Talk me down! A democracy cannot thrive by blog alone, can it?

Jeff Jarvis thinks so, and he's making hay these days, hawking his book. But I feel like his slogans and zippy solutions are too glib, too easy.

I understand structural changes, what they call structural unemployment (like what created the Rustbelt in the 80s... they called it structural unemployment that destroyed the U.S. manufacturing industry, but it was a direct result of Reagan-era policies).

Free market folks are always so fond of claiming market forces cause things to happen, as if that somehow removes human agency from the equation. I'm not buying it. Nor do I put much stock in Adam Smith's "invisible hand." I see chains of human choices that have more to do with emotions, prejudices, social constructions, and bias than anything even remotely connected to supply and demand.

The one upside I see to the shakeout in journalism (my first career and in some ways only religion) is that advertising might come to occupy a role closer to its true nature, instead of the overly powerful position it consolidated over time in the U.S. publishing industry. Hardened arteries of ad buys and pricing models, circulation figures that don't represent a real attention economy-- whatever you want to call it, gave the Madison Avenue power it did not fully earn, and the publications it supported as patron a pampered fat lifestyle as courtiers found from their feudal patrons in Shakespeare's time.

But there is always a price to pay for genuflecting before power. The so-called "Chinese Wall" of journalism is getting the blame, but it was so fully corrupted long ago that that blame is nothing more than scapegoating.

The new ad model at least will be based on actual usage tracking data, not advertisers' bloated prayers to the heavens in the form of ad buys. The long tail may bring us a new kind of valuation, a new pricing structure that puts the value on readers that the advertisers WANT to court, rather than kowtowing to advertisers who couldn't give a damn about actual readership so long as they get to control and manipulate editorial content, even if it drives readers away.

One just hopes there are still veteran journalists around to create the quality content readers will demand, once the new ad pricing model evolves into something more sane and linked to actual quality.

I have an idea (maybe not a good idea, but an idea) that might help newspapers make more money without charging for online papers. The newspapers could take donations at their online sites. Perhaps do a sweepstakes or raffle sort of prize thing every year for those who donate. It's a simple idea, but it is better than making zero dollars on internet resources.I'm sure a good marketing expert could dazzle it up.

Something like: Do you enjoy this quality information? Well, your donations can allow us to continue providing adequate news to readers like you.

Anyways, they can phrase it however they want.

The newspaper business is a state of transition. THis entire nation is learning tht "Business as usual" has gotten us into a terrible place, and what we're all having to do is rethink everything we do and how we do it. For the first time in recent times, the push of government is at the bottom instead of the top.

The newspaper business has cut its own throat. Instead of enlightening people, they have bogged us down in lukewarm pablum, skated their investigative responsibility in things like our two wars, and turned mightily to prostelitizing for the conservative agenda. It's an old song and this country is tired of it.

It wasn't long ago that the television came out and threatened to outdate and totally replace radio. To a large degree, the tv audience of today outnumbers the radio audience, but radio has managed to survive. They found new ways to reach people and changed their format. Now it's the newspaper's turn.

I don't know if I could talk you down on this since I don't think a democracy can thrive by blogs alone. It could just say anything and would be impossible to verify. Newspapers on the oither hand, could be able to check their information one way or the other and a lot of things were exposed over the decades by the newspapers.

So, I do think that there should be a balance between blogs and newspapers.

I personally think the web is a better venue for the news. You gotta weed through the crap and lies but that's always been the case. getting the news on line allows you to reference sources faster as well as check facts faster. Even if you don't like web based sources you can use the web to search for books, journals and other documents on the subject you are researching. IMO, its simply evolution and the weaker organism is just dying off.

.

Every major technological change brings with it a new period where old ways die and new ways are born. We can lament on the Good Old Days - not so good until they are safely locked in the past - and mourn, or do all that and adjust to the new technology.

There is a new balance out there awaiting us out there. Incentives and ingenuity will win at the end.

Simply get rid of the newspaper entirely. People turn to major news stations like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX so what is the purpose of having a paper anyhow. I don't want to sound like a enviromentalists or anything, but the newspaper waste trees and even the recycled type waste energy to even create something for people to read. A blog or news in general on the web allows people to pick and choose want interests them without having to go through the rest of the internet to find it. Your saving money by reading what is on-line anyhow.

A Democracy has, can, and shall prevail to be a blog!

As societies, we need fact-checked sources of news, no doubt about it. The problem seems to me to be that we don't need as many duplicated local sources of national/international information now. Local newspapers depend a lot on news services. That's where I think the reporting will stay strong. We now see the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun beginning to share reporters, and lots of closures.

I'm not sure it's a good tend, but it's reality. I like to read the NYTimes and msnbc.com along with the Washington Post. What differs is the editorials, the investigative series', and those differences won't go away, but I think we'll see more newspapers move to the web, especially if the downturn is prolonged.

I fear more that people will gravitate to news that supports their belief systems, with less discussion between people of differing opinions. Leading to the red/blue divide getting stronger, not weaker. I feel we need to break down that divide, but I see it strengthening instead.

Print publishing in all forms is in transition. Most readers would prefer to curl up with a book or paper or magazine in their favorite chair, and electronic delivery (like a laptop or even a Kindle 2.0) doesn't replace this.

It becomes increasingly expensive to deliver quality, well-edited words on paper. And in this critical age of global warming, it's ridiculous to cut down trees and mash them up for printing (or, for that matter, toilet paper). Yet many readers (me included) find they can't give up the paper. People read electronic words more quickly and perhaps less thoughtfully. The words seem more ephemeral, less solid. It's hard to highlight and make notes, flip back to the good parts, turn up the corners on pages to return to later, share a great book with a friend. To date, electronic reading devices have not adequately addressed these issues, at least, not enough to lure readers to embrace them.

Until we develop some truly excellent solutions for the transition from traditional print to a well-thought-out electronic replacement, newspapers will continue to go out of business and printing houses will close. The web allows for fairly shallow discussion and readership. Smart and talented people cannot work for free. The web cannot adequately fill the gap.

As a result, I fear that the words of top-notch journalists, great authors & artists, insightful poets, superb editors, and a host of other voices we need to hear will be lost. Perhaps we risk losing high-quality readers and a thinking citizenry for those high-quality words, too.

The economic crisis has only hastened the publishing crisis. Publishers have seen this transition coming, but have been hamstrung by the gap in technology needed for them to move to the next paradigm. Do we want to truly save journalism and the publishing industry? We need to find some paperless solutions we can not only live with, but embrace. And we should not expect to get that for free.

I'm a fan of the news media! Well, the print media at any rate. Not so much the tv news media - I'm pretty selective about my tv news sources.

No, a democracy cannot survive by blog alone. Investigative journalism is required to investigate and report on things that corporations and the governments - federal, state, and local - are doing. These are powerful organizations, and individual bloggers do not have the depth of resources, power, and influence to go up against these organizations in an investigation. Moreover, most bloggers blog as a hobby - it's not their full-time job. There needs to be people doing investigative journalism full-time.

Democracy needs a fully functioning, full-time, free press. Blogs are a good complement to the press, but they are not a replacement.

There's no reason why a free press can't be evident online instead of in print newspapers and magazines, but one thing a free-press needs is people actually ferreting out the news! Reporters and editors! On the payroll!

Agreed. The sliver lining for good journalists (and let's face it, bad ones too) is that blogs and other digital only media is a LOT cheaper to manage from a business standpoint, so once the advertising power and readers shift enough to the blogs and other digital publications it will be far easier to have people on the payroll really working at getting things done.

Unfortunately that's not happening as fast as non-digital publications seem to be dying out, but it is happening, and with things like the Kindle getting more and more popular, and better and better at dealing with spreading those digital publications, the switch will happen faster and faster.

It's an ugly time to be focusing on "traditional" media...but if people can move with the technology, then it's a GREAT time to get in on the ground floor of the next generation of media while it's still in it's early stages.

I think we'll see a comeback of news-services like AP. There'll be a period when a bunch of them compete, finding their editorial line and / or poltical agenda. News outlets will either trust single sources they consider trustworthy, or wait for corroboration from a second news-service.

Probably also specialized news-services (sports, business, ...) alongside AP, AFP, Reuters, ...

I don't think paper editions will survive.

