Over the last few weeks, we’ve studied varying perspectives on the future of journalism, ranging from those who feel things are in a slight decline but will stabilize to the more Winer-esque views that traditional media as we know it will soon be over. While there isn’t a clear consensus, one thing is certain: the revenue and distribution models for newspapers and other forms of print media are already undergoing radical change and will continue to evolve over the coming years.
Innovations like sponsored articles, pay walls, user-generated content, and niche content sites come from the increasingly direct ways that consumers of news access information. The unbundling of subscription drivers like sports means more expensive features, like investigative reporting, must be able to support themselves financially. And newspapers in general can no longer rely on what was a significant part of past revenues: classified ads. Making all of this even more challenging is that print media in general faces increasing competition as sources go direct and bloggers who write for fun (and without pay) gain increasing attention through sites such as the Huffington Post.
One thing I hadn’t realized before is how advances in technology have driven a truly revolutionary change in journalism and news delivery. As someone who grew up with a local weekly paper and a daily delivered to my family’s house, I assumed that papers were still the primary source of news for most people, but that short attention spans and a general decrease in civic engagement were responsible for declining readerships. Instead, it seems that people are getting the information they want more directly through blogs, Wikipedia, and Twitter. They’re finding sites that cater to the subjects they are truly interested in, not a half-dozen sections bundled together. And they’re using the internet to collect and share articles through sites like Facebook and applications like Flipboard. Even books, which are more resource-intensive to make and already targeted to particular interests, are seeing dramatic changes. E-books, Google Books, and print-on-demand have increased accessibility and made it easier to self-publish.
The main takeaway from these technological advances, as I see it, is that it the costs of production and barriers to access have both been dramatically reduced. Clay Shirky points out the fascinating parallels between the revolutionary changes we’re going through now and the impact the printing press had in the 1400s. By making it easier to produce written works and making them portable (thanks to Manutius’s octavo innovation), the printing press disrupted existing power dynamics, made information more widely accessible, and led to a general chaos as people were unsure which old and new institutions to trust.
We seem to be in a similarly chaotic time when it comes to news and journalism. The innovators (like The Guardian), those with authority (such as the New York Times), and niche publications (like the Wall Street Journal) seem to be in the best position to survive, but it is unclear what new forms of news delivery will take the place of other institutions. Even murkier are the rules and standards that will govern whatever comes next.
Shirky’s historical perspective made me think of the current political divisions in our country. I’ve long believed that the growing partisan gap and negative politics we see today are actually a reflection of longstanding trends. The first years of elections in the U.S. were full of yellow journalism, negative campaigning, and intense partisan bickering. Just as we see today, politically-minded groups would distribute character attacks such as accusations of extramarital, out-of-wedlock children. Years later, in the bitterly partisan lead-up to the Civil War, Charles Sumner was viciously beaten on the floor of the Congress by a political opponent for having made an incendiary speech against slavery several days earlier. While I don’t think we face as great a rift in our country today, we should recognize that we have been through incredibly divisive periods in our history many times before.
While I think there is something lost in that divisiveness, particularly the ability to get substantive policy done, it may be part of the transition to a new, better place. Time and time again, we have moved beyond partisanship and used the lessons learned from it to propel our nation forward, enacting the Bill of Rights, abolishing slavery, and developing a social safety net. Unfortunately, we are relearning those lessons now, but I am confident that we will reach another age of cooperation and progress.
Similarly, journalism has faced its challenges. While the transition to the web may mean rediscovering the idea of sponsored news with political motives, as well as the echo chamber of press dedicated to those who already believe its message, I believe that we will eventually demand a new journalistic standard for our online news sources. Editorial oversight, neutral points of view, and substantive stories will return to popularity – but it will take time and the concerted efforts of people like Eli Parisier, who point out to the rest of us what we’re missing when we allow our information sources to be filtered down to what we expect to see.
