Newspapers can’t keep distributing content for free on Web

Brian Till

Monday, Dec. 15, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Washington — A lot of conversations I’ve had over the past few weeks have centered on the American decline, not in terms of global influence and economic standing, but in terms of journalism. I’ve found myself speaking with students of the field, freelance writers and grayed reporters, all of us solemnly reflecting, as if a good friend had died.

And then something struck me: I spend hours a day reading news, digging into any paper I can find, from Lebanon’s Daily Star to the Buenos Aires Herald, but I’ve purchased only about a dozen American papers in the past year. I, I realized, am the murderer of news.

I spend my life burrowed in Lexis-Nexis, enamored by any paper available in English. I’ll grab pages from a buffet of reportage at work, and devour new stories on my BlackBerry during my commute, but I haven’t paid more than $40 for news in the past three years — perhaps not more than $100 in my life. News has simply become too accessible to pay for without a concerted effort. Free quick reads on the train, full pages by front desks at hotels, and, of course, news always available online.

About the only time I buy newspapers is before boarding planes, when digital sources will be inaccessible. About the only pages I’d paid a dime for while grounded came to me on Nov. 5. Who could pass up the historic “Obama Wins” headlines?

The better question — who in my generation even realizes the role he has played in the murder of news? Silently skimming off Google’s AP content and other major news outlets’ Web sites, where advertising tries in vain to offset the cost of reportage, my generation, and many around us, have failed to recognize the part each of us has played in the death of American journalism.

So I made a decision amid this existential crisis. I will soon be a subscriber to four American newspapers: the Miami Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Rocky Mountain News, and the Chicago Tribune — all publications in major financial distress.

My moral qualms solved, the reality remains — what will it take? How will journalism survive?

I’ve yet to find a member of my generation — as enthusiastic as many are about blogs and “new media” — who’d rather see the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times fail than cough up $100 for a subscription. But nobody’s ever asked us to; nobody ever explained to us that we’re the free riders killing the industry.

We’ve grown up with news being free, whether our parents paid for it or we stumbled across it on the Internet as young teens. In college, many of us found stacks of papers free in dining halls and student unions as publishers showered schools in hopes of building devoted young readers.

To where from here? I think the industry can survive only if big guns — the Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, which has filed for bankruptcy reorganization; The New York Times; The Washington Post; Murdoch; McClatchy; and Gannett — manage to collude. They, as a cartel, must demand that we pay for news, be it digital or print. I think a system where subscribers get Sunday print delivered combined with unlimited digital usage is a likely model.

It’ll require a far more sophisticated password system than what The New York Times employed when it kept opinion pieces and archived content cordoned off in subscription-only territory, so that people don’t share user names. It’ll also require Web pages capable of preventing text from being lifted and reprinted. Finally, it’ll take a vigilant legal effort by news corporations to keep material from being reproduced or quoted at length on parasitic blogs.

Most important, it will require leveraging the power the major newspapers have over their wire services — as major subscribers — to keep the Associated Press, Reuters and others from selling material to operations — such as Google and Yahoo — that distribute content for free. Without this dimension, getting news for free online will continue unabated, and the industry will continue toward its demise.

Surprisingly, there’s an unrelenting faith among students of the field, professors, writers, editors and even managing editors that something will break. That someone will “crack the code” and figure out how to make journalism profitable again.

I don’t think there’s a code to be cracked; I think there’s only a reality to be explained. The news industry is in collapse; a critical piece of successful democracy is in jeopardy. Unless you trust blogs to accurately and consistently report news, or trust government and business to be completely forthcoming with their misdeeds, you ought to recognize the free ride you’ve been on and stand to pay your fare.

Brian Till, one of the nation’s youngest syndicated columnists, is a writer for Creators Syndicated. He also is a research associate for the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington.

Discussion: 15 comments so far…

By turoklives

12/15/08 at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Looks looks like a pumped-up version of this story:
http://diversenews.com/2008/12/08/new-yo...

I forget the word for that.
By Citizenview

12/15/08 at 11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brian Till seems to have fallen to the delusion that all this online content is actually "FREE". The fact is that nothing is free. There are novice "players" today who are cashing money by putting up a few minutes of home video, says an article in the WSJ. You make a salary if you have a sponsor such as Coca Cola. Newspapers such as BBC would never think of charging money to its viewers. Ultimately, our newspapers govern our democracy in more than one way. It is not too different than politics. The idea is as prepostrous as that of Blago who sought something tangible for his "services".

