Democracy and Newspapers?

"It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom." (Associated Press). So said Walter Cronkite in an address to journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. He went on to say that consolidations and closures have left many American towns with only one newspaper and that journalists can no longer count on their employers to provide the resources necessary for them to perform good investigative journalism.

Perhaps he is referring to his own contribution to journalism over the years when he talks about depending on the media owners contribution to his efforts, but is he being a little pessimistic? There are some who share Cronkite's concerns but with a lot more proactive criticism. It could be argued, of course, that Cronkite's scaremongering is done out of service to democracy and a desire to bring the issue to the attention of the democratic masses.

Philip Meyer (who has studied the newspaper industry for three decades) says that the last daily newspaper reader will "check out" in 2044 (Farhi, 2005) and that the newspaper business has been in a downward trajectory for the past two decades. Frank Ahrens brings attention to the fact that "the industry is struggling to remake itself" (Ahrens, 2005). Cronkite's request that the media owners recognize that they have special civil responsibilities could have been made 50 years ago just as easily as February, 2007.

Farhi (2005) says that assessing any single medium in isolation gives a distorted view. Newspapers, according to Farhi, have been performing no worse than other media outlets. He goes on to say that bloggers, who some people would say are "random lunatics riffing in their underwear" (Kinsley, 2006), would be out of business without the traditional media who serve up the raw data from which bloggers draw each day. He asks the question why a billionaire (Phillip Anschutz and Lee Enterprizes) would be investing in newspapers and seeing them as a growth industry. He reminds us that new communications media rarely eliminate the old ones (the novel was not eliminated by the movies).

"At their best, newspapers hold governments and companies to account" (Economist, 2006), "The usefulness of the press is in holding governments to account - trying them in the court of public opinion." The Economist doesn't see the absolute demise of the newspaper. The few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which benefit society, the Economist says, will be in a good position to survive as long as the owners adjust to changing circumstances. Kinsley (2006) says that newspaper companies (unlike newspapers) can survive if they find the answers to the ways of the future. A survey by the American Advertising Federation (Reuters) shows that there is a shift in advertising spending away from traditional media to new media. The federation said that, "traditionally staid media categories are in need of innovation if they are to remain competitive" (Reuters). The study found that 73 percent of advertising executives plan on spending up to one fifth of their budgets on new media while 12 percent said they would spend up to forty percent of their budget on new media. Realism kicks in when we realize that Internet advertising accounts for only 3 percent of total ad spending each year (Ahrens). This indicates that the move to Internet advertising is not as big or as urgent as one might think and that the newspapers (and paper publications) will be around a little longer even if profits are down.

The top reason given by respondents for not buying a newspaper is that it is too bulky (Ahrens). Surely this can be overcome!
Newspapers have started evolving. Publishers are pushing for more online presence with more blogs and video (Reuter). Farhi argues that the daily newspaper is the most firmly anchored business to take advantage of the new media world. The infrastructure is already in place - all they need to do is adjust. The New York Times and The Washington Post break news on a 24-hour cycle to compliment what print journalists produce, and Gannett Co. Inc. has announced plans to overhaul its newsroom to report around the clock, using audio and video (Reuter). In 2003, the New York Times website became profitable and in 2004, the Washington Post's website became profitable (Ahrens). The San Francisco Chronicle has lost sales of the newspaper but it has more than 5 million visitors to its website per month (Ahrens). Some newspaper companies are using their websites to provide Internet-only content that may give in-dept information on everything. Potentially (similar to ESPN's website), this indept reporting will be available by subscription only for "moving content behind the wall" (Ahrens).

Microsoft and America Online have tried to create a local news site that out draws the newspaper online and have failed. This may be attributed to brand-name-recognition. Farhi argues that this "brand-name-recognition is another reason why newspapers are well positioned to weather the media storm.

With the existence of brand-name-recognition, media outlets in harmony (or disharmony) with individual websites, youtube, bloggers etc., I think the future of democracy in the media is amazingly healthy! Potentially, there will be ongoing aggressive criticism of every post on every site whether it is from someone's garage or The New York Times website. While the pessimist might say that it will lead to mayhem one must ask, "what is the alternative?"

Farhi says that bloggers will be, at best, a part of the news media's future, not the future itself. But bloggers can have an impact as in the case of bringing attention to the flames erupting out of Dell laptops (Economist). Kinsley (2006) asks "And where do these wannabes get their information? From newspapers, of course." He goes on to say that newspapers were born free and yet they are in chains. Perhaps this interactive media of the future will make the newspapers free again - for the people - for democracy.

The cost in producing newspapers is the paper itself (Kinsley). Therefore, in theory, giving away the news on the web for free seems like a good idea - if they can keep the advertising (Kinsley). The challenge is to adapt to the changing times and to stay afloat until they can figure out a way to be profitable and admired as a source of information. Remember there is only 3 percent of ad spending going to the web today. One must assume that a greater percentage of this ad spending will be taken by the media publications on the web in the future. Already some publications are showing profit as noted earlier (Ahrens). Frank Ahrens asks us to imagine a world where there are no printed newspapers - Perhaps a scroll from the side of your mobile phone so that you can have a large display. These ideas have been demonstrated.
Not to mention the possibility of saving the trees! The Wall Street Journal has shrunk in size to save $18 million dollars (Ahrens, October). That must convert into saved trees and helping the environment. Perhaps the savings will be allotted to good investigative journalism.

While Walter Cronkite is entitled to say his piece and have his opinion, I would suggest that he might consider that the media is on its way to establishing a democratic media as it should be - a voice for the people, by the people, a discussion, a two-way forum unlike his presentations where his "talking head" was a one way communication. And that there will always be a place for good investigative journalism to be posted on the web - whether the powers that be finance the investigation or not!
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his scaremongering is appealing to the new practitioners to be aware of the changes and to aspire to the greater ideals of the new democratic media (even if he did not!). I presume he will enjoy, for the rest of his life, the feel of a paper newspaper while he drinks his morning coffee in Urban America or in some secluded get away in the woods or by the ocean.

Whether or not I can enjoy my coffee and bagel while reading the news on a screen or a scroll from the side of my cell phone remains to be seen. I believe that there will be paper newspapers for a long time yet. Perhaps they will become more text heavy without so much advertising and perhaps they will cost a lot more than a dollar or fifty cents. Perhaps newspapers will be a media outlet for in-dept reports only. Would that be so bad? Would that be undemocratic? Would it be (un)free?


References

Ahrens, F. (2005, Feb. 20). Hard News: Daily papers face unprecedented competition.
Washingtonpost.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ahrens, F. (2005, October 12,). Wall Street Journal to Narrow Its Pages. Washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ahrens, F. (2005, Oct. 12, 2 p.m.). Newspapers: The Future. Washingtonpost.com transcript.
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Associated Press. (2007, Feb. 8). Cronkite: Pressure on Media Companies to Generate Profit
Threatens Freedom. Editor and Publisher. http://www.mediainfo.com

Economist. (2006, Aug. 26). Who Killed the Newspaper? Cover Story. Economist, p.9-10.

Farhi, P. (2005, June/July). A Bright Future for Newspapers. American Journalism Review
http://www.ajr.org

Kinsley, M. (2006, Sept. 25). Do Newspapers Have a Future? TIME. http://www.time.com

Reuters, (2007, Feb. 8). Most U.S. Advertisers Now Spending on New Media - Survey. Reuters
http://in.today.reuters.com