By Raimundo Ortiz
Rupert Murdoch has an interesting take on the future of journalism. It touches on many of the different theories, aspects, and threats that lie in wait for us as we leave the protective cocoon of college.
I agreed with some of his points. Others…not so much.
One thing I like is his optimism. Journalism will fail if all of us continue to say “Woe is me” and assume everything’s going to hell. It isn’t.
Murdoch said,”Newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful. Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale.” I think he’s absolutely right. Might print newspapers suffer? Yes. However, as technology becomes part of our lives we, as journalists, have to embrace it. If print newspapers move online, so be it. The journalism can remain the same. Bright minds figured out payment models to allow the profession to succeed, and the bright minds of our generation will do the same.
A major point he made is that news organizations need to give their customers “what they want.” I took this to imply that he means employing a more salacious, gossipy style that will appeal to the masses. This, I disagree with. The New York Times avoids tabloid-type coverage and does just fine. To me, finding a lane and staying in it with quality material is the way to go. Quality journalism will always be rewarded to some extent. His model, similar to the one Michael Rosenblum proposed, strips journalism of its truest purpose. That is to inform. His comment that decreased sales mean that editors are writing news for themselves is offensive to me. No editor writes for themselves. They write for their own audience dedicated to them.
His second point is that content must have a price. To those who say “they won’t pay,” Murdoch rejects. He says people will pay for content worth it. On this point we agree. I pay for the New York Times because I’m satisfied with their news coverage. I pay for the New York Post because their sports section is excellent. If these all move online, if the quality remains people will pay for it. Simple as that.
His third point had to do with the government’s role in regulating journalism. But that’s another topic for another blog.
December 9, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
Dear Raimundo,
‘strips journalism of its truest purpose. That is to inform..’
Is this what they are teaching you at journalism school?
Go ask for your money back.
If your goal is to ‘inform’ people, then get a job writing instruction manuals for Cuisinart Food Processors.
The ‘purpose’ of journalism is to sell ads.
period.
If you think this is not the case, turn on your local news some time.
a dead body found in a a cellar
a fire in someones house
a kid who gets a kidney transplant
do any of these stories have any impact on anyone’s life in the community (save the poor bastard whose wife was found in the basement?
nope.
not a one.
watch 60 minutes. same thing.
all salacious – but nicely done.
and that is because they need eyeballs.
to sell ads.
period.
the only reason that they parrot the holy mission of journalists to so that they owners can pay you less for your work.
lucky you
wise up
December 9, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
You make great points, but if I wanted to make a ton of money I would just start my own business. I think there’s a place for that type of news, and as long as its clear that is the type of content that’s going to be in a publication that’s fine. But for “news”papers, it’s disingenuous to parade gossipy stories like Tiger Woods’ and Alex Rodriguez’s affairs as news. It’s dangerous for the future because you run the risk of an uninformed public. There’s a place for your journalism…and there’s a place for mine. That’s how it exists today and I think in the future too…irrespective of what format it takes on.