Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It
512
Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It
512eBookRevised and Updated (Revised and Updated)
Related collections and offers
Overview
The sudden meltdown of the news media has sparked one of the liveliest debates in recent memory, with an outpouring of opinion and analysis crackling across journals, the blogosphere, and academic publications. Yet, until now, we have lacked a comprehensive and accessible introduction to this new and shifting terrain.
In Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights, celebrated media analysts Robert W. McChesney and Victor Pickard have assembled thirty-two illuminating pieces on the crisis in journalism, revised and updated for this volume. Featuring some of today’s most incisive and influential commentators, this comprehensive collection contextualizes the predicament faced by the news media industry through a concise history of modern journalism, a hard-hitting analysis of the structural and financial causes of news media’s sudden collapse, and deeply informed proposals for how the vital role of journalism might be rescued from impending disaster.
Sure to become the essential guide to the journalism crisis, Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights is both a primer on the news media today and a chronicle of a key historical moment in the transformation of the press.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781595587497 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | New Press, The |
| Publication date: | 07/19/2019 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 512 |
| Sales rank: | 1,011,157 |
| File size: | 1 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
OUT OF PRINT
The Death and Life of the American Newspaper ERIC ALTERMANThe New Yorker, March 31, 2008
The American newspaper has been around for approximately three hundred years. Benjamin Harris's spirited Publick Occurrences, Both Forreign and Domestick managed just one issue, in 1690, before the Massachusetts authorities closed it down. Harris had suggested a politically incorrect hard line on Indian removal and shocked local sensibilities by reporting that the King of France had been taking liberties with the Prince's wife.
It really was not until 1721, when the printer James Franklin launched the New England Courant, that any of Britain's North American colonies saw what we might recognize today as a real newspaper. Franklin, Benjamin's older brother, refused to adhere to customary licensing arrangements and constantly attacked the ruling powers of New England, thereby achieving both editorial independence and commercial success. He filled his paper with crusades (on everything from pirates to the power of Cotton and Increase Mather), literary essays by Addison and Steele, character sketches, and assorted philosophical ruminations.
Three centuries after the appearance of Franklin's Courant, it no longer requires a dystopic imagination to wonder who will have the dubious distinction of publishing America's last genuine newspaper. Few believe that newspapers in their current printed form will survive. Newspaper companies are losing advertisers, readers, market value, and, in some cases, their sense of mission at a pace that would have been barely imaginable just four years ago. Bill Keller, the executive editor of the Times, said recently in a speech in London, "At places where editors and publishers gather, the mood these days is funereal. Editors ask one another, 'How are you?,' in that sober tone one employs with friends who have just emerged from rehab or a messy divorce." Keller's speech appeared on the Web site of its sponsor, The Guardian, under the headline "NOT DEAD YET."
Perhaps not, but trends in circulation and advertising — the rise of the Internet, which has made the daily newspaper look slow and unresponsive; the advent of Craigslist, which is wiping out classified advertising — have created a palpable sense of doom. Independent, publicly traded American newspapers have lost 42 percent of their market value in the past three years, according to the media entrepreneur Alan Mutter. Few corporations have been punished on Wall Street the way those who dare to invest in the newspaper business have. The McClatchy Company, which was the only company to bid on the Knight Ridder chain when, in 2005, it was put on the auction block, has surrendered more than 80 percent of its stock value since making the $6.5 billion purchase. Lee Enterprises' stock is down by three-quarters since it bought out the Pulitzer chain, the same year. America's most prized journalistic possessions are suddenly looking like corporate millstones. Rather than compete in an era of merciless transformation, the families that owned the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal sold off the majority of their holdings. The New York Times Company has seen its stock decline by 54 percent since the end of 2004, with much of the loss coming in the past year; in late February, an analyst at Deutsche Bank recommended that clients sell off their Times stock. The Washington Post Company has avoided a similar fate only by rebranding itself an "education and media company"; its testing and prep company, Kaplan, now brings in at least half the company's revenue.
Until recently, newspapers were accustomed to operating as high-margin monopolies. To own the dominant, or only, newspaper in a mid-sized American city was, for many decades, a kind of license to print money. In the Internet age, however, no one has figured out how to rescue the newspaper in the United States or abroad. Newspapers have created Web sites that benefit from the growth of online advertising, but the sums are not nearly enough to replace the loss in revenue from circulation and print ads.
