Jessica Birthisel | Oct. 5, 2010
 |
| Photo by Jessica Birthisel |
| Columbia University's Michael Schudson talked about "The Crisis in News" Monday at Fine Arts. He offered some ideas about the future of journalism. |
Related |
Though he ultimately concluded no, it is not time to panic about the state of American news, he did begin his speech with a disclaimer.
“If you wanted from me some crystal ball about where the newspaper industry is going, I don’t know,” said Schudson. “I will disappoint you.”
Throughout his 45-minute talk at Fine Arts, Schudson outlined cultural influences on the practices of journalism, traits of the industry contributing to its financial instability and several possible ways forward.
First, Schudson described the unique nature of the American press system in contrast to national, government-sponsored and subsidized systems in England and Europe. When considering the “panic” over newspaper industries, the panic is usually reserved to the United States.
“I try to put it on a global context,” he said.
One reason the American press industry is suffering more than its overseas counterparts is because of its emphasis on the local and de-emphasis on national press institutions such as public broadcasting and public radio.
The U.S. press’ dependence on advertising revenues, specifically classified advertising revenues in recent years, also marks it as unique compared to other models, said Schudson. In 2000, classifieds represented 40 percent of newspaper ad revenue, Schudson explained. Around this same time, free online classifies on sites such as Craigslist emerged, resulting in “a devastating effect on newspaper revenue.”
Additionally, the American press depends on home delivery, a financial burden not faced in other countries where newspapers are picked up in markets and street side stands.
Add to this the decrease in newspaper readership, the large amounts of debt taken on by newspapers “at what couldn’t be a worse time” and the economic recession beginning in 2008, and you have what Schudson describes as “a perfect storm,” moving the state of the U.S. press from bad to “very much worse” in recent years.
 |
| Photo by Mike Conway |
| Schudson also visited associate professor Mike Conway's J653 Media in the Twentieth Century graduate class while on campus Monday. |
If a journalist did this today, said Schudson, “you’d be thrown out of the press club.”
Though a dramatic example, said Schudson, the anecdote highlighted the lack of aggressiveness and rigor among journalists early in the century.
A second cultural and political change from this period affecting journalism was what Schudson described as “a new presumption of public-ness.” Influenced by the 1960 presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the creation of the Freedom of Information Act, and situations like Vietnam and Watergate, journalists and the larger public began to believe a democratic government should be an open government.
All of these factors—profits, professionalism and the presumption of public-ness—contributed to what Schudson described as an “idealized American model” of the press over the last four decades. He sees those 40 years as a distinct period in American journalism, a period now ending.
Looking forward, Schudson outlined three possible press models. The first would be to restore the old business model within the context of increased online content. Some insiders say pay walls for accessing online newspaper content, premium “club level” subscriptions to papers and revived advertising revenue when the economy improves may be enough to revive the industry. Schudson is skeptical, though.
“I think this is unlikely,” said Schudson, describing the online world as very “leaky.” Even if some online readers would pay premium fees to access online news, they would still copy it, paste it and send it out to all of their friends, said Schudson. Others would find additional outlets for pirating subscriber-only materials, Schudson warned.
Another possible solution for the industry, says Schudson, is a Europeanized “mixed economy.” In this scenario, the government would provide greater support of public broadcasting, increased local reporting at national radio affiliates and possibly even subsidized newspapers.
However, the majority of Americans resist government funding of media, says Schudson, fearing government funding will lead to governmental control of content, despite a lack of evidence for this fear in studies of countries employing this model.
 |
| Photo by Jessica Birthisel |
| Schudson talked about the current shift to new media that has resulted in new models. “We’re at the end of an era lasting for four decades,” he said, “but we’re at the start of a new world.” |
Newspapers have already begun to compensate for these cuts in various ways, says Schudson, such as the multiple newspapers in Miami sharing newsgathering and shared sports coverage by major Washington, D.C.-area papers.
Though this “diet” has led to many unemployed journalists, says Schudson, many of those highly skilled people used their unemployment to create unique, online news and analysis outlets. Additionally, given technological advances, topic experts in every field can now produce and share information about their own fields directly to audiences. Though these new online operations don’t have a business model, either, Schudson believes they are a necessary supplement to traditional journalism practices moving forward.
With these loosened professional codes for who qualifies as “a journalist” and changes in financial support, Schudson does believe the field is losing something critical, “even if we only found it a short time ago.”
However, he concluded his speech arguing no one should panic about the state of American news industry.
“We’re at the end of an era lasting for four decades,” said Schudson, “but we’re at the start of a new world.” He noted it would be a mistake to be so nostalgic of what is lost that people overlook the marvels of this digital age.
Questions? Comments? Email the Web editor.
