If you had asked me five years ago, you would have seen I was a stalwart defender of newspapers, even to the point of disdain with the term newspaper industry; instead likening newspapers to the people’s surrogate covering society’s waterfront, as Bill Kovatch and Tom Rosenstiel refer to in their 2001 book The Elements of Journalism. Newspapers, to me, is an art form. If there was ever a true believer, I am one.
One cannot dispute the decline in revenue. Between 2010 and 2015, 30 percent of all journalism jobs were lost in Canada, and 27 dailies ceased publishing. Over the same period, advertising revenue has fallen from around $2.9 billion to $1.75 billion, this according to the once anticipated. The Public Policy Forum, The Shattered Mirror, a year-long consultation commissioned by Canada in 2016. The report also tells of an undisputable tale: three-quarters of a billion dollars per year of reliable classified advertising revenue found its way to eBay and Craigslist.
The report validated several public questions. “Why pay for a newspaper when you can advertise and find the same information online, for free?” Here is a medium of real-time actors, reprogrammable, self-referential, and divergent, as one forward-thinking professor in 1999 said, and then demonstrated by folding an 8.5 x 11 paper in half, “News that fits into your pocket”.
He just had to go there, didn’t he? I didn’t, no, I refused to listen, though I heard. What he didn’t say was that over time, and with patience, this digital medium, one that I welcome, would become a newspaper’s best friend. Yes, some advertisers have migrated to the online ecosystem, but not all. We can never move away from the idea that newspapers need advertisers, as much as they need us.
Journalism is Journalism, period
There are different reasons made by newspaper owners for resisting the online ecosystem. The most often is that the quality of journalism is better in newspapers. Here I disagree. Search for a 2015 three-part series titled, Missed Signs. Fatal Consequences in the Austin American Statesman, and you’ll find its journalists created a damning narrative about the state of child protective services in Texas. Weaving together original source documents, data, photos and video, the heartbreaking series covers the story from different angles.
One more for good measure. A hard-hitting ProPublica piece, The Demolition of Worker’s Comp, in the same year, with original illustrations, photography and interactive data hammered home the struggle and the injustice people face who are injured on the job.
It’s clear we are seeing journalism content being written for the strengths of smartphones and tablets, open interactivity, a visual utopia, and second-by-second, with play-by-play updates, a tap of a screen, and also, for those willing to see, in newspapers.
Another argument is that newspapers, especially community newspapers are the embedded protector of corruption, with a single voice positioned at the gates of each community. The philanthropic act of serving as the fortresses of truth and justice, as the pulse of the community and as a mass collection of local stories, complete with preserved data and snapshots in time; even its conscience, isn’t an argument. This is a fact.
Bring back the Journalists
It’s clear we are seeing journalism content being written for the strengths of smartphones and tablets, open interactivity, a visual utopia, and second-by-second, with play-by-play updates, a tap of a screen, and also, for those willing to see, in newspapers.
An extension of the non-digital argument comes with the question of where will the professional content come from when all the newspaper reporters are out of work. The Public Policy Forum refers to a, “…model of journalistic ‘boots on the ground’ backed up by a second platoon in the office upholding such hallowed standards as verification and balance”. The essence of journalism is the discipline of verification. Journalism is where it is, good or bad, period.
Too little, but not too late?
My own realization of the digital transitioning came to me, clearly, in April of 2014, during a media lobby day on Parliament Hill. I was just over a year as the Executive Director of the Quebec Community Newspapers Association when I was invited to participate in a campaign supported by the then Canadian Community Newspapers Association to convince the Canadian government to continue its advertising in newspapers, and not move all its advertising to the online realm.
A member of parliament, albeit of the opposition party, was asking us, “What we are doing to help our newspapers transition to digital?” My thought was, “What do they know that I should know?” That warning was echoed by other parliamentarians throughout the day, and it was clear to me later that future government policy was already shifting to the online ecosystem.
The argument against digital
There is a good argument against digital. Digital subscription and advertising revenue have not made up for the loss of revenue of print advertising industry-wide. Once-promising digital-first news sites such as BuzzFeed and Vice 2017 missed revenue targets, and Mashable, valued in March 2016 at around $250 million, sold for less than $50 million. Still, these are good numbers. A more substantial and convincing argument is that without quality local news coverage, governments could see lower rates of voter turnout. Added, is that small communities without serious local news coverage demonstrate less social cohesion and a potential loss of any genuine sense of community.