Most managers in the industry have reacted to the collapse of their business model with a spiral of budget cuts, bureau closings, buyouts, layoffs, and reductions in page size and column inches. Since 1990, a quarter of all American newspaper jobs have disappeared. The columnist Molly Ivins complained, shortly before her death, that the newspaper companies' solution to their problem was to make "our product smaller and less helpful and less interesting." That may help explain why the dwindling number of Americans who buy and read a daily paper are spending less time with it; the average is down to less than fifteen hours a month. Only 19 percent of Americans between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four claim even to look at a daily newspaper. The average age of the American newspaper reader is fifty-five and rising.
Philip Meyer, in his book The Vanishing Newspaper (2004), predicts that the final copy of the final newspaper will appear on somebody's doorstep one day in 2043. It may be unkind to point out that all these parlous trends coincide with the opening, this spring, of the $450-million Newseum, in Washington, D.C., but, more and more, what Bill Keller calls "that lovable old-fashioned bundle of ink and cellulose" is starting to feel like an artifact ready for display under glass.
Taking its place, of course, is the Internet, which is about to pass newspapers as a source of political news for American readers. For young people, and for the most politically engaged, it has already done so. As early as May 2004, newspapers had become the least preferred source for news among younger people. According to "Abandoning the News," published by the Carnegie Corporation, 39 percent of respondents under the age of thirty-five told researchers that they expected to use the Internet in the future for news purposes; just 8 percent said that they would rely on a newspaper. It is a point of ironic injustice, perhaps, that when a reader surfs the Web in search of political news he frequently ends up at a site that is merely aggregating journalistic work that originated in a newspaper, but that fact is not likely to save any newspaper jobs or increase papers' stock valuation.
Among the most significant aspects of the transition from "dead tree" newspapers to a world of digital information lies in the nature of "news" itself. The American newspaper (and the nightly newscast) is designed to appeal to a broad audience, with conflicting values and opinions, by virtue of its commitment to the goal of objectivity. Many newspapers, in their eagerness to demonstrate a sense of balance and impartiality, do not allow reporters to voice their opinions publicly, march in demonstrations, volunteer in political campaigns, wear political buttons, or attach bumper stickers to their cars.
In private conversation, reporters and editors concede that objectivity is an ideal, an unreachable horizon, but journalists belong to a remarkably thin-skinned fraternity, and few of them will publicly admit to betraying in print even a trace of bias. They discount the notion that their beliefs could interfere with their ability to report a story with perfect balance. As the venerable "dean" of the Washington press corps, David Broder, of the Post, puts it, "There just isn't enough ideology in the average reporter to fill a thimble."
Meanwhile, public trust in newspapers has been slipping at least as quickly as the bottom line. A recent study published by Sacred Heart University found that fewer than 20 percent of Americans said they could believe "all or most" media reporting, a figure that has fallen from more than 27 percent just five years ago. "Less than one in five believe what they read in print," the 2007 "State of the News Media" report, issued by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, concluded. "CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times." Vastly more Americans believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracy theories than believe in the notion of balanced — much less "objective" — mainstream news media. Nearly nine in ten Americans, according to the Sacred Heart study, say that the media consciously seek to influence public policies, though they disagree about whether the bias is liberal or conservative.
No less challenging is the rapid transformation that has taken place in the public's understanding of, and demand for, "news" itself. Rupert Murdoch, in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, in April 2005 — two years before his $5 billion takeover of Dow Jones & Co. and the Wall Street Journal — warned the industry's top editors and publishers that the days when "news and information were tightly controlled by a few editors, who deigned to tell us what we could and should know," were over. No longer would people accept "a godlike figure from above" presenting the news as "gospel." Today's consumers "want news on demand, continuously updated. They want a point of view about not just what happened but why it happened. ... And finally, they want to be able to use the information in a larger community — to talk about, to debate, to question, and even to meet people who think about the world in similar or different ways."
One month after Murdoch's speech, a thirty-one-year-old computer whiz, Jonah Peretti, and a former AOL executive, Kenneth Lerer, joined the ubiquitous commentator-candidate-activist Arianna Huffington to launch a new Web site, which they called the Huffington Post. First envisaged as a liberal alternative to the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post started out by aggregating political news and gossip; it also organized a group blog, with writers drawn largely from Huffington's alarmingly vast array of friends and connections. Huffington had accumulated that network during years as a writer on topics from Greek philosophy to the life of Picasso, as the spouse of a wealthy Republican congressman in California, and now, after a divorce and an ideological conversion, as a Los Angeles–based liberal commentator and failed gubernatorial candidate.
