TJ and T.J.
TJ Sullivan, independent journalist and LA Observed blogger, has a modest proposal for saving journalism and by extension “American Democracy” (his caps): Take to the barricades firewalls. He wants all newspapers and magazines to shut down their Web content for a week and force Americans to pick up the dead-tree copies instead.
His proposed start date for the shutdown is July 4th, which should indicate how steeped his manifesto is in the defense-of-democracy argument. To bolster his case he uses a passage from Thomas Jefferson’s personal correspondence as a recurring motif. (Hagiography of the Founding Fathers sometimes seems to be the only acceptable genre of patriotism among Serious People.) The gist:
Jefferson went on to say that, without newspapers, he feared the American public would stop paying attention to their government. Once that happened it was only a matter of time before Jefferson, the Congress, and the whole of the American government turned into a pack of wolves preying upon sheep.
The use of Jefferson to drive the point home — like a celebrity endorsement — makes sense as far as it goes; Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were clearly very concerned that the American public remain informed, and saw newspapers as the best way to make that happen. They cared so deeply, in fact, that they passed legislation to charge newspapers unusually low postal rates: one cent to deliver each copy to a subscriber, and free delivery for copies being sent to other papers, or “exchanges.”
The exchanges were the important part, because papers in those days gathered content primarily by selecting articles that had already run in other towns and reprinting them. For free. (There weren’t even subscription charges for exchanges, because they were generally mutual. One could probably argue that the news-gathering relationship between blogs and newspapers is similarly mutual, of course.)
As a result, citizens were able to learn about what was going on in the rest of the country; as they learned more, they discussed more; as they discussed more, the people they were talking to learned more. I understand concerns about the fate of investigative journalism, but the reason journalism is so important to democracy isn’t primarily to excavate information, but to circulate it.
Sullivan’s use of the Founding Fathers’ passion for newspapers to argue for exactly the same sort of “discomfort” they deliberately avoided is ironic, but it’s typical. The press is only necessary to democracy insofar as it produces an informed populace. Once the “curmudgeons” (to crib a term from Jay Rosen) start thinking of journalism as something that comes on paper, they’re barking up the wrong dead tree.
I got the details on the Postoffice Act of 1792 from American Journalism, by Frank Luther Mott.
The big national newspapers should have organized a price-fixing cartel about a dozen years ago, much like the Ivy League’s price-fixing cartel, where they all pledged not to put their content on line for free.
The DOJ might have complained, but the Clinton Administration ultimately let the Ivy League get away with it, so why not the newspapers?
— Steve Sailer · Feb 10, 04:18 AM · #
And when those crack investigative reporters at ABC say things like the following, maybe some people would actually believe them if it was printed on a piece of dead tree:
The Senate voted 61-36 today to close debate and move forward with a gargantuan stimulus package meant to kick-start the moribund economy with $838 billion in one-time spending and tax credits
— The Reticulator · Feb 10, 05:03 AM · #
Perhaps news organizations would have a better chance suspending their printed editions for a week and forcing people to go online. Then again, before they do that, many of them had better start to consider how to best fashion an online news experience…
— E.D. Kain · Feb 10, 06:30 AM · #
Perhaps news organizations would have a better chance suspending their printed editions for a week and forcing people to go online. Then again, before they do that, many of them had better start to consider how to best fashion an online news experience…
But, sadly, online newspapers are not almost universally not fiscally solvent.
— Freddie · Feb 10, 02:07 PM · #
I think I see Mr Sullivan’s point; unfortunately, he’s about 100 years behind the times (and the Times, as well).
Jefferson was surely right. Our problem is that today’s papers bear little resemblance to those of Jefferson’s time. Today we have the “MSM” – led perhaps by the New York Times – a paper that never saw a liberal too confused to deny editorial space, and never saw a conservative fit to print. We have front-page stories about “celebrities” (whose only claim to celebrity status is being a “celebrity”) pontificating on the environment (while cheerfully living as extravagantly as before), on foreign policy, and in general, on things they have only a dim understanding of. We have papers whose mission in life is to present the Liberal Manifesto (in all its rags and patches) at such volume that we’re browbeaten into submission.
Evidently Mr Sullivan thinks that a paper’s print content is vastly different from its web content. That’s hard to believe.
“… as they learned more, they discussed more; as they discussed more, …”
The impression I get is that what they learn more of now, is Oprah and the latest sports-figure scandal – and that’s what they discuss more. As to what’s going on in Washington and their state legislatures, all they know is what that MSM has been feeding them: Democrats good, Republicans bad.
Printed newspapers are in a severe financial bind. Paper and ink costs have gone up a lot. One source puts the NYT costs at about $145,000 for a weekday edition, perhaps 3x that for Sunday. That’s just the paper and ink. Still, their circulation (in late 2007) was about 1.1 million.
— ZZMike · Feb 10, 07:53 PM · #
This is an advertising revenue problem, and therefore an advertising pricing problem. It has nothing to do with readers.
I never bought or looked at a copy of the NYT 10 years ago. Now I read its content online on a daily basis. And I can’t count how many items in other metropolitan papers I see, day after day, that I would never even think about thinking about if not for the web. Blog after blog links to all this online content, so those bloggers are reading it too, and people in turn are reading those blogs (and following the links to the items).
News outlets have more readers than ever. If they can’t find a way to capitalize on skyrocketing readership and radically reduced printing and distribution costs, they deserve to fail.
If there are to be ‘take my very valuable ball and go home’-style threats, they should be directed at the advertisers who hope to reach the large audiences who read online content.
— Dale · Feb 10, 09:00 PM · #