A solid and credible newspaper will rely upon its advertizers and not its readers, especially because massive dissemination of news and views can be done at comparatively modest cost, news and views that may shakedown and effectuate social change.

Additionally, the revenues from the classifieds and huge ads can hardly be considered menial. A newspaper, in need, is not exempt from the taxpayer funds as recently shown in the case of Chicago Tribune.

Thanks to the Internet that if your idea goes into execution, the readers will move on to far too numerous sources of authentic news. No one should have to pay for the "opinions". No wonder that attitudes like this, one cannot even get a cup of water for free in America.
By goingbust

12/15/08 at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

You must make the money from advertisements. You aren't going to get people to pay for online delivery. Most stories do not seem to be reproduced online at most newspaper sites. Plus, the images that are delivered are fewer and lower resolution than in the printed version. That makes no sense, newspapers should be more like Wikipedia (which, unlike a traditional encyclopedia, not only has an article on my favorite band but separate articles for it's members, albums, and even for many of its songs). When you publish online you can suppliment with MORE, instead of LESS. Don't ask us to pay more for less. The answer is NO.
By oldcomputer

12/15/08 at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

If you're using Lexis-Nexis, keep in mind that L-N is paying the newspapers for the content you are reading. (And someone, somewhere is paying L-N a steep licensing fee to provide the service to you.)
By redferret

12/15/08 at 2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Easy enough to breakdown for people. Sites like Wikipedia, Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook all operate FREE. How do they do it? Advertising. That's the cost of doing business there. It's the same for MSN or Yahoo. If anything supplement your revenue online with services that are fee based such as classifieds.
By KDR81

12/15/08 at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

First, newspapers who didn't embrace free stuff on the internet were hit very very hard and most newspapers offer "free content" to maximize online readership.

More online readers = more online dollars via advertising.

Second, why should we trust all newspapers?

Third, there are so many competing blogs and new media sources that it is difficult for any of them to be totally untrustworthy...that is competition.

Fourth, the Las Vegas Sun kills stories for the political agenda of its own boss, Brian Greenspun...so we've heard.
By redferret

12/15/08 at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

I agree with the first two points, but the last two...
Blogs are just opinion pieces written by anyone and everyone with a modem and a keyboard. They are not at all trustworthy at first glance. Unless the person has some credentials and/or has good citations...
As for the Sun "killing" stories, hey they are a small paper and have to choose stories. There's only so much space, and unless you have proof that they do as much, it just reeks of conspiracy theories. In any case Patrick, I'm sure NPRI chooses their battles and what they want to pursue/won't.
By johnevegas

12/15/08 at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

"...the Las Vegas Sun kills stories for the political agenda of its own boss, Brian Greenspun...so we've heard."

Hilarious! You "heard" it, so it must be true. So from the same post in which you call the paper's credibility into question, you show you have none. This from the same guy whose panties were in a bunch because the Sun ran three stories on Alliante Station.

It would appear you have a chip on your shoulder for the Sun and Mr. Greenspun. Just a little. Why don't you visit Sherm's allright-rag instead?
By redferret

12/15/08 at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Excellent question john. As said before, all papers have "agendas". Some are open, some aren't. Half the agenda is what choices of stories to put out. The problem is that in this world, there simply isn't enough room to do all the stories, so you have to pick which ones. On top of which stories you run, you have to pick how much space per story, and where the story is located, (ie back pages vs front; above fold line vs below). Half the time this stuff is routine, the other half the time it is the editors' choice. I'm not saying the Sun doesn't have an "AGENDA" (cue wolf howling in the distance), I'm saying that all papers have agendas. If you don't like this paper's agenda, stop reading it. Nuff said. Besides it's not like their going to cowtow to a hard right winger calling them lefties, libs, commies, etc.
By marnold