When the newspapers go I, personally will miss the anticipation of flipping through all the pages after seeing a captivating headline, until I fianlly reach the climax, yes; the comic section.

Back in the early 70's there was a lecture series at MIT about cultural shifts and I wish I could remember the name of the professor who gave the talk, but it's long gone from memory.

He was examining the role of technology and the power shift that would take place as a result of the coming information age as computing power redefined what would be available to the masses as opposed to the few with the time, resources and access to select knowledge.

The point that stuck with me was that conditions in societies all swing too far one way before they revers and swing the other and in the area of knowledge concentration had been in the hands of the few gatekeepers of media and politics.

Maybe this trend of vanishing papers is simply the natural evolution of an information age that has given everyone with a keyboard a voice in cyberspace and in time we will see the need to return to a system where fewer voices are delivered through a medium that is more tangible and digested at a leisurely pace.

In the end there needs to be value to endure and while the immediacy of the digital age has given us much instant gratification, the current meltdown of the economy could help us all to appreciate things that provide continuity and endurance and local control.

My money is on the the best of the news business rising again; human history is filled with repeats.

We will find a way....

Even if it means grabbing the necks of the doubter themselves... We have to tell them the truth.....

Open up a newspaper and what do you see? The national news is irreleveant. The local news is slanted and biased towards the managements viewpoint. There is not any real investigative journalism happening at these so called newspapers. The reason why newspapers have failed is because of bad management. Newspapers have not changed with the world. They should fail.

I have found more truthful reporting on the blogs. Many blogs are the "new newspapers" because this is where the truth is being reported.

Can a democracy survive without the Fourth Branch of Government (the news media)? No.

Will the blogosphere be able to provide a reasonable replacement to the newspaper? Maybe, but doubtful.

I'll start with my understanding of what a newspaper offers -

1) straight reporting - which in recent times means being water carriers (there's just too much information nowadays). The reporter either picks up a news feed from a major wire service (i.e. AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.) or the reporter gets the information from the public affairs organization of a company, government agency, etc. (this includes press conferences). This is a valuable source of information for the general public - who would otherwise not know about these issues/stories; however, sometimes this simply echos the spin that PR firms create for their clients.

2) Investigative journalism - this is where (in my opinion) the watchdog, fourth estate, freedom fighter, etc. image comes in to play. This is the bare-bones, hardcore journalism that takes grit and determination, research, fact checking, etc. in order to find the scoop and break the story. This is what all the TV shows and movies portray as journalism, and it is very important to any democratic society. Without these people, we would only know what "they" want us to know - maybe.

3) classifieds - we find out about what's going on and what people are selling - we find stuff we need, or get rid of stuff we no longer want, etc. Even in the age of craigslist, this is an important function - my grandmother can find craigslist and e-bay, but there are still people who don't have internet access or don't even know how to use a computer. These same people do know how to use a newspaper.

4) local news - the newspaper is one of the only places to get op-ed or reporting about your local community - and locally is where democracy really happens.

ok - i'm sure there is more that a newspaper offers, but... someone else can yell at me and add it later.

so - the talking down part...

the blog can offer some of this, but the reality is that something will have to replace the newspaper and its function in society. Can the newspaper simply go online and solve the issue of revenue? probably not. The only solution is a business model change. Why is this good news? Because the news media and journalism have survived for this long; and more than people will demand the news, I think the news will demand to be heard. With the kind of fire it takes to be an investigative journalist, journalism will find a way to get the truth to people. - ok, ok, maybe a little idealistic and silly - perhaps naive, but seriously, think about it. Do you know any journalists? Are any of them journalists because of the great hours or the great pay? Are they journalists because of the great benefits or because the MSM and journalists are treated like rock stars? If you actually said yes to any of this, you either do not know any journalists or you're lying. So - if all of this is true and we still have people that want to be journalists, I'm not worried at all about the downfall of the free press - I do think that this is a bit painful for the time being, but the press will survive - ok maybe the newspaper will go away, but never the press. I'll even wager on a renaissance of the news media.

As for the local reporting – it's going to fall on community organizations and a vigilant public – or maybe newspapers can survive locally on advertising and subscriptions. who knows? we'll have to wait and see.

