New Idea - Innovative or Radical

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Today on Bob Edwards Weekend he interviewed the authors of a new book: John Nichols and Robert McChesney have written about what they seem to think is the sad state of affairs in Journalism... not just radio, but ALL journalism. The book is "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again".

They describe their research. Then they propose a somewhat radical action to bring journalism back to front and center. The link to hear the broadcast is <www.tinyurl.com/bewjournal>. Set aside 40 minutes or so to hear it all.

Please do not turn this into a political squabble! They have a proposal that is worth discussing.

 

[johnbasalla]

If the fix involves giving the government more power over media, like having big government call the shots, most likely you can count me out. Having freedom isn't always neat and clean, but it is one of the cornerstones of our society. The bigger the government gets, the more freedom is chipped away. The only reason I mention this at this point is because there are so many activists on a variety of issues that for some reason think big government is the answer. Make more laws, more rules which equals less freedom.

 

[ericdxx]

Set aside 40 minutes or so

took me 2 seconds to read.

 

[ok walters]

link doesn't work - that's a pretty innovative idea

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Sorry. I moved on without testing the link. Shame on me.

oops. I tried it again and The Radio-Info set up strips out the url and replaces it with "Radio Info".

try this....MANUALLY!

www DOT tinyurl DOT com FORWARD-SLASH bewjournal

This should stream the Bob Edwards interview.

 

[brian65]

I don't do podcasts...yet. My computer is too slow.

Can you briefly tells us what their solution is?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't do podcasts...yet. My computer is too slow.

Can you briefly tells us what their solution is?

They cover a lot of philosophical territory. I guess the key radical point they propose is that government will need to subsidize newspapers and/or journalism in its new vehicle.

They look back at the beginning of the nation when it was decided to have a postal system whether it was self-supporting or not. I forget the exact numbers but measured in pounds or tonnage, the delivery of newspapers was about 85 or 90% of the "business" done by the post office, but the price paid by the newspapers themselves was about 15 or 20% of the revenue.

It will be easy for people with well honed political views to just shut down this concept with no discussion. Either listening to the interview or reading the transcript does give some pro-and-con issues to chew on.

Once agan... in kicking off ths topic: I have no desire to start a big free for all about big-government vs minimalist-government. I would like to see a good discussion on: What is the place of journalism in our form of self-government, and what do we need to do to keep journalism alive? (The question assumes that the current reports that journalism is dying have some validity.)

 

[Signal_Faded]

There is no reason for anyone to subsidize newspapers since they are dying because they have been passed by other technology. It would be yet another drain on our government and it would turn political. Each time a different party was in power you would see the news begin to change ever so slightly.

How to survive? I will sound like a speaker at this weeks New Media Seminar in NYC...'Content.' Give the user good, unique content that is in a format that appeals to them.

I would call this idea neither innovative or radical...more like absurd.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I would call this idea neither innovative or radical...more like absurd.

If you haven't already, I hope you will take the better part of the hour and listen to the interview. Better yet, obtain or borrow the book they have written on the subject and read it.

I find it very difficult to see myself supporting a Federal subsidy for media. But hear their story and think your way through the alternatives. Our little 200+ year old experiment in self government needs a strong, unbiased arm of journalism at work. If the daily newspapers as we have known them die (are dead already?) who fills the gap?

Newspapers are the one media that DID NOT set out to cheapen their product. They have been eaten alive by the cost of paper, the cost of new technology, and the loss of revenue to other media.

Some people in these forums cry the blues about the FCC authorizing too many radio station and splitting the radio budget too thin for stations to survive and prosper. This same radio overpopulation has contributed to the thin revenue streams for newspapers.

Hopefully it CAN happen, but we have yet to see any evidence that on-line digital media can ever assume the role of being the trusted gatekeeper of journalistic information that the newspapers have been in days gone by. I run a pretty open mail-box (e-mail) and I get quite a few "electronic journals" of one kind or another. I plow through an average of 600 e-mails per day trying to sift through the tripe, the flotsam, the goat droppings and the thinly-veiled-propaganda a.k.a. lies and "damn-lies" in hopes of finding a few gems of trustworthy opinion and even a grain or two of truth.

I'm not pushing the idea of government cash for newspapers. I AM pushing the idea that we must have SOMETHING that can be our information yardstick. If not, we will become too stupid to cast intelligent votes. We may be there already.

 

[gr8oldies]

Someone would have to decide who is and isn't a "real journalist". If the government is writing the checks, then the "journalists" aren't exactly going to be watchdogs on government. Are journalists considered to be only those whose work appears on deceased trees?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Are journalists considered to be only those whose work appears on deceased trees?

You have asked what we used to call "The $64,000 question".

I see two reasons why the newspaper crowd (along with some magazines) have been the "keepers of the measuring stick".

