staff and publishers. Even PR people and advertisers should join in and realize that credible journalism is also crucial for their communication success - whether as a sparring partner or as an advertising environment).
Phil Meyer, the grand seigneur of US journalism research, is hoping for donations from his fellow countrymen and philanthropic activities such as Pro Publica, a patronage initiative that has just won its first Pulitzer Prize for its journalistic-investigative achievements. Alan Rusbridger, who as editor-in-chief of the Guardian is one of the pioneers of high-quality online journalism, on the other hand, hopes that subsidies will save journalism as a last resort - although it remains to be seen whether the state should reach directly into the empty pockets of citizens who are already groaning under high tax and debt burdens or redistribute the fee money for public broadcasting if the traditional income of publishers from their print media continues to dry up.
Meanwhile, the Project for Excellence in Journalism has calculated in its new annual report that newspaper newsrooms in the USA alone have shrunk by 15,000 journalists in the last three years - that is more than a quarter of all jobs that still existed in 2007. Since then, publishers have saved 1.6 billion dollars in staff costs in their newsrooms. Let's not kid ourselves: The existence of the journalism "ecosystem" is under threat, because even the best newsrooms are dependent on the input of a thousand and one other newsrooms.
Such massive cuts can neither be absorbed by citizen "journalism" (what an absurd neologism: would you confide in a run-of-the-mill citizen lawyer or a citizen doctor?) nor by donations or subsidies. As far as donations are concerned, a quick look at the statistics is enough. The share of charitable donations in the social product of western industrialized countries is in the per mille range. Only in the USA did it reach just under two percent - but that was before the crisis. It is unlikely that the willingness to donate will increase drastically just because journalism is bleeding to death. And for a variety of reasons, patrons such as Bill Gates, as well as average earners, are unlikely to shift their charitable and philanthropic activities significantly to support journalists in need, instead of - let's say - promoting malaria research or helping the earthquake victims in Haiti.
State subsidies, on the other hand, would exacerbate the problems of journalism rather than solve them. Those on the drip lose their independence. And anyone who compares the comparatively lean editorial teams of the NZZ, FAZ, Guardian or CNN with those of the SRG, ARD or the BBC should at least have an idea that state-subsidized quality journalism does not come cheap.
Which is why I can only counter Meyer and Rusbridger with my own wishful thinking: instead of putting everything online for free that they still want to sell in print, may publishers finally convince their online readers - as Le Monde, Le Figaro, the Times and soon the New York Times are trying to do - that journalistic quality and independence cannot be had for free in the long term. (Another dirty word: the "paywall" - no chocolatier or watch manufacturer would think of talking about a "paywall", or even a "wall", simply because they expect their customers to pay a fair and appropriate price for the goods they supply).
What will journalism look like in 2020? The answer will ultimately depend on whether media professionals succeed in changing the public's willingness to pay - but, if you please, in the form of flat rates, online subscriptions or micropayments to boost the self-confidence of editorial teams, rather than donations, which would have to be begged for and which are just as volatile as the advertising market in times of crisis.
Since sophisticated, research-intensive journalism is "only" about a small market segment, the chances are not so bad that this could succeed with skillful, creative and determined persuasion. However, there is now a lack of platforms in Switzerland for communicating what is needed - "journalistically" and not just in the form of PR and advertising, which are far less credible. The New York Times is doing things differently, indeed in an exemplary manner: through continuous, detailed reporting in the editorial section on the newspaper crisis, it has prepared its readers for the fact that high-quality journalism will no longer be available for free.
(PS "Media professionals": I also deliberately chose this hideous, gender-neutral word monster, which is popular in Switzerland, because in this case it is about a communicative "joint task" of journalists and media managers - across the "Chinese Wall", which is in danger of collapsing anyway and should actually separate editorial staff and publishers. Even PR people and advertisers should join in and realize that credible journalism is also crucial for their communication success - whether as a sparring partner or as an advertising environment).
