Why newspapers don’t need government handouts

Jeff Jarvis has an excellent post at BuzzMachine explaining, point by point, why newspapers and their lawyers are wrong to lobby the government for tax breaks, changes in copyright law and antitrust exemption. Here’s a taste of his must-read piece, on the issue of tax subsidies:

We out here don’t actually need such a subsidy because we’ve been smart enough to take advantage of the new, free press and we are not saddled with the costs of an old press. Why should we then have to subsidize the market failure and anti-strategic stubbornness of the owners of those old presses? “Congress,” they write, “could provide incentives for placing ads with content creators (not with Craigslist).” That’s just plain payola.

Wall Street Journal to launch micropayments service

The Wall Street Journal plans to start a micropayments service for individual articles this fall. Let the echo-chamber pooh-poohing begin! (Quote below is from Jeff Jarvis; emphasis is mine):

So if the Journal brings on micropayment, I fear for them that they’ll lose doubly. They’ll lose my subscription. They’ll lose my even occasional readership and the ad revenue that can come with that. They will, in a cruel irony, replace digital dollars with micro pennies.

Or, conversely, WSJ could increase readership by allowing the purchase of individual articles without the need for a yearly online subscription. Time will tell.

Rethinking the newsroom and journalism

I’m sharing a few quotes I’ve excerpted from Gina Chen’s excellent post, “Journalists must change thinking to change industry.” Chen was inspired by Jeff Jarvis’s recent blog entry about the need for journalists to add value in their newsrooms. And while Chen frequently cites Jarvis’ What Would Google Do?, her own observations are equally compelling:

• In my experience, the hurried newsroom culture doesn’t encourage deep thinking.

Indeed it doesn’t. To give but one example: Journalists on a beat are forced to quickly write stories both large and small, with no time to step back and consider, “Is my daily routine serving my readers in the way they would — and should — expect?”

• We forget that we’re a service industry: We’re in the business of helping readers make sense of their world, not of selling them news.

And yet how many times have we read articles that are little more than notebook-dumps of information? Journalists, in the rush to make deadline, have little time but to toss half-baked, confusing stories upon their readers — readers who need knowledge, and don’t care whether we’ve included a minimum of three sources, or have written an award-worthy nut graf.

Jeff Jarvis’s make-believe testimony to John Kerry

Google-lover Jeff Jarvis hasn’t been asked to speak (yet) before Sen. John Kerry’s hearing on failed newspapers. But if he were, he would say some very Jeff Jarvis-y things like:

• Newspapers and their proprietors – and, in many cases, their professionals – have had a generation to reinvent themselves and bring journalism forward into the next age: 20 years since the start of the web, 15 since the introduction of the commercial browser and craigslist, 10 since the invention of blogs and founding of Google.

• I would like to see our government follow the leads of the U.K. and Australian governments in making ubiquitous and open broadband connectivity a priority and a promise.

And, of course:

• Newspapers are going to die.

Journalists say the darnedest things

“From the moment The Times Co. purchased The Globe in 1993 it has treated New England’s largest newspaper like a cheap whore.” — Eileen McNamara, Boston Herald

“The metaphor of content as a cascading stream means there is no unit — a stream is a stream, it has no discernible building blocks.” — Martin Langeveld, Nieman Journalism Lab. (Sixteen grafs later, he writes that a drop in the stream would be a basic unit.)

“Google and aggregators and bloggers are bringing value to you; they should be charging you for the value they bring.” — Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine (He loves Google so much, he’s written a book called What Would Google Do?) He then gets ripped by a commenter who makes a convincing case that Google isn’t bringing value; it’s bringing traffic.

“Say this much for Good Old Roy. The guy never has been afraid of heights.” — Gary Shelton, St. Petersburg Times. (The too-obviously foreshadowed punch line from the always-entertaining Shelton, after opining that UNC coach Roy Williams must have felt like he was on top of the world following his team’s basketball championship.)

Newspapers “blew it,” but is it too late?

Jeff Jarvis doesn’t mince any words. In fact, he repeats the same three over and over (and over) again: “You blew it.”

Who is this “you”? Well, it’s the newspapers, natch. And the “it” they blew was figuring out how to adjust to the economy of the Web:

You blew it.

You’ve had 20 years since the start of the web, 15 years since the creation of the commercial browser and craigslist, a decade since the birth of blogs and Google to understand the changes in the media economy and the new behaviors of the next generation of – as you call them, Mr. Murdoch – net natives. You’ve had all that time to reinvent your products, services, and organizations for this new world, to take advantage of new opportunities and efficiencies, to retrain not only your staff but your readers and advertisers, to use the power of your megaphones while you still had it to build what would come next. But you didn’t.

You blew it.…

…You had a generation to reinvent the business but you did too little. I by all means include myself in that indictment because I spent my career in our industry: Guilty. I didn’t raise loud enough alarms (it felt as if they were too loud already) or accomplish enough change (not nearly enough). I blew it, too. But no last-minute hail-Mary passes will make up for our failings. Having not taken advantage of the last two decades to reinvent the news business, you’re not going to manage a rescue in two months, before the creditors come calling. That was your worst hail Mary: stoking up on debt and hoping to milk these cows for years to come. …

Michael Kinsley writes, Jeff Jarvis applauds

The interweb was abuzz today over Michael Kinsley’s Washington Post op-ed, “Life After Newspapers.” And perhaps no one was buzzing with more buzzy glee than the BuzzMachinist himself, Jeff Jarvis.

Jarvis’ post “Kinsley nails it again” (as in another nail in the newspaper industry coffin?) praises the Slate cofounder for his dismissal of government subsidies as a solution to the industry’s woes.

Jarvis, if you didn’t already know, is no fan of dead-tree media. Among his pronouncements:

Hilarious skewering of news industry bloggers

At Huff Post, Paul Dailing gives a well-deserved ribbing to the news industry know-it-alls in “How to become a ‘death of newspapers’ blogger“:

That’s why I’ve decided to become a “Death of Newspapers” blogger. I’ll join the ranks of Jeff Jarvis, Paul Gillin, Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky in competing to see who can use the most jargon to describe something everyone knows is happening.

Apparently, it’s very simple. The more you self-reference, pick feuds and talk about the failure of TimesSelect, the better you’re doing. If you make it sound like you’re the one who figured out newspapers are dying, you win.

Responses to Newspaper Revitalization Act

The blogosphere is swift and merciless. Behold the responses to Sen. Ben Cardin’s introduction of a bill that would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits (which some already do, but never mind):

Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine):

The obvious danger is government certifying what is and isn’t news and who does and doesn’t do it. Should my blog get to be a tax-free, not-for-profit enterprise? Who gets certified? Further, Cardin’s proposal also would forbid papers as charities from endorsing political candidates. That takes more voices out of the democracy. Not good.

Tim Windsor (Nieman Journalism Lab):

If the government (the government!) starts getting in the business of propping up the fading part of journalism’s business model, forget the ethical and constitutional issues, it’ll effectively cut off oxygen to the parts of the business that are trying to innovate.

Newspapers and the world of tomorrow

There is no one business model newspapers can turn to, writes Clay Shirky, citing historical precedence, revolutions and spooky “wait for it, wait for it” pronouncements of dramatic import:

Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.

Good going, Mr. Internet. Real smooth.

Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments, each of which will seem as minor at launch as craigslist did, as Wikipedia did, as octavo volumes did.

So nothing will work, but everything might. The future is wrapped in a Zen Koan. Jeff Jarvis (of course) nods in agreement: