One popular new model for paying for journalism leaves funding up to the journalists. That’s not going to fly in the long term, argues Karthika Muthukumaraswamy on the Online Journalism Blog. Bootstrap operations like Spot.Us do have promise in that they enable enterprising journalists to fund work that wouldn’t otherwise get done.
The problem is that philanthropic and publicly funded organizations like it and Pro Publica are becoming a crutch for cash-strapped mainstream news organizations that no longer have the means to pay for hard-to-get information. Their solution is to push the funding back on the reporters, who then have to scrape by on subsistence income in order to pursue their stories. The model doesn’t scale, she argues, and it won’t work for journalists who have families and mortgages.
Robert Picard would beg to differ. “The primary value that is created today comes from the basic underlying value of the labor of journalists. Unfortunately, that value is now near zero,” he writes in the Christian Science Monitor. Publishing’s traditional high barriers to entry used to place a premium on publishing space and therefore on journalism. No more. Today, technology is “de-skilling” journalists and making everyone a publisher. That means journalists need to redefine their value, and it won’t come from arguing that their work occupies some kind of moral high ground.
One approach might be to specialize. “The Boston Globe, for example, could become the national leader in education and health reporting because of the multitude of higher education and medical institutions in its coverage area,” writes Picard, an oft-published professor of media economics at Sweden’s Jonkoping University. “Similarly, the Dallas Morning News could provide specialized coverage of oil and energy.” Whatever the solution, it doesn’t mean just Twittering and blogging, but really connecting with an audience’s most sacred needs.
Value Prop
Much as we hate to say it, Picard has a point. There’s a lot of focus on tools right now, as if video cameras and iPods have some kind of intrinsic journalistic value. Those are merely tools, and using new tools to do the same old thing doesn’t change the value of the product. Unfortunately, Muthukumaraswamy also has a point. If the value of journalism has been debased to the point that journalists need to go door-to-door to buy food, then a lot less good journalism will get done.
That doesn’t mean that the traditional model of fat union contracts and generous travel budgets are a good alternative. Today, they’re not even an option. Journalism must become more efficient to survive, and the new models for doing that are still under development.
What do you think? Will journalism be better in a world in which journalists themselves are responsible for funding their work?


Have you always wanted to own a newsweekly? Well, you can buy BusinessWeek for $1. If that sounds like a bargain, keep in mind that the magazine is reportedly set to lose $75 million this year. That’s down from profits of up to $100 million during the dot-com boom. Times certainly have changed.
Last week’s 


The comedy team of Bob & Ray once had a skit about an idea called edible food packaging. It turns out the notion may not have been so far-fetched, as publishers are trying every possible idea to make their print products palatable. In Moscow, the the
The 175-year-old Claremont, N.H. Eagle Times
Another group of Rocky Mountain News ex-pats is 

Circulation at the Los Angeles Times passed one million in 1961. Last month it passed one million again –
Magazine publishers might want to catch the next flight to London to find out what the heck they’re doing right at The Economist Group. 
“Lifting the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban could benefit both newspaper and radio industries; however, rather than serving as an open-ended gift to media conglomerates, repealing the ban should be tied to stricter radio ownership limits. According to an FCC study, newspaper/television station cross-ownership enhances the quantity and quality of TV news and public-affairs programming. Radio could similarly benefit from partnerships between broadcasters and publishers because most newspapers (with a few notable exceptions) are, much like radio, inherently local. Thus, the addition of print reporters to the small news staffs (if they exist at all) of cross-owned radio stations could enhance local-radio news … an area in which local radio is currently underperforming.”
“Frankly, my students want and expect everything ‘on demand.’ They are not specifically loyal to media brands. They do not care what the source of their media content is as long as it entertains or informs them. If I were running a newspaper’s city room, I’d be sprinting to create more ‘TV News Stories’ that people can watch on their websites. A few newspaper companies are doing this, but the vast majority [of them] simply send one of their print reporters out into the field with a substandard consumer camera to record a news conference. Yes, that’s content, but it isn’t good content and it won’t attract younger readers. They need to mimic the styles that TV reporters do with visualizing stories. Every story in the newspaper should have a companion video version available on demand.”