I hope I talked you down a bit...

j

My great papa was an Editor for a local big newspaper around the Seattle area for 30 years, Rachel. I grew up with politics and we know journalism runs a close second of being the same thing.

I will forever miss the print of the Seattle PI but I am guilty, I stopped reading the print form as online was so much easier. (And it saves some trees which is a good thing.) However; I would pay for it gladly before losing it entirely-- but do think the way PBS/donations is a far cry better way of funding. Some of the best programming on TV is free to the public and funded strictly by donations from foundations and private individuals whose sole purpose is to put their stamp of approval on a idealogy they foster. I would think a collective body is more "free to be" than one whose agenda meets solely the boardroom of a parent megacorp whose idealogy is severly biased. I am hoping the PI is successful online and I hope this new fangled way of life for journalists may just have a bit more free reign in their perceptions of life and its events.

If you haven't, please seed on the Duke Energy CEO interview. That was amazing! I think we all saw the face of corruption making excuses as to why they choose to fleece America.. I love that you *get it* so easily and can combat it so skillfully. Critical thinking has a chance to be heard and I appreciate your candor.

"There's no reason why a free press can't be evident online instead of in print newspapers and magazines, but one thing a free-press needs is people actually ferreting out the news! Reporters and editors! On the payroll! Full-time, preferably! A democracy cannot thrive by blog alone! Can it?

I need a talking down. "

It is true that a lot of newspapers are in financial trouble and some have closed down altogether. But isn't it also true that there is an incredible variety of news sources of all sizes stripes and colors available to all of us?

I'm trying to think back to when I was in school. There were one or two local papers and no more than 3 or 4 TV stations, plus a few magazines. Now there are hundreds, including, obviously, cable news channels which are a relatively new invention. I would be curious how many full time "reporters" there are actually being paid right now, compared to forty years ago.

Maybe things need to be pruned back a bit, just for the whole plant to stay healthy...

the Employee Free Choice Act is meant to guarantee workers their right to choose a bargaining representative through either majority sign-up or an election process. However, if workers are pressured into signing a card without the benefit of a secret ballot in an election, the union can be certified. That could leave 49.99999% of workers without a voice in the process.

So Rachel, although I love most of what you say........the EFCA is not a choice for employees whether they want a secret ballot election or not. It is a choice of the organizing union. If they collect 30% of the employees signed cards authorizing a union, they can call for a vote. But if they get 50%, they are automatically certified. And dont think that strong arm tactics on both sides dont take place. Imagine our presidential election decided without a secret ballot???? i think not

I am really concerned about local news--regional also--and especially arts coverage.  In the Ft Worth-Dallas area, both papers have stopped covering arts events in Arlington, a huge town in between the two cities.  This is an absolute disaster for a vibrant arts community where there is no local paper.                          I am also very concerned about the loss of really high quality investigation  and reporting,  but haven't heard any mention of local and regional news which would be much harder to find online.                                                                                                        

I hope newspapers do not go the way of the dodo but I fear they may. I cannot see a society who type on their phone all day spending the time to purchase and read a newspaper. I personally love reading a newspaper, but the on line availability of most publications has given me the ability to read foreign papers to which I had little access.

Radio with the exception of NPR has completely lost interest for me because of the offensive nature of talk radio and the constant commercial interruptions on FM radio. I am somewhat addicted to Rachel and Keith Olbermann after almost twenty years of being unable to watch TV news shows because of the extreme right wing bias of most cable news or the tabloid naure of many shows. The embarrassing two year Clinton witch hunt which was terrible for the country and should have been a personal matter started my disilusionment and the Bush march to war media love affair which ignored all and any antiwar sentiment or evidence. I believe that in another journalistic era Bush and Cheyney would have been undone by the press before their first term was over but the entire media seemed to cower in fear of being called unpatriotic. Olberman was the first I saw who called out the Bushies and Ms. Maddows show is just terrific.

