The old model for compensating journalists is as obsolete as the telegraph, Newark Star-Ledger opinion columnist Paul Mulshine says in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece today: "If anyone out there in the blogosphere can tell me what the new model is, I will pronounce him the first genius I've ever encountered on the Internet."Maybe the new model is something like this.
[Photo: A Morse-Vail telegraph key, 1844-45, Smithsonian]
Sorry, Jim -- I don't have the answer, but I don't think pay-by-the-story is a workable model.
ReplyDeleteIf I send you $25 for this project, what do I get for it? What if you do a bad job and the result is uninspiring or uninformative? I've just sent you enough to cover a newspaper subscription for several months -- do I get my money back?
If you don't get enough money to cover the proposed project, then does it languish undone? What good does that do anyone?
This is no reflection on you -- in your case, I have no doubt that whatever you produce will be excellent. But I don't have the advantage of knowing every potential journalist sponsoree on the Internet. How many of them will be as smart as you, as well-informed, as diligent?
I could send $10 here, $5 there and wind up with nothing.
This strikes me as a return to the Middle Ages, when artists were able to function at a high level only when they had a wealthy sponsor.
Good questions, Reinan! I didn't expect anyone would sponsor the post before it was published -- although some already have.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, people will have to judge for themselves after it appears; as I said, I'm accepting sponsor donations after publication, too.
Also, I kind of think this is where we're headed, for better or worse: "This strikes me as a return to the Middle Ages, when artists were able to function at a high level only when they had a wealthy sponsor."
ReplyDeleteI think the term "monetizing content" may play into this. What is disturbing is that there will be stories that don't get told because there isn't the "wealthy sponsor."
ReplyDeleteSort of like passing the plate before the sermon (something most churches do).
ReplyDeleteWell, it actually sounds like Jim is proposing to do the story first, and then ask people to support it after publication if they find it valuable.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that the whole problem with the news biz right now: people are happy getting their content for free, and there's no incentive for them to pony up?
As the old saying goes, why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?
Read Mark Cuban's blogmaverick.com.
ReplyDeleteHe lays out a very interesting idea for sports reporting.
One of the values and virtues of the traditional newspaper is its independence. There's a wall between editorial and advertising. Readers can rely on that, knowing their news isn't affected by commercial concerns. You know who's supporting the paper because you see the ads. Ditto for the Web, though to a lesser extent; there's still some public scrutiny involved through the ads. End of story.
ReplyDeleteThis model, and what Cuban has proposed, would turn that on its head. Without full disclosure of all donors/supporters, who's to say that someone somewhere isn't slipping the writer/blogger/editor an extra grand on the side for positive press? Readers who already rail against the "liberal media" sure as hell aren't going to buy the whole trust-us, we're-clean argument.
This model opens up an entirely new set of ethical questions, one I'm not sure anyone has the answer to yet.
That said, I sure hope SOMEONE smarter than me figures out the new model, and fast. I don't have a clue.
"This strikes me as a return to the Middle Ages, when artists were able to function at a high level only when they had a wealthy sponsor."
ReplyDeleteGood point!
Perhaps we journalists should ask the Pope to cover out paychecks as we write about the angels on the head of a pin. There are no angels on the 11th Fl in Tysons Corner. HA!
The incentive for ponying up cash will be the eventual and inevitable disappearance of "free" news on the Internet. The current system is unsustainable and - when paid companies who present online news go under due to lack of funds - temporary. Everybody expecting free online news is eventually in for a big surprise. Unless there are overwhelming changes in that system, it's only a matter of when.
ReplyDeleteSo then people will go to sources where they can get it for "free" - radio and TV.
ReplyDeleteNot enough people consider news essential these days. They're not going to pay for it, no matter what.
Here is an example of the future of journalism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whodeyrevolution.com/whodeyrevolution/2008/12/troy-and-katie-blackburn-want-to-hire-a-gm-mike-brown-still-not-convinced.html#more
Some Bengals fans started a website aimed at voicing their displeasure with the management of the team. They now claim to have a source within the Bengals organization feeding them inside information. There is no telling whether this is true or just rumor mongering.
At the Cincinnati Enquirer a weekly update on digital is distributed to upper management. If you had ever seen it, you would know online ad costs are miniscule compared to print ads. In other words, digital will not generate enough ad revenue to cover the cost of LIC payroll. As staff continues to be cut, the end result will be a "community website" that is just a combination of AP stories and user-submitted photos and "news" like these Bengals fans are posting on the internet.
8:46
ReplyDeleteI'm 8:10.
Perhaps, you're right. And I shudder at that thought. The dumbing down of western society is fully underway. Ever seen Mike Judge's "Idiocracy?" Quite a funny flick, and, though it was done with tongue planted squarely in cheek, possibly a slightly believable look at our future.