Chicken Little or Pollyanna?

INEZ RYAN looks at a recent conference on the future of journalism.

Among the questions most frequently raised by news media professionals in recent months is how newspapers are responding to the new media environment and whether they will survive as readers shift to on-line content. A conference organised by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Walkley Foundation attempted to elicit answers to those questions but in doing so has thrown up many more questions for debate.

The Future of Journalism conference was held over two days in May at the ABC studios in Sydney. Some prominent and very experienced media professionals participated, including Time editor, Michael Elliott, The Guardian's Roy Greenslade, and Philip Meyer, author of The Vanishing Newspaper, in addition to Eric Beecher, Mark Scott, Mike Van Niekerk, Campbell Reid, and Gerard Noonan. The perspective from within the new media was also represented by Karim Temsmani of Google, Rebekah Horne (MySpace), Kath Hamilton (Yahoo), and Hugh Atkin (blogger), among others.

Topics addressed over the two days extended beyond the central question concerning the impact of new media on journalism. Discussion touched on issues such as press freedom, ethics, privacy and defamation, but the focus of the conference was on the direction of journalism in the face of technological progress and the need to identify strategies to adapt to future trends.

Anyone who has discussed these issues with editors in recent months knows that there is no simple answer to these questions. There is agreement that change is inevitable but any consensus ends there. Some commentators are predicting that the end is nigh, while others are celebrating the brave new world of diversity and free expression. The views expressed at The Future of Journalism conference were largely consistent with those two contradictory perspectives, although there was a sense that many participants were still unsure of which position is more persuasive.

The pessimistic viewpoint was epitomised by the comments of Roy Greenslade, who stated that "mass newspapers" will die and that news will ultimately be delivered on-line. At the other end of the spectrum, Jay Rosen (author of a blog on journalism known as PRESSthink) expressed his enthusiasm for a new approach to journalism whereby content is provided on a voluntary basis according to an experimental, collaborative model, such as Wikipedia. When Rosen was pressed on the issue of how journalists might make a living out of this approach, he conceded that he'd never tried to make a living out of journalism.

Thankfully, much of the discussion that took place over the two days was more optimistic. Nonetheless, it was easy to gain the impression that the news publishing industry is approaching a dark tunnel without any headlights, with fingers crossed, hoping that all the passengers will emerge safely at the other end.

A recurrent theme during the conference was the need to identify and adopt new business models that can ensure that journalism remains viable as both advertisers and readers shift to on-line. Possible strategies proffered include access to on-line content via subscription; subsidisation of quality journalism from more profitable business areas; journalists as independent bloggers; and publication of niche journalism aimed at narrow audiences of readers sharing a community of specialised interests. The model of journalism paid for by on-line advertising may prove viable in some instances, but a number of participants underlined the fact that, up to now, the profits that have been traditionally derived from classified advertising in print, and from television advertising, have not been carried over into on-line advertising. The point was also made that, while young people who constitute potential audiences for on-line news have high rates of mobile phone ownership and Internet usage, they are not willing to pay for content, making subscription problematic.

Both Philip Meyer and Roy Greenslade seriously referred to philanthropy as a means of financing journalism, citing websites such as Pro Publica as examples. However, given the relatively limited tradition of philanthropy in Australia, as compared to the United States, this suggestion failed to inspire much confidence in the future security of journalism as a profession.

There were some topics discussed which provided cause to be optimistic. Being far less dependent upon classified advertising, magazines will be largely insulated from the dramatic impact of the shift to on-line readership. While news magazines and magazines that cater to mass audiences will suffer, those magazines that cater to targeted audiences are likely to continue to have the readership and advertising revenue, which they currently enjoy, into the foreseeable future.

In general, the discussion over The Future of Journalism conference tended to explore the problems arising from the new media that need to be resolved, without proposing any significantly promising strategies to ensure the survival of quality journalism into the future. The two days of the conference should be regarded as just the beginning of the conversation rather than a solution to the problem. Viewed as such, the conference was a good start.

For more detail: http://www.thefutureofjournalism.org.au/

Inez Ryan

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2008 Index