Those of us who work in traditional media have spent a fair amount of time wondering what part of the implosion in advertising revenue is cyclical (ad buying is suffering because of the recession) and what part is secular (we’re making horse buggies).
The beginnings of an answer came last Thursday, when Google announced that search advertising had come roaring back and said that stronger-than-expected third-quarter results suggested the global economy might be coming back. Net income rose 27 percent in the third quarter as strong advertising sales, most of it from search, increased revenue 7 percent.
Oh, and there was good news for newspapers as well. Turns out while the McClatchy Co’s advertising revenue fell 28.1 percent in the third quarter, it was not as bad as the 29.9 percent it dropped in the first six months. OK, not so great, but with net income of US$23.6 million in the quarter, it was a huge improvement over the US$4.2 million a year earlier.
The reason the balance sheet cleaned up so nicely? The firm cut more than 30 percent of its work force in the last 18 months.
What this suggests is that we’re facing a paperless recovery in which old-line content companies need to continue to slash in order to stay ahead of what looks to be a broad secular decline.
Leonard Downie Jr knows the story all too well. As executive editor of the Washington Post for 17 years, he watched as the Web first seemed to enable and eventually came to threaten organizations that support large newsrooms.
Downie and Michael Schudson, a professor at Columbia University’s Journalism School, were commissioned by Nicholas Lemann, the dean of the Journalism School, to write a report on the future of news and the newsroom. It was Downie who came up with the insight a few years back that the most important fight is not for newspapers, but for the newsrooms they support.
The report’s title, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, telegraphs its sober intent, a realpolitik way of thinking that is reflected in the opening words of the report: “Fewer journalists are reporting less news in fewer pages, and the hegemony that near-monopoly metropolitan newspapers enjoyed during the last third of the 20th century, even as their primary audience eroded, is ending.”
In other words, the current advertising model won’t continue to support so-called accountability journalism.
“Some of the advertising is going to come back as the economy does, but I think we all know that much of what has taken place is secular and not cyclical,” Downie said in a phone call on Friday. “And the Internet philosophers who suggest that individuals posting on the Web are going to replace what newsrooms have been doing are not being realistic. We have to find new ways to maintain professional news-gathering capacity.”
Clocking in at just under 100 pages, the report probably isn’t going to get looked at much beyond people in this racket, but it’s a worthy read, in part because it dwells less on the glory days and meets current realities head-on. The number of newspaper editorial employees grew from 40,000 in 1971 to 60,000 in 1992 and is now driving back to 40,000 this year, with no real bottom in sight.
Downie and Schudson came up with six recommendations, which include tinkering with the tax structure to accommodate nonprofit status for news-gathering organizations, persuading philanthropic foundations to fill the funding gap in more permanent ways, involving universities in news gathering and opening up databases to make them more useful for both pro and pro-am efforts.
Two of the recommendations caught my eye, both of which will create significant turbulence if they gain traction in the discussion.
First, the pair suggests reorienting public radio and television to provide local news, historically not a big interest of public broadcasters. The report says somewhat tartly that much of the money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is spent on broadcast facilities and television production companies, with “very little money spent on local news coverage by individual public radio and television stations.”
It goes on to suggest that the CPB should step in to consolidate competing fiefs and begin to require a minimum amount of local news reporting in return for funds.
“The money is there, but a lot of it gets sunk into facilities and programming to drive membership, and it needs to be reallocated to reflect the need for local coverage,” Downie said. “And it has to be mandated because this is a time of crisis and we can’t just depend on good intentions.”
The other recommendation that will kick up some dust proclaims that it’s time for government to start funding local news, much in the way it enables the arts, humanities and sciences.
The Federal Communications Commission spends US$7 billion a year collected from telephone bills to underwrite telecommunications services in remote areas and help schools and libraries get wired. The report suggests that some of that money, along with fees paid for broadcast licenses or auctions of bandwidth, should go into a Fund for Local News.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently talked a lot about the importance of the plan for universal broadband in the US, but The Reconstruction of American Journalism goes beyond building infrastructure, suggesting it’s time to start funding what goes into those pipes. Downie said that it can be done with safeguards to ensure that the government doesn’t become the yard boss of what constitutes worthy news.
“We are just suggesting that certain kinds of reporting are a public good and should be funded as such,” Downie said. “There are plenty of precedents, and I don’t think that government support necessarily means government control.”
So there you have it. All we have to do is get the government to open the kimono on databases, foundations to rethink their priorities, universities to become newsrooms, rewrite the federal tax code, get public broadcasting overlords to think local and commercial broadcasters to kick in money for the public good, and we will have a dependable news infrastructure for a new, more complicated age. If only it were so simple.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past