The weekend is here, so I figured I’d take a brief departure from sustainability talk to share a few thoughts on another, growing interest of mine: journalism. Publishing as a whole — but journalism especially — is in dire straits these days, as the paid subscription/ad supported revenue model has all but dissolved with the rise of the internet. And, for many newspapers and magazines who had been hanging on, our tanking economy has been the death blow.

The web has effectively turned journalism’s economics upside down, shaken out its pockets and stolen its lunch money. Where authoritative writing and reporting used to be in relatively small supply, the rise of blogging, the net’s “free” culture, and the tiny overhead costs of online publishing have blown the “supply” door wide open. Now, with a laptop, camera and an internet connection, we can all be “reporters.” The effect: supply is huge, demand is lukewarm, and revenue drops.

In an attempt to keep the news behind the castle walls, some papers and magazines  have been playing with the idea of erecting an electronic pay-wall in their websites, through which one would have to pay an iTunes-style fee per article (or some variation of that plan). It appears that nobody but Rupert Murdoch thinks this is a particularly tenable idea, and most of the others on board are increasingly being referred to as “old media” (what does that say??).

While journalists are on the edge of their seats, what’s really troubling about this situation is the implications that loom for quality writing. Sure, news is free online — but smart, professional, in-depth reporting and analysis isn’t cheap. Bloggers are great, but they aren’t New York Times foreign correspondents. The notion that professional journalism can be replaced by hyperlocal “citizen journalists” and social media, is, well…a big problem for democracy. Good citizenship is dependent on good information about the world. That’s part of journalism’s job — to grease the wheels of democracy with a flow of good information.

In response to all this, a number of people are coming up with interesting solutions and forecasts about where journalism goes from here. Here’s a brief rundown of what’s on the table:

Government Will Pay for It: If the post-internet market can’t support good reporting — but it’s still a necessary public service — government subsidies might be the answer. But isn’t good journalism objective and free to challenge the status quo? If government is paying its way, isn’t there a potential conflict of interest here? Video, below:

Foundations Will Pay for It: Again, if the market can’t support good reporting, look elsewhere. A few folks have argued for a nonprofit model, supported, probably, by foundations and philanthropy. Doesn’t sound bad to me, but there’s still the conflict of interest issue. Could there be a way to create a healthy, “no interference” buffer zone between funder and publisher?

The Crowd Will Pay for It: Crowdsourcing meets finance. Called “crowdfunding”, this model has journalists pitching their story ideas to an online audience, who, if they like it, will pitch in donations of $5 to $5,000. Wrangle enough of those together, and you can get a story researched, written and published in the NYT. The  Bay Area-based website Spot.Us is an early pioneer — check out this interview with their founder, below:

But just because we get our news online and are confused about how to pay for it doesn’t mean great writing is out. My time at Orion magazine showed me that a) really great writing is capable of touching people’s lives and b) people still want to feel the weight of a magazine or newspaper in their hands in the morning. So I’m convinced that the curtain call isn’t in for publishing and journalism. Rather, it’ll be exciting to watch and (hopefully participate) in their coming evolution.

Share