Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
iNews is not the answer
Well, I've been invited to post to a blog moderated by a professor at the Reynold's School of Journalism called Fix Journalism. The blog, as its name indicates, looks at possible ways to avoid what seems to be the news industry's coming Armageddon. Lately, the blog has been dominated by Mike Higdon defending the idea of charging micropayments for online news content (like iTunes for news). Time ran a cover story recently on the same subject, as did the Reno News & Review.
While I like that an idea to save the industry I hope to enter is finally gaining speed, I fundamentally disagree with it. Don't get me wrong, journalism needs to be fixed, it's very broken and I am a firm believer that the status quo is NEVER the best option. That being said, I feel that journalism is a public service, and forcing people to pay for the news they consume does a grave disservice to the public sphere.
"What are you talking about, stupid kid?" some of you may be asking. "We've always paid for news. 75 cents a paper. $1.50 on Sundays!"
Now now, don't fall off your wheelchair, gramps. You were never paying for the news, you were paying for a pile of cheap paper and bad ink. The coupons advertising your buy-one-get-one-free laxatives paid for the news. Since the advent of the Internet, people have been given the option of skipping the paper fee, making news not only more accessible, but arguably more convenient.
I know nobody's arguing the advantages of the Internet here, I just have to preface things a little. Ok, so picture a scenario with me. We have Joe. Joe is a poor college kid in Topeka, Kansas. Now, despite Topeka's status as a bustling international port city, it's a little hard for Joe to get international and national news. The national news he does get is often from either the local paper, which only takes Kansas-related stories off the AP wire or from The New York Times, the only other paper in town. I'm discounting TV news because it sucks. Anyway, Joe hardly has comprehensive information due to the lack of sources. Even then, we established he is poor, so he probably can't afford to buy The New York Times with his Venti latte at Starbucks every morning.
But then the Internet comes to town.
Suddenly, Joe has access to a thousand different newspapers absolutely free. Joe can make informed decisions about life. Joe can be a responsible citizen, not only of Topeka (as I'm sure he was before the Internet man rolled into town), but of all of Kansas, the United States and most importantly the world.
This world citizenship is, in my opinion, the most important thing the rise of the Internet has brought humanity. The free flow of information has expedited the understanding, free-trade and border less interactions that are requirements of a true global economy. Like it or not, globalization is being fueled by cheap infrastructure (fiber optic cables everywhere) and the free flow of information. If you doubt me here, read Thomas Friedman's The The World is Flat.
The effects of the free flow of information are much more valuable than the information itself. Basic economics teaches us that price raises, even the most minute, cause a drop in consumption. Making free information cost even a few cents has the potential to reduce its consumption by millions on a global scale. The resulting drop in education on current events and world issues sets the formation of the peaceful, productive global community back years. The poorest lose all access to the news that technology may gain for them in the future. The Joes of the world are robbed of the opportunity to become world citizens. Politics and issues that affect the entire global populaiton remain localized.
We as journalists have a public duty to educate the public on what is happening around them. A free press is essential to survival of democracy, but just as important is access to that free press. A solution needs to be found to save the journalism industry, but I cannot morally support any solution that denies access to even the smallest of minorites. Our goal as public servants should be to educate as many people as possible, not just those who can afford to pay.
I believe in what I'm doing, but am not naive enough to think I or anyone else can deserve to do it for free. The idea of micropayments for news content fundamentally compromises what I view as the very core idea of our profession. The business model of the news industy is broken, but this is not the way to fix it.
While I like that an idea to save the industry I hope to enter is finally gaining speed, I fundamentally disagree with it. Don't get me wrong, journalism needs to be fixed, it's very broken and I am a firm believer that the status quo is NEVER the best option. That being said, I feel that journalism is a public service, and forcing people to pay for the news they consume does a grave disservice to the public sphere.
"What are you talking about, stupid kid?" some of you may be asking. "We've always paid for news. 75 cents a paper. $1.50 on Sundays!"
Now now, don't fall off your wheelchair, gramps. You were never paying for the news, you were paying for a pile of cheap paper and bad ink. The coupons advertising your buy-one-get-one-free laxatives paid for the news. Since the advent of the Internet, people have been given the option of skipping the paper fee, making news not only more accessible, but arguably more convenient.
I know nobody's arguing the advantages of the Internet here, I just have to preface things a little. Ok, so picture a scenario with me. We have Joe. Joe is a poor college kid in Topeka, Kansas. Now, despite Topeka's status as a bustling international port city, it's a little hard for Joe to get international and national news. The national news he does get is often from either the local paper, which only takes Kansas-related stories off the AP wire or from The New York Times, the only other paper in town. I'm discounting TV news because it sucks. Anyway, Joe hardly has comprehensive information due to the lack of sources. Even then, we established he is poor, so he probably can't afford to buy The New York Times with his Venti latte at Starbucks every morning.
But then the Internet comes to town.
Suddenly, Joe has access to a thousand different newspapers absolutely free. Joe can make informed decisions about life. Joe can be a responsible citizen, not only of Topeka (as I'm sure he was before the Internet man rolled into town), but of all of Kansas, the United States and most importantly the world.
This world citizenship is, in my opinion, the most important thing the rise of the Internet has brought humanity. The free flow of information has expedited the understanding, free-trade and border less interactions that are requirements of a true global economy. Like it or not, globalization is being fueled by cheap infrastructure (fiber optic cables everywhere) and the free flow of information. If you doubt me here, read Thomas Friedman's The The World is Flat.
The effects of the free flow of information are much more valuable than the information itself. Basic economics teaches us that price raises, even the most minute, cause a drop in consumption. Making free information cost even a few cents has the potential to reduce its consumption by millions on a global scale. The resulting drop in education on current events and world issues sets the formation of the peaceful, productive global community back years. The poorest lose all access to the news that technology may gain for them in the future. The Joes of the world are robbed of the opportunity to become world citizens. Politics and issues that affect the entire global populaiton remain localized.
We as journalists have a public duty to educate the public on what is happening around them. A free press is essential to survival of democracy, but just as important is access to that free press. A solution needs to be found to save the journalism industry, but I cannot morally support any solution that denies access to even the smallest of minorites. Our goal as public servants should be to educate as many people as possible, not just those who can afford to pay.
I believe in what I'm doing, but am not naive enough to think I or anyone else can deserve to do it for free. The idea of micropayments for news content fundamentally compromises what I view as the very core idea of our profession. The business model of the news industy is broken, but this is not the way to fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)