Almost by accident, however, the owners of the Huffington Post had discovered a formula that capitalized on the problems confronting newspapers in the Internet era, and they are convinced that they are ready to reinvent the American newspaper. "Early on, we saw that the key to this enterprise was not aping Drudge," Lerer recalls. "It was taking advantage of our community. And the key was to think of what we were doing through the community's eyes."
On the Huffington Post, Peretti explains, news is not something handed down from above but "a shared enterprise between its producer and its consumer." Echoing Murdoch, he says that the Internet offers editors "immediate information" about which stories interest readers, provoke comments, are shared with friends, and generate the greatest number of Web searches. An Internet-based news site, Peretti contends, is therefore "alive in a way that is impossible for paper and ink."
Though Huffington has a news staff (it is tiny, but the hope is to expand in the future), the vast majority of the stories that it features originate elsewhere, whether in print, on television, or on someone's video camera or cell phone. The editors link to whatever they believe to be the best story on a given topic. Then they repurpose it with a catchy, often liberal-leaning headline and provide a comment section beneath it, where readers can chime in. Surrounding the news articles are the highly opinionated posts of an apparently endless army of both celebrity (Nora Ephron, Larry David) and non-celebrity bloggers — more than eighteen hundred so far. The bloggers are not paid. The overall effect may appear chaotic and confusing, but, Lerer argues, "this new way of thinking about, and presenting, the news, is transforming news as much as CNN did thirty years ago." Arianna Huffington and her partners believe that their model points to where the news business is heading. "People love to talk about the death of newspapers, as if it's a foregone conclusion. I think that's ridiculous," she says. "Traditional media just need to realize that the online world isn't the enemy. In fact, it's the thing that will save them, if they fully embrace it."
It's an almost comically audacious ambition for an operation with only forty-six full-time employees — many of whom are barely old enough to rent a car. But, with about eleven million dollars at its disposal, the site is poised to break even on advertising revenue of somewhere between six and ten million dollars annually. What most impresses advertisers — and depresses newspaper-company executives — is the site's growth numbers. In the past thirty days, thanks in large measure to the excitement of the Democratic primaries, the site's "unique visitors" — that is, individual computers that clicked on one of its pages — jumped to more than eleven million, according to the company. And, according to estimates from Nielsen NetRatings and comScore, the Huffington Post is more popular than all but eight newspaper sites, rising from sixteenth place in December.
Arthur Miller once described a good newspaper as "a nation talking to itself." If only in this respect, the Huffington Post is a great newspaper. It is not unusual for a short blog post to inspire a thousand posts from readers — posts that go off in their own directions and lead to arguments and conversations unrelated to the topic that inspired them. Occasionally, these comments present original perspectives and arguments, but many resemble the graffiti on a bathroom wall.
The notion that the Huffington Post is somehow going to compete with, much less displace, the best traditional newspapers is arguable on other grounds as well. The site's original-reporting resources are minuscule. The site has no regular sports or book coverage, and its entertainment section is a trashy grab bag of unverified Internet gossip. And, while the Huffington Post has successfully positioned itself as the place where progressive politicians and Hollywood liberal luminaries post their anti–Bush administration sentiments, many of the original blog posts that it publishes do not merit the effort of even a mouse click.
Additional oddities abound. Whereas a newspaper tends to stand by its story on the basis of an editorial process in which professional reporters and editors attempt to vet their sources and check their accuracy before publishing, the blogosphere relies on its readership — its community — for quality control. At the Huffington Post, Jonah Peretti explains, the editors "stand behind our front page" and do their best to insure that only trusted bloggers and reliable news sources are posted there. Most posts inside the site, however, go up before an editor sees them. Only if a post is deemed by a reader to be false, defamatory, or offensive does an editor get involved.
The Huffington Post's editorial processes are based on what Peretti has named the "mullet strategy." ("Business up front, party in the back" is how his trendspotting site BuzzFeed glosses it.) "User-generated content is all the rage, but most of it totally sucks," Peretti says. The mullet strategy invites users to "argue and vent on the secondary pages, but professional editors keep the front page looking sharp. The mullet strategy is here to stay, because the best way for Web companies to increase traffic is to let users have control, but the best way to sell advertising is a slick, pretty front page where corporate sponsors can admire their brands."
