Why mainstream journalism is in pain

Let's start by saying that most journalists, and most people who think about these questions (which is, I would guess, a small minority of the public), have a theory, and the theory is most likely wrong, because it's usually designed to cater to the theory-holder's prejudices. My theory is probably no different. I offer it as a conversation-starter, after reading today's NYT column on David "The Wire" Simon's caustic views on the profession he left behind.

Simon's opinion -- and it's widely shared in newsrooms -- is that mainstream newspapering is being destroyed by corporate owners who care only about the bottom line. That seems to be where it begins and ends with him. He does have a good point: for a long time now, newspaper owners have had to meet Wall Street's bottom line on profitability. Wall Street has demanded not just profits, but profits at a certain level. It's been hard to reach that without doing serious cutting. The argument from the journalists' side is that this cutting is short-sighted -- that it solves the short-term problem of getting the profit margin up from five percent to 10 percent, but only at the expense of long-term investing in the product. And there really is something to that.

But it's not the whole story. A second argument, one typically made by political conservatives, is that the MSM has alienated much of its readership through liberal bias. Obviously, I think there's something to this as well. It is beyond rational dispute that newsrooms are overwhelmingly liberal (more culturally so than economically). If you don't believe this, go to the MRC's website and check out the raft of independent studies and surveys documenting this fact. The way this bias plays out is less within individual stories, and more in the kinds of stories deemed worthy of coverage. In my experience, reporters and editors don't even recognize their own cultural and political biases, and resent the accusation. But there's no question that this bias makes their product less and less relevant to a significant number of their consumers.

But this too isn't the whole story. I wish it were, but I'm afraid the truth is, fewer people want what we have to offer. Part of it is simple decadence, by which I mean the failure of people, whatever their cultural and political orientation, to believe that staying informed of public affairs and current events is necessary to fulfilling one's obligations as a citizen. But technology is part of it too. Nothing more needs to be said about online news destroying the economic base of traditional newspapering, though it is noteworthy, at least to me, that I have lots of smart, educated friends who keep up with the news, but only online. Few subscribe to the newspapers.

What I'm thinking about this morning is what happened at my place yesterday. Julie decided she wanted to get rid of a particular piece of furniture we had. She put an ad on Craigslist Dallas. Within minutes, she'd sold the thing. When the purchaser who bought it showed up later to pick it up, we talked about the virtues of Craigslist. I told her that the problem with Craigslist was that it meant people didn't have to buy classified ads anymore -- which really hurt my industry.

"You work for the newspaper?" she said. "Um, we don't subscribe. Sorry! I miss the ritual of reading the morning paper with my coffee, but given that you can get the same information online, my husband and I figured that was one expense we just couldn't afford anymore."

She was clearly an educated woman, and was embarrassed to admit what she'd just admitted. But it is what it is.

I think people like me -- journalists -- favor the theories that newspapers are foundering because of corporate bean-counting or reporting that is irrelevant to the readership because both theories imply that the problem can be fixed. Quit all the budget-cutting, and/or hire better writers who can provide a more relevant and ideologically diverse product, and all will be well. But what if that's just self-serving? What if the technological and cultural revolutions underway are beyond anybody's ability to control? I think that's probably true, and the media entities (notice I didn't say "newspapers") that survive will be those most capable of riding the wave without being swamped.

Beyond whether or not people like me will continue to be employed, there's the question of: what kind of society and polity will we have when most people don't care about serious news, and prefer instead to focus on sports and celebrities? I suppose it's always been that way to a certain extent, but what happens when the pretense is gone? What kind of culture, political and otherwise, will we live in? I put the question to the room. Whether you're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I find it hard to believe that thoughtful, intellectually engaged people cheer the demise of newspapers.