As representative of big money and big goverment, we’re not so sure
Ed: the former Star publisher forgot about less is more.
John Honderich
TORONTO STAR
Whither serious print journalism?
Five years ago, such a question might have intrigued only news junkies. Today it should concern us all. That same five years ago, newspapers were still flourishing. While the Internet was making its mark, there was no talk of print Armageddon. Yet today the industry is in turmoil. Cutbacks and layoffs are the order of the day, and some are questioning whether newspapers will be around. Indeed, some aren’t. Some are only online; others don’t publish Mondays anymore.
While there is much talk of the decline of the newspaper industry, yet to occur in Canada is a serious dialogue on the effect of this decline on serious print journalism. In my view, that time has come, for every week the evidence mounts that new thinking is required.
Just last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced a plan that would see the government offering all 18-year-olds a free year-long subscription to a newspaper of their choice.
A whisker of time ago, the idea of the government handing out free newspapers would have been laughed away. Yet today in France, there is a serious debate on the plight of that country’s newspaper industry.
South of our border, various free-enterprise philanthropic models have emerged to ensure a flow of serious print journalism. So the debate has begun elsewhere; what is required in Canada is a similar dialogue.
Why should we care?
For me, it relates directly to the very quality of our democracy. In order for all of us to live meaningfully and participate in our community, we must be appropriately informed.
In this regard, the quality of public debate, if not the very quality of life in any community, is a direct function of the quality of media that serve it. Indeed, the functioning of a healthy democracy is predicated on a well-informed populace.
If the media don’t function well, a society can suffer. This is why noted American essayist A. J. Liebling once called newspapers “the weak slat under the bed of democracy.”
Newspapers have always played a unique role in this informing process. Through groundbreaking investigative projects, searing features, hard-hitting crusades and biting editorials, newspapers have most often set the agenda for public discussion. They provide, when well run, the means for a community to examine itself, a channel to ferret out abuse and corruption, and a vehicle to give a voice to those whose voices are not often heard.
This in no way denies the impact of the electronic or digital media. Their cumulative impact is indisputable.
Yet when it comes to the exploration of a new idea, the exposure of an unknown travesty or the elucidation of a new approach, newspapers in my view have played the leading role.
Greater Toronto has been well served by what is probably the most competitive newspaper market in North America. In this newspaper alone, the record of serious journalism is considerable; it includes advocacy of a “New Deal” for cities, a war on poverty, and many exposés: of questionable charities, of poor conditions in nursing homes and on aboriginal reserves, of inadequacies in the child-welfare system, and racial profiling in our police force. This kind of journalism comes at a significant cost and demands a significant allocation of journalists and resources.
One of those I am most proud of is the Star series on racial profiling. Those landmark stories were three years in preparation, and the ultimate legal case, won by the Star, went all the way to the Supreme Court. The total cost to the paper in reporters, photographers, editors and lawyers ran into the millions.
Was it worth it? No question.
But as newsrooms shrink and editorial budgets collapse, it is precisely this type of in-depth and costly journalism that I fear will disappear.
So what are some of the new models and the new thinking on this issue? The first, as exemplified by the Sarkozy initiative, is simply to have governments fund or subsidize media.
In Canada, we have the obvious example of the CBC, where it is still seen as in the public interest for there to be a state-funded broadcasting company. The same applies in Britain, where every resident owning a TV pays a tax to help support the British Broadcasting Corp.
Newspaper proprietors in Canada have ferociously fought any government involvement in their operations for decades. They worry it would compromise freedom of the press.
There are other options on the table. The most noteworthy American initiative is an independent, non-profit newsroom called ProPublica.
It is led by a former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a former investigative editor of The New York Times. Its stated goal is to work exclusively on truly important stories with what they call “moral force.”
Based in New York, ProPublica has 28 seasoned investigative reporters; they started producing stories about six months ago. ProPublica calls itself the largest, best-led and best-funded investigative journalism operation in the U.S.
At this point, it is operating on grants of $10 million from various foundations. There is a regular board of directors and a journalism advisory board.
Every story is distributed in a manner to maximize its impact. This usually means they are offered exclusively to a traditional news organization free of charge. The reporting is also posted on ProPublica’s website, and an aggressive marketing scheme is undertaken for all stories.
ProPublica’s hope is that once more stories run and its brand is better known, it will attract more funding.
A second model sees serious journalists applying for grants from private foundations or charities to pursue their work.
Perhaps the most famous is The Fund for Investigative Journalism, started 40 years ago by the late Philip Stern. A noted philanthropist, he dedicated his life to “balancing the scales of justice.”
In this model, reporters apply directly to the Fund for grants of $5,000 to $10,000 (U.S.).
The most famous recipient is noted American journalist Seymour Hersh, who was given a grant of $2,250. That was all he needed to investigate the infamous My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.
“Think of it,” Stern later wrote. “A mere $2,250 in Fund grants enabled Seymour Hersh to leverage a whiff into a colossal stink and contribute mightily to the change in how Americans viewed the war in Vietnam.”
The Fund has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants to reporters, authors and others that have resulted in the publication of more than 700 stories, broadcasts and books.
As an aside, it is worth noting that legendary Star publisher Joseph Atkinson had a similar idea in mind when he left this newspaper in his estate to the charitable foundation that bears his name. A subsequent provincial law made that transfer illegal. However, for the past 20 years, the foundation has sponsored the Atkinson Fellowship, which has allowed senior journalists to pursue a year-long study of a public-policy issue.
Another model, also emerging in the U.S., is what might be called participatory investigative journalism. It is exemplified by a group known as Spot.Us. Spot.Us is a non-profit, pioneering what its founders call “community-funded reporting.” They say their project is based on the concept of “crowdfunding.” In essence, the public votes with their money for the stories they want investigated.
The project received a grant of $340,000 from the Knight News Challenge to test the concept with investigative reporters in the Bay Area of California. Under this plan, any citizen can enter a story idea or controversy that he or she wants investigated; anyone can create an idea as long as it is local.
Investigative reporters then develop an outline of how this might work based on the ideas that are submitted. Spot.Us endeavours to raise as much outside funding as possible to support these efforts.
But if your idea is selected, then citizens are also encouraged, if not expected, to help contribute to the cost of doing the work.
Once it is completed, Spot.Us promises to run the story on its blog and also provides the content to traditional media outlets – for free. It is probably too early to gauge how well this might work in the longer term.
Another variation on this theme might involve journalism students working in tandem with established investigative reporters. Media organizations could join with journalism schools on projects that could be funded by foundations dedicated to aiding education. Not only is this a cost-efficient way to do top quality work, but it would involve a beneficial learning component.
Undoubtedly the list of models will grow. But, in my view, the important need is for the dialogue to begin.
At stake could be nothing less than the vibrancy and health of our society.
Leave a Reply