Comments on: Tipping point: The Big Journalism Bail Out

By: J

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:22:54 +0000

“Money should be spent on giving regional news outlets a proper online presence. It should be spent on equipment for local audio/video.”

and who, ever, will read the online edition with any real loyalty or enjoyment?

By: Katy Murr

Katy Murr — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:43:19 +0000

*presence, even... Katy Murr’s last blog post..£2000 a month and no clutter? Would I ever say no?

By: Katy Murr

Katy Murr — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:42:48 +0000

But how do you suggest they make money from 'online prescence'? I thought that was a big part of the problem journalism is facing - people turning from print to online, and online not making enough money. Certainly it looks like the public wants to engage with online new media, yet we need to work out a way of making money from this rather than putting money into it without a suitably sustainable model. Katy Murr’s last blog post..£2000 a month and no clutter? Would I ever say no?

By: links for 2009-03-29 « Sarah Hartley

links for 2009-03-29 « Sarah Hartley — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:01:37 +0000

[...] Tipping point: The Big Journalism Bail Out | Dave Lee / jBlog "Let’s not see that money wasted on newsprint. Money should be spent on giving regional news outlets a proper online presence. It should be spent on equipment for local audio/video. It should be spent on allowing every regional newsroom to be right in the heart of the town it covers — not in some soulless newspaper factory in a big city. It should be spent on giving regionals better individual controls over their web output. It should be spent on making the coder and the graphics person as important to the news operation as the reporters, subs and editors. It should be spent on community managers, whose sole job is to reach out to readers in a way that goes far beyond a drab letters page. [...]

By: Rob Wells

Rob Wells — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:31:13 +0000

Ignoring considerations of partiality and implementation, there’s a far more serious problem with the idea of government funding.

Unlike the banks, where the government has a clear interest in propping up the failing branches of capitalism, there is no (or a very limited) interest on their part in supporting journalism.

Like the bankers who will have learned the hard way for risky loans, the press needs to learn the hard way about bad journalism.

Quickly on bankers: The only thing they will have learned is risky loans can blow up in their faces. The loans and CDOs were brilliant for them and made them fabulously rich, until they failed. They’ll do it again, using different tools.

As for journalism, the government (and many other large institutions) have an incredible interest in bad journalism. You’ve read Flat Earth News, so I won’t go into specifics. Having a press that is weak and rarely doubts the official line is great for them. A failing press that can no longer hold them to account is a wish come true.

The criminal does not give money to the police.

By: Nick Clayton

Nick Clayton — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:24:47 +0000

There are ways of subsidising news outlets at arm’s length. In the good old days of the press France used to guarantee distribution which meant far more prominence for minority newspapers than they gained in the UK.

It’s surely not impossible to find ways of providing a broad based series of subsidies covering tax, training, guaranteed local government advertising and so on. The amounts involved might not pay Polly Toynbee’s salary, but they could be sufficient to support hyperlocal news sites as a substitute for local newspapers.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:56:48 +0000

I don't like the idea of government assistance. Leaving aside the obvious issues of impartiality, the big problem is (as Polly Toynbee says in her piece) that a lot of papers, especially at a local level, are rubbish. It would be a nightmare trying to ensure that changes were actually being made, especially as many editors seem unable to grasp the value of the web, and technology in general. This isn't a particularly constructive post as I don't have a better solution, but I'm pretty sure a mass bail out wouldn't be particularly effective and would see a lot of good money being thrown after bad. Matt’s last blog post..Bye bye Convers

By: Dave Molloy

Dave Molloy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:27:01 +0000

While you're likely right that some sort of aid package would be helpful, do you really want direct intervention? The idea that an agency like the government would directly fund the supposedly non-partisan press is one with which I personally am not entirely comfortable. Charlie Beckett over at POLIS has an interesting take on this: he doesn't come down on one side or another, but he notes that in the early days of the United States, the newspaper industry was encouraged through tax subsidies, incredibly cheap postage for subscription, etc. Reduced taxation and other incentives to encourage industry growth seem like a better option. But perhaps we're way past all that.

By: Kyle MacRae

Kyle MacRae — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:45:16 +0000

That should be ‘fewer’ subs, not ‘less’ subs

By: Paul Lomax

Paul Lomax — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:27:25 +0000

I concur.

Charity IS a business model… so is being government funded.

People do still want to read (and often even buy) newspapers. Unfortunately 50p for a local rag just about covers the printing and distribution.

So it doesn’t matter whether people want to buy newspapers – it’s whether advertisers want to spend money with them. Evidence suggests many still do, but nowhere near on the scale they once did.

Some companies are trying the centralised model (city centre publishing) to get economies of scale. It’s probably the only option short of subsidisation. Perhaps more home working will provide the physical local presence?