(1) The investment in old-technology printing plants was so large that the owners guarded jealously their reputation and standards. One of the things that has whacked away at the roots of newspaper journalism is the technology that allows suburban newspapers and small market newspapers to do electronic paste-up and use shared presses for a group of 12 to 15 papers. These little newspapers now run on a staff the size of a low-rated daytime only radio station and they gobble up ad dollars that in previous times would have fed into the old fashioned newspapers. They have no monster investment to protect so they don't cling to journalism as we used to know it.

(2) Media that uses deceased trees as a vehicle can double, triple or quadruple their news content when news is plentiful without killing their audience. Radio and TV and maybe blogging and other on-line media have decided that news content must be kept teeny-tiny because we must get back to the music or the drama or the ball-game. Media other than print don't seem to believe that anyone tunes them in to feast on news. No one who goes off to college and get a degree in journalism can hope to have a meaning career working in media where news is nothing more than a pretty little pink ribbon you scotch-tape onto your basic content: music, drama, sports, talk.

So if the newspaper or its space-age digital descendant ceases to exist, who will successfully carry the torch of journalism excellence?

 

[gr8oldies]

Reminds me of a story WLW PD Darryl Parks told. When he was running WTVN in Columbus he was invited to speak to a journalism class at OH state. He asked the class what the purpose of the newspaper is. Students answered things like being a watchdog on government, etc. Parks stated that no, it was an advertising medium. The Columbus Dispatch would not exist if they couldn't sell a full page ad on Sunday for $30k. The students were aghast!

 

[johnbasalla]

It needs to be taught that journalists and commentators are not the same thing. Journalists need to get the facts and present them in as non-biased way as possible. Commentators do the opinion pieces. Whenever I hear someone say they want to get into journalism to "make a better world", I cringe. They will want to "make the better world" based on their vision of 'a better world', which might not be mine.

 

[quadraphonic]

I think everybody in every position in every industry wants to make the best of their position and look at it from the most idealistic point of view possible. Everybody wants to do things "their way" despite how things have been done for years. Look at how politicians view the Constitution these days, even it's malleable. That optimism [and some stubbornness and even some denial of realities] is true especially when they're in college and learning about it.

Journalism is just one of those industries where you can blur the lines publicly and confuse the different masters [advertising, news, commentary], and so people do. Then, because of cutbacks and the editors letting those lines get blurred over the years, and given the idealism they all start out with, it continues.

It seems to get taught that news and commentary are different things, but because they can[/b] blur the lines, they do [human nature], just like people in most other industries do, it's just more visible in mass communications.

 

[landtuna]

I'm not going to make you any happier with my thoughts there GRC. My old high school journalism professor would be rolling over in his grave if he heard a proposal like that.

One of the things both my history and journalism teachers repeated over and over again was that an independent media (which means all media, not only newspapers) is essential to the operation of a democracy. I doubt they envisioned back then the technologies we have today and the many forms of communications - most of which have degraded the journalists work. Speed became more important than accuracy. Opinion became more important than fact. Newspapers, more often than not, became bastions for the "movers and shakers" of any given city instead of operating in the city's best interest.

But it's the best we've got and I would think a media whose journalists are employed, directly or indirectly, by the government would be the death knell of our nation.

I really doubt newspapers will die. The method of delivering the news might change. Hopefully there will remain a cadre of journalists who keep the candle lit for all of us and we will learn how to support them again.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm not going to make you any happier with my thoughts there GRC. My old high school journalism professor would be rolling over in his grave if he heard a proposal like that.

Actually... your post has made me happy... maybe happier. I started this thread in hopes of stirring some conversation that was not a junior high food-fight between the right and the left. What you wrote and what most others have written has been a good exercise.

You have to consider that an old talk show host who goes by the nom-de-plume of Goat Rodeo Cowboy may be just a little bit of a pot-stirrer. I may express my own political bias from time to time.... but about time you think you have me figured out you are likely find in my next post that maybe you don't have me figured out after all.

Thanks for the great post.

 

[One Who Knows]

As a "radio journalist", I am perpetually amazed at listeners on both sides of the political spectrum who don't seem to grasp the fact that, if you're doing news...you must report it down the middle.

A case in point: we got an angry call from a listener yesterday upset because when I did the story on jammed phone lines at the U.S. Capitol building, I didn't "promote" the telephone number that Rush Limbaugh was giving on his show. (Sorry, bud...but "promotion" is Rush's job...not our news department's).

Then, came another call: an elderly gentleman who "insisted" that the phone number Rush was giving was to a phone sex hotline. (It's not, of course, and yes, we checked...but he became more angry when we suggested he try the number again, in case he misdialed. His response was: we should be telling people Rush was "promoting sex lines".)

There are days when talkradio listeners are hard to love...