JKHayes

...what gets me is the lil headline synopsis tickers at the bottom o the screen there, see... (o0o)
...n then... no one talkin to me... ever sez a thing about any of em...
so i flip over to headline news... n they're... interviewing somebody
...i sense unreasonability, so i... don wanna be accused o same...
i stay n watch patiently, flipping... occasionally briefly cautiously...
PBS, CSPAN... ok ya talked me into cartoon channel whatever...
...n yes, i... have the internet, but... can't i jus... watch it ?
...but... jus... where's the channel... with jus... ok, yo...
...the top 20 stories... or whatever... every... hour ?!?
...n "toppa the hour" ...i believe it's... officially termed

...i mean, i dig rachel n keith...
...among a small set o people...
i think it seems might actually like me...
opine out the progressive extrapolations
make me feel safe n snuggly, so i can go to bed... knowin...
that bitta informationism's been transmitted out to the world
there's justice n it's coming
...still exists n everything...
...i'll really believe it
when i really see it
...but does... every... show... hafta be like that ?
...the media needs a redefining of its identity...
...but when i get up i needa page fulla comix...
n i like havin a crossword etc, should i need it
n then like... ok... spilling irirs in wire reports ?
n then the opinions n the editorials... in... print
but get back to reporting
following the money etc
otherwise, it's like that 12th tylenol 3 or 4
the week after yer skiiing trip or whatever
when ya feel the warm n cuddly snugglies
creepin up on yer pleasure center all cloudy
...warm n inviting
exciting, enticing
callin me
like sirens
into oblivion
easier to jus relax n have
whatever spoon fed to ya
until ya canna...
take it anymore

print out on recycled paper or whatever
from my corner fax machine or whatever
jus the stories i'm gonna read or whatever
or whatever statistically i'm gonna be interested in
(also this... less freaking out of the senior citizens)
n then whatever customized advertisements
proven for my specific sample target audience
(on the back... i promise to look if it's funny, etc)
cuz i'm simply... not in the market for a used car
u don't needta... spend that extra ton o ink on me
i don't have a bird... or a puppy
n what the ink does to things
anyways, burn the image in
we have lasers already
...it's the... 21st century
...civilization... is shiny
...now i needta go n look around for som'n else that needs fixing... (o0o)

Rachel

The key to the survival of democracy is not the question of it being either one or the other news source. Whether it is blogs, talk radio, printed media, network or even cable news it is in the vigilance of the media itself. In the recent past the media from top to bottom, from the media ownership to the beat reporters themselves, all lost sight of their principle responsibility to democracy which was to be ever vigilant and keep the government honest.

The news media perhaps championed by FOX became not news reporters, but news influencer's, As the various media began to slant the news in a way to support their own political preferences.

After the election of 2000 I think that considering the animosity and bad feelings that manifested itself in the nation that FOX deliberately used that controversy to gin up the anti Bush sentiment while simultaneously casting themselves as the spokes people for the Bush Administration as well as the Republican Party and other right wing view points, causes and issues.

By doing this they became part of the them vs us mentality that has dominated our nation and our politics for the last 8+ years. As each year has passed and as the blogs began to gain acceptance and support especially those that were leaning to the right, they all glorified as well as wallowed in Bush's cowboy mentality, his my way or the highway attitudes or has he put it himself that he was the decider in chief for the nation.

They did it because it got them ratings and with audience size and ratings came the always precious advertising dollars. And then the unthinkable became the routine as news medias actually began to routinely disseminate knowingly false information from unnamed sources or allowed media pundits and politicians to just bald faced lie without ever challenging them on important issues like the economy or even on the status of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..

But the left while slow to get it together began to focus on the cracks in the Republican armor, and then they began to pierce the aura of invincibility that Bush and the Republicans had carefully had built up.

They started with the reasons for war, then war deaths,, prisoner torture, congressional dereliction of duty, waste, fraud and abuse, the Republican violations of our constitution, our own laws, as well as international treatys.

So my answer is yes we can make it without one form of media especially because nature abhors a vacumn, and in some communities print media will cease to exist and in others new small newspapers will come up and take the old ones place, they may not be daily papers but weeklys and they may not have as many pages to print the murders,rapes and robberies but they should still be enough to keep a eye on city hall and the police dept and keep them honest.

The news will get out one way or another. Before there was any type of media there was always word of mouth, it worked for a long time in our past and I think and there is no reason to think it won't continue to work in the future especially because of the internet..