On 16 Mar 2009, 11:45 AM, "Robert (Jamie) Munro" <rjmu...@arjam.net> wrote:
Kevin Anderson wrote: > > funding - the licence fee. Commercial newspapers > are finding their > reade... > I think that news.bbc.co.uk is already a public service newspaper - > albeit one without a print edition. > > Robert (Jamie) Munro > There are an increasing number of newspapers in the US that are going paperless. The Christian Science Monitor was one of the first, a 'paper' in Kansas City Missouri. It looks like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will go that route. The PI in going that route is talking about reducing the newsroom staff from 170 to 22. I'm not going to argue that the old model needs to be preserved. It can't be. The economics don't work, and there is no alternative funding scheme public or private that can sustain several large newspaper newsrooms that existed. That's the fact that Clay highlighted, which is why it's valuable. Going back to some of the previous comments though, the resistance to the change wasn't just in the boardrooms, it was also in the newsrooms. Many print journalists resisted for a long time going digital so painting this as simply the plucky working stiffs versus the bastards in the boardroom with their 'profiteering' schemes to maximise returns for their shareholders really isn't accurate. There were a few digital pioneers, and some of the fiercest resistance we met wasn't from management but from fellow journalists who heaped scorn on us. I guess this is what irritates me slightly about this discussion. It's not a profit versus non-profit issue but rather about challenging a culture within journalism that always saw digital as inferior and resisted the shift to digital fiercely. Lisa Williams, the driving force behind placeblogger in the US, has drawn comparisons with the changes in the news industry to the changes in the software industry in the 1980s and early 1990s when large firms like IBM, Digital and others cast off lots of full time staff. And I agree with her that journalism will surive the death of its institutions: http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/04/journalism-will-survive-the-death-of-its-institutions005.html I like Clay's post, but he's also highlighting the uncertain position we're at in the middle of this revolution. Apart from the BBC provides a model, I haven't heard many other solutions offered up in this thread. And it must be said that even amongst public broadcasters, the BBC's model is unique and under threat. Yes, other countries have licence fees, but the level of funding that the BBC enjoys is the envy of public service broadcasters the world over. The BBC model isn't one that can be generalised. Yes, we're in a post-industrial era for journalism. That's been pretty clear to most of us who weren't wed to the old model. We don't really know what comes next. That's not a bad thing, and I've lived with this exciting uncertainty for all but two years of my 17 year career in journalism. But saying the BBC has a model that works doesn't really answer some of the challenges that news organisations and individual journalists are facing right now. best, k On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Bingo :) > > Regards, Dave > > > >
