Paper policy
A popular topic in the press these days is that the newspaper business is struggling. It is not very surprising that the press reports on itself so thoroughly. In Saturday’s Washington Post, Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Bowen (henceforth called “the Bruces”) give some policy advice to the folks in Congress.
Today, the less esteemed Big Bad Blog retorts.
First, a summary of the issues at hand:
1. People do not read newspapers as often as they used to. Those who keep up to date with the news generally do so via Television and the Internet. Television is still far and away the number one news source, but the Internet has recently passed print media to enter second position.
2. Local newspapers used to have local monopolies. They were the only local source of in-depth reporting. The Internet has created a competitive atmosphere, turning a business that had a 30% profit margin into a money-loser in under a decade.
3. The traditional sources of money for newspapers — classifieds and advertisements — have also been changed by the Internet. A search-related ad is better than a content-related ad. Internet classifieds are easier to search, cheaper, and reach a broader audience than those in a newspaper.
Based on points one to three above, the newspaper business is struggling. It is arguably no longer a financially viable business.
From a certain viewpoint, this is fine. Industries throughout history have come and gone, and we are the better for it. Horses and buggies gave way to cars. The Walkman gave way to the portable CD player, which gave way to the MP3 player.
From another viewpoint (aside from those of newspaper owners) this is worrisome. Journalism — particularly investigative journalism — plays a large role in a democracy. It uncovers and informs the voters regarding important issues. Newspapers employ such journalists. They provide them with the necessary resources to uncover these truths and report them. And — unable to shed brands overnight — the good ones ensure the integrity of the stories they publish.
On the Internet, where does this happen? Who ensures that the Big Bad Blog reports honestly? (Well, Mr. Topp does — but the point is that I could buy a new domain name and be reporting under a different banner tomorrow, should the world lose faith in Mr. Topp. Also, I do not have millions of dollars in resources. Unless you donate. Comment to learn more.) Newspapers touch far closer to the core of Western idealism than banks do — as such, the case for a news bailout is certainly there to be made. While the news landscape is changing, there is certainly a need to make sure that a certain kind of news does not die with it.
Which brings us to the Washington Post article. It argues that regulatory law for Internet news-spreaders needs to change. While the article itself has five long-winded points, they can be boiled down to two:
One, that search engines and content aggragators ought to be illegal.
Two, that existing antitrust and anti-monopoly laws require exceptions for the newspaper business.
On the first point, their arguments are shocking: Search engines ought not to be allowed to index entire pages, and that repeating the core idea of a piece of content is tantamount to copyright infringement.
The former argument shows a lack of understanding regarding how the Internet works — it essentially requests that Congress tear down the Internet because it destroys the local monopolies on which the newspaper industry depended. From an intellectual standpoint, there is nothing wrong with a search engine indexing entire sites. It is essentially an artificial intelligence — the more of the article it reads, the better it understands the content, and the more accurately it can point searchers.
In essence, this is tantamount to complaining that University professors read materials and then make reading suggestions to their students. The publishers could then complain that if only the professor did not read so many books they might not occasionally refer people to sources other than theirs.
What should be the final nail in the coffin of this argument is that newspapers could easily request that the SEO experts they employ instead hide material from the search engines. The article claims that “publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet.” This is not true — they have chosen to publish their materials in this medium, and they choose who can view their content. Publishers need to live with these decisions — the claim that tearing down the “search-engine databases that map the Internet” is illogical. It is jumping into the ocean, complaining that it is wet, and demanding that somebody take all the water away.
The latter argument — that the core fact that is being reported should be protected by copyright — is simply ridiculous. The writers frame it well as a necessity to protect content creators’ rights — but in the end the essence of journalism is to learn something, somehow, write about it and share it — often as quickly as possible. In other words, exactly what the Bruces propose to outlaw. The real legislation being proposed by the Bruces is to have government approved Valid News Sources which are allowed to spread news.
One cannot imagine a court in the United States upholding such a law — it would be a clear Freedom of Speech infringement. Moreover, the Big Bad Blog feels that allowing governments to determine what news sources are valid is a bad idea.
The second point hopes to save the industry by allowing it to consolidate — either under a single owner, or to be permitted to ignore anti-trust law and create a non-competitive pay-for-content pay structure.
The former point would make saving newspapers a pointless exercise. The entire reason to save the industry is the important work they do in bringing information to the voting public. As soon as the entire public is viewing events through the lens of a single person or organisation, that reason is gone. There is a reason why totalitarian regimes control the media.
More than any of the rights that were taken away in the name of the War on Terror, allowing a news media monopoly would destroy the essence of what freedom means in America.
The latter point is short-sighted — it ignores the global nature of the Internet. While American newspapers might be able to engage in antitrust behaviour, their non-American competitors would not. Who will visit American newspaper websites when The Guardian reports on the Iraq war from the UK, The Toronto Star does an excellent job of covering sports, and The Economist covers American politics just as well as any American news organisation — and better than most. It is a recipe for disaster that is best not to follow.
So, Congressmen and women — if you are reading this — please do not take the advice given by the Bruces. It is bad advice, poorly thought out, by people who clearly do not have much understanding of the Internet or the functioning of a competitive global news environment. It is not their fault that they do not understand — the concept and delivery mechanism are both quite new.
It essentially begs to have the local monopolies restored by tearing down the Internet. Failing that, it asks to allow for the creation of new monopolies which would destroy the basis underpinning democratic freedom. The Bruces propose some very bad policy.
The Big Bad Blog’s Take
It is very easy to be destructive in one’s approach to this sort of thing, and spend one’s time pointing out the flaws in the ideas of others. Today’s newspapers appear to be on their way out — they will soon be a thing of the past. Any policy which tries to restore these businesses to what they feel is their “rightful place” will be bad ones — and even policies that look good are fraught with a risk of failure.
A good policy will be easy to recognize, however. It will not just push journalism over the edge of a cliff — it will recognize that journalism provides a service which is important to the proper functioning of a modern democracy. That service — and not the form it takes — needs preservation. Good policies will understand that something needs to be done to keep this service intact through this chaotic period where the printed press is fast approaching obsolescence, but Internet journalism is not yet mature enough to take its place.
For instance, France subsidizes newspapers — a valid route, if not an ideal one. Such subsidization will have to end eventually, and withdrawing it will prove more unpopular than continuing it past the point of necessity, ensuring that a valid policy will eventually turn into a poor one.
My personal feeling is that governments should take note of the journalism awards in their country — those that celebrate breaking huge stories, nailing politicians to the wall, and so on. Real, hard-hitting journalism. They should then put a lot of money behind these awards. Organisations who win them should receive large sums of government money.
This will allow those organisations who provide the best service — as judged by neutral parties — to be able to fund that sort of journalism. And the tabloids can become poorly written weblogs, much like this one.
Sources
The Washington Post
The Economist [2]
Buzz Machine
Related articles: