Murdoch's praise of future journalism veils paywalls

Posted by Nestor Bailly on December 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM

In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch is optimistic about the future of journalism in this age of newspaper cutbacks and the overwhelming concerns with bottom-line budgets rather than quality journalism.

Despite closures and scale backs, Murdoch reassures us that quality journalism faces a promising future because of the 'triumph of digital' rather than in spite of it.

The greatest threats, he says, come from limited editorial vision, producers who don't fight for the readers, and the 'heavy hand of the government' that would overregulate and subsidize the industry.

This is rather strange for the man who thinks he 'fights for the readers' by planning to force them to pay for something they've been getting for free for years. These remarks come right after Murdoch's appearance at the FTC workshop where it was announced that newspaper subsidies were a definite possibility and will be examined by the FTC.

Murdoch hails modern technology as the newest and best way for newspapers to continue their societal role - to serve the public interest by "covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful." No word yet on whether the latter category includes himself.

"Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale," he continued. "That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams." Score one for modesty.

Yes Murdoch, it is up to you and other media moguls to fulfill the needs and dreams of the masses. You, by erecting simultaneous paywalls across information providers thus making news exclusive to those who can pay for it, will assure that everyone will have access to the news that topples corrupt public servants and fights crime, making news producers (like yourself) on par with Batman.

The information age is all about giving the customers what they want (since they can easily get it elsewhere if you don't), and Murdoch rightly realizes this. However to say that newspapers that adapt to the digital era should pander directly to the desires of the mass media market is not something I agree with.

While it is good business sense, and newspapers are a business, there is something to be said for quality the investigative journalism that the people don't ask for; was there a public demand for the Boston Globe's investigation into clergy abuses? Not widely. They want page three girls and tabloid nonsense.

In any case, Mr. Murdoch does make a good case for quality content, which, of course, he knows is not free. "In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for," he asserts. The advertising business model as the main way to raise revenue is dead, he continued, because the internet has taken all the advertising away from newspapers. You can see where this is going.

"In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won't pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing," Murdoch writes, revealing a remarkable faith in the mass consumer. By that I'm not really saying they're stupid; I'm saying that they will find free alternatives much more attractive, at least on a mass level where the money and numbers are.

Sprinkled in is a little bit of Mr. M's usual anti-Google fare, accusing aggregators of theft and what have you. The final part is more interesting and on his view of the government as it relates to news, the possibility of subsidies and involvement in particular (many American journalists and publishers have opposed government subsidies, in contrast to Europe's news sources that are sometimes directly owned by the state).

Although he acknowledges the government's regulatory role in communications and trade, the methods and processes and regulations currently in use are holdovers from the 20th century that are not adapted to the modern media and internet environment. These rules are now arbitrary and contradictory, preventing investment in certain struggling sectors.

Along with archaic regulation, Murdoch harbors serious concerns about government subsidies to newspapers. Subsidies, in his mind and those of many Americans, automatically mean and entail control and eroding free speech; a necessary connection is assumed between subsidies and control without explanation, but that is just the nature of the American psyche.

This final point directly feeds into his second one above, for without government money newspapers will need to raise funds on their own; i.e. will need to charge for content online, barring an alternative advertising or business model breakthrough.

In summary, Murdoch presents a tight case of his beliefs in support of his business plans in three parts. The first and third parts are there really just to support and feed into the second, his paid content plans and real goal.

He opens on a good note to get us hooked, by hailing the bright future of journalism in the digital age as being platform agnostic and using the very technologies that ruined newspapers. The important thing is quality journalism, he says, that needs to be paid for. Enter paywalls, not to make more money or shore up his business assests, but to better serve the public. But this can't be compromised by government intervention, furthering the case for paid online content.

A sneaky argument for his business plans disguised as a heralding of a new age of digital journalism.

Source: Wall Street Journal