It's not Groundhog Day, it's oscillating between the horns of a dilemma
There is a central dichotomy for news media organisations. Doing the news properly is very expensive. To do the news properly means being completely independent. Funding the news generally depends upon advertising revenue. Advertising requires a relationship with the advertiser. This is a conflict because how can you have an independent activity when it is dependent, for its function, on precisely those from whom it should be independent in the first place? If you see what I mean.
Al Jazeera is probably the most respected news service in the world - it will remain so long as it gets its funding from a hands-off benefactor. Second in reputation to AJ is the BBC's news service. It is funded by public license fee and is quickly in trouble with which ever government is in power at any given time. It's mandated to speak truth to power.
It seems these things go in cycles. In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought and saved the New York Times by focusing on excellent and principled journalism. This worked out very well for a long time.
The trouble is that when a news organisation is a public corporation then it has a financial responsibility to its shareholders to maximise the return on their investment. This means maximising advertising revenue. If your journalists go after those whom you need as advertisers, then there is a conflict and you'll probably put on the pressure to go easy.
Almost exactly one hundred years after Ochs saved the NYT, a group calling themselves the Committee of Concerned Journalists met to answer fundamental questions about journalism. The results of their various studies and cogitation were published in a book, 'The Elements of Journalism'. Summarised as a set of guiding principles at http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles these are pretty much what Ochs used as a successful business model.
Earlier this year I interviewed senior people from various parts of the industry and I found the common message that they wanted to see a future predicated on excellent journalism. Interviews here: http://wan-ifra.icmbusinessvideo.co.uk/
The cycle seems to start with journalism, rich in integrity, which develops the trust of its audience. This is the bedrock of its success. Reaching a wide audience makes it attractive to advertisers. Pretty soon there is serious money flowing and a Mafia offer is made for the publication. It then becomes like other public corporations and must, by law, focus on ROI. This inevitably means encroaching on the integrity which made it a success in the first place. It compromises and uses sensationalism to retain its audience, but like class A drugs, the consumers become used to the sensational. Then things happen, and then a judge like Leveson gets involved. From the flames of what became corrupt, a new and honest journalism is born.
The reality is that serving the audience well and optimising revenue are activities which must be kept isolated from one another.
Al Jazeera is probably the most respected news service in the world - it will remain so long as it gets its funding from a hands-off benefactor. Second in reputation to AJ is the BBC's news service. It is funded by public license fee and is quickly in trouble with which ever government is in power at any given time. It's mandated to speak truth to power.
It seems these things go in cycles. In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought and saved the New York Times by focusing on excellent and principled journalism. This worked out very well for a long time.
The trouble is that when a news organisation is a public corporation then it has a financial responsibility to its shareholders to maximise the return on their investment. This means maximising advertising revenue. If your journalists go after those whom you need as advertisers, then there is a conflict and you'll probably put on the pressure to go easy.
Almost exactly one hundred years after Ochs saved the NYT, a group calling themselves the Committee of Concerned Journalists met to answer fundamental questions about journalism. The results of their various studies and cogitation were published in a book, 'The Elements of Journalism'. Summarised as a set of guiding principles at http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles these are pretty much what Ochs used as a successful business model.
Earlier this year I interviewed senior people from various parts of the industry and I found the common message that they wanted to see a future predicated on excellent journalism. Interviews here: http://wan-ifra.icmbusinessvideo.co.uk/
The cycle seems to start with journalism, rich in integrity, which develops the trust of its audience. This is the bedrock of its success. Reaching a wide audience makes it attractive to advertisers. Pretty soon there is serious money flowing and a Mafia offer is made for the publication. It then becomes like other public corporations and must, by law, focus on ROI. This inevitably means encroaching on the integrity which made it a success in the first place. It compromises and uses sensationalism to retain its audience, but like class A drugs, the consumers become used to the sensational. Then things happen, and then a judge like Leveson gets involved. From the flames of what became corrupt, a new and honest journalism is born.
The reality is that serving the audience well and optimising revenue are activities which must be kept isolated from one another.
Comments