12/16/08 at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

No, Brian, you're not murdering the newspaper business -- and you can't help revive it by paying more for a subscription. What's really killing newspapers is 1.) owners with unrealistic expectations of double-digit revenue increases that can be attained by slashing payroll, and 2.) advertisers who refuse to pay as much to advertise to you online as they do in print. The gap between online and print ad rates will eventually close, but not before many publications of all types fall into it. Maybe once the dust settles, Wall Street and the Sam Zells and Mort Zuckermans of the world will tire of their Hearstian fantasies and leave the news industry alone, and we can have a functioning press again.
By kmedd3

12/16/08 at 11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

As long as Western Media feels biased enough to only report one side to a story, I have no worries about not buying a subscription. If they were to provide the whole truth that would be worth paying for. If they go bankrupt that is thier problem. There is always the Gov't to help them with a bailout. And why not, they helped who wins the presidency by not putting all the news in print for the public to make an informed decision.
By Stabler65

12/16/08 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Interesting suggestion.
However, for years subscribers were willing to pay for daily delivery of a newspaper because they had no where else to turn. Readers developed an affinity for - and confidence in - the dailies. They trusted the editorial department to offer honest, fair, objective coverage.
This trust all went out the window over the last five years.
People still seek honest, fair, objective coverage. The expanded reach and easy accessibility of the Internet has provided readers the opportunity to research stories, issues and topics.
Be it unabashed Obama cheerleading, burying John Edwards illegitimate child stories, championing the cause of every possible sexual or social deviant who portray themselves as a victim; the hobby horses ridden by most U.S. newspaper reporters and editorial departments hold little-to-no-interest to those Americans who would traditionally be newspaper subscribers.
Why would I pay for a subscription to the LA Times when I could simply donate to the Anti-Prop 8 mob or the Democratic Party and receive a tax receipt?
The old, dried-up, left-wing prunes and the new, glossy-eyed "progressive" JS graduates are seeing their careers crumble as readers, no longer staring at the shadows on the cave walls, are discovering how twisted and dishonest most daily newspaper coverage is and how much navel-gazing goes on in the newsrooms of most U.S. dailies.
The ongoing arrogance and promoting of causes and a mindset at odds with most Americans will doom the dailies. Why pay for - and sustain - a self-centered individuals playing journalist?
By dan2548

12/16/08 at 9:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

I only read this article because it was free. Why would I pay for this kind of useless reporting is beyond me. Newsprint is killing trees, and polluting the earth. When the web starts to charge, then they can keep it to. News is all slanted and biased anyway. As Benjamin Franklin once quoted, " If you don't read the news, then you are uninformed, but if you read the news, then you are misinformed."
By RPJ

12/16/08 at 9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

A perusal of the Reader Comments on any newspaper story posted online indicates why professional journalism outshines the uniformed and conspiracy-theory laced, agenda-pushing, borderline fairytale drivel that so-called "democratic journalism" produces. I happily pay (donate) hundreds of dollars annually to NPR for this very reason; there I am exposed to balanced, reasoned, researched and insightful news reporting that encourages thoughtful discourse. That journalistic responsibility in and of itself effectively discourages random reactionaries from distracting from the kind of conversation that enlightens rather than devalues our existence.
By dr_druck

12/19/08 at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sorry Brian,

You've got this wrong in many ways.

1. Trying to fight the IP battle and charge for words on the internet is pretty much a fight that's over. Not going to happen. If the newspapers tried to "band together" then all of them will sink together.

2. Advertising has moved to Search. Consider that banner ads are dying while search investments are predicted to go up 20%. Pre-internet physical newspapers was the best way to search. Now, it's the internet and shopping centers. So..as long as newspapers continue to focus on advertising, they lose. Google owns search, with Microsoft and Yahoo following. Newspapers vs this bunch? Not likely.

3. The purpose of newspapers was to educate, inform and amuse. They lost their way when they got into the advertising biz of aggregating eyeballs to sell to advertisers.

4. Once newspapers accept that the advertising party is over, they can focus on the need for education. Given the intelligence and editorial capabilities they have in place, it should be a natural. Consider the focus on education that is going to come out of the Obama administration. Then consider the world wide felt need for learning. Then consider how broken are both High School and "Higher Ed." Then consider the ability of the new tech to bring contextualized information into classrooms in real time. Sooner or later someone is going to figure it out.

Then we'll all be reading stories about the disruption of the textbook and education business, instead of the blablabla about newspapers and journalists.