This policy is hardly without its pitfalls. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis, the activist Randall Robinson referred, in a post, to reports from New Orleans that some people there were "eating corpses to survive." When Arianna Huffington heard about the post, she got in touch with Robinson and found that he could not support his musings; she asked Robinson to post a retraction. The alacrity with which the correction took place was admirable, but it was not fast enough to prevent the false information from being repeated elsewhere.
The tensions between the leaders of the mainstream media and the challengers from the Web were presaged by one of the most instructive and heated intellectual debates of the American twentieth century.
Between 1920 and 1925, the young Walter Lippmann published three books investigating the theoretical relationship between democracy and the press, including Public Opinion (1922), which is credited with inspiring both the public-relations profession and the academic field of media studies. Lippmann identified a fundamental gap between what we naturally expect from democracy and what we know to be true about people. Democratic theory demands that citizens be knowledgeable about issues and familiar with the individuals put forward to lead them. And, while these assumptions may have been reasonable for the white, male, property-owning classes of James Franklin's Colonial Boston, contemporary capitalist society had, in Lippmann's view, grown too big and complex for crucial events to be mastered by the average citizen.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights"
by .
Copyright © 2011 Robert McChesney and Victor Pickard.
Excerpted by permission of The New Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Title Page,
Introduction,
PART I - The Crisis Unfolds,
Chapter 1 - OUT OF PRINT,
Chapter 2 - GOODBYE TO THE AGE OF NEWSPAPERS (HELLO TO A NEW ERA OF CORRUPTION),
Chapter 3 - NEWSPAPERS AND THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE,
Chapter 4 - BUILD THE WALL,
Chapter 5 - THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM,
Chapter 6 - A SURFEIT OF CRISES: CIRCULATION, REVENUE, ATTENTION, AUTHORITY, ...,
Chapter 7 - DOWN THE NEWS HOLE,
Chapter 8 - BRIGHT FRENETIC MILLS,
Chapter 9 - THE MONEY AND MEDIA ELECTION COMPLEX,
Chapter 10 - TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND COMPETITION ...,
PART II - The American Traditions,
Chapter 11 - THE WASHINGTON-MADISON SOLUTION,
Chapter 12 - U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING: AN UNTAPPED RESOURCE FOR DOMESTIC ...,
Chapter 13 - THAT WAS NOW AND THIS IS THEN: WALTER LIPPMANN AND THE CRISIS OF JOURNALISM,
Chapter 14 - SIMPLY A PIECE OF STUPID DESPOTISM: HOW SOCIALISTS SAVED THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
Chapter 15 - REVISITING THE ROAD NOT TAKEN: A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC VISION OF THE PRESS,
Chapter 16 - NEWS FOR ALL: THE EPIC STORY OF RACE AND THE AMERICAN MEDIA,
Chapter 17 - THE WALL STREET–BASED ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP MODEL OF OUR NEWS IS BROKEN,
Chapter 18 - A BETTER FUTURE FOR JOURNALISM REQUIRES A CLEAR-EYED VIEW OF ITS PRESENT,
Chapter 19 - THE DISEASE OF OBJECTIVITY,
Chapter 20 - WHEN LOSERS WRITE HISTORY,
PART III - The Way Forward,
Chapter 21 - GIVING THE NETWORKED PUBLIC SPHERE TIME TO DEVELOP,
Chapter 22 - HOW JOURNALISTS MUST OPERATE IN A NEW NETWORKED MEDIA ENVIRONMENT,
Chapter 23 - THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM DIVERSITY,
Chapter 24 - THE RISE OF THE RIGHT: CONSERVATIVES ARE WADING INTO INVESTIGATIVE ...,
Chapter 25 - PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, HANDS OFF! CITIZEN JOURNALISM AS CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY,
Chapter 26 - WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO SAVE JOURNALISM?,
Chapter 27 - WHAT ABOUT THE NEWS? AN INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC,
Chapter 28 - ONE CLICK AWAY: THE CASE FOR THE INTERNET NEWS VOUCHER,
Chapter 29 - THE DAILY SHOW AND THE COLBERT REPORT IN A CHANGING INFORMATION ...,
Chapter 30 - PUBLIC FUNDING AND JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDENCE: WHAT DOES RESEARCH ...,
Chapter 31 - THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM: ADDRESSING PERVASIVE MARKET FAILURE WITH ...,
Chapter 32 - PUBLIC MEDIA TO THE RESCUE?,
NOTES AND REFERENCES,
CONTRIBUTORS,
PERMISSIONS,
Copyright Page,
Related Subjects
Customer Reviews
Explore More Items
