Let's put the government in charge of journalism!

Writing in The Mediashift Idea Lab on pbs.org, David Sasaki wins the award for the longest argument yet in favor of government funding of the failing journalism business.

I try not to get into outright arguments here, but this seems to me to be a really, really bad idea. You can't micro-manage every single industry with bailouts and new taxes to support them. If US automakers, for instance, can't build cars that people want, then they should contract, combine or even, in the most extreme outcome, disappear. We won't have any shortage of vehicles, as better-run companies slip in to fill the void. That's cold, true, but that's also the marketplace in action.

Same goes for journalism. If newspapers have created the perfect storm of outdated content and revenue models at the very moment when user consumption patterns are changing radically, then that's a bright neon sign that it's time to change. Not that it's time to find a deep-pocketed government benefactor to allow things to operate as they always have.

But don't tell that to David Sasaki. He's thinking about the National Journalism Foundation, funded by the federal government. Which, as we all know, is really you and me:

The National Journalism Foundation would essentially serve as a re-invented Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Annual funding should increase from $200 million to $3 billion. (One percent of the total cost of the Iraq War; four percent of the federal bank bailout.) Similar to the NSF, the National Journalism Foundation would regularly award grants to individuals, organizations, and institutions that propose projects which serve to better inform the American public about their communities, government, nation, and the rest of the world. PBS and NPR would, of course, continue to receive funding, but other organizations and projects like EveryBlock and FiveThirtyEight.com, which provide important information to the public but don't attract advertising revenue, would also be considered for funding.

As described, it sounds sort of enticing. Let's fund the the cool startups. Let's tax those "telecommunications giants" (who will, no doubt, totally absorb these new taxes out of the kindness of their bleeding hearts) and give the money away to a super-sized Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, let's. And Popsicles for everyone.

Or, publishers could look down the long-barrel of changing realities and change in ways that will allow them to continue in the business of informing people while still making a profit. But they surely won't do that if the Gravy Train is about to pull into town, just like GM won't change if it's guaranteed a future through taxpayer bailouts.

And what's really the worst thing about this? Live for 5-10 years under such a system, and the bulk of the press will be dependent on the government for funding, essentially defanging an already gap-toothed watchdog.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Journalism is currently screwed, but that's a good thing. It's finally forcing some real change. Let's not screw that up by taking away the only incentive they have to change: fear.

There is great hope for journalism in people like David Cohn

Recent posts have been especially dark on my part. Which isn't entirely representative. I believe that journalism - especially that journalism practiced by the organizations that today publish daily metro papers - is essential, and can have a very bright future if we stop thinking about the last 150 years and focus on maybe just the next 10.

And let the smart people lead.

For instance, people like David Cohn, creator of Spot.us.

I am writing this post physically exhausted but emotionally charged. I feel like a lion. As if I could talk down the curmudgeonist of curmudgeons. Not because I know the answer(s) - but because if we can't even talk those people down, then we might as well just crawl into a whole and give up. F- that! We are moving forward with or without them.

The answers are out there in every startup (journalism focused or otherwise), community, blog, micro-blogging, micro-financing and CMS on the web. The internet is ours for the taking if we only reach out and grab it with as many hands as possible.

Breathe deeply. This stuff is good for what ails you.

$50 to the first API participant to out this newspaper exec.

I will send a fresh $50 bill to the first participant of the API Newspaper Crisis summit to out this guy or gal:

One participant expressed the lone view that the crisis was cyclical, not structural, and that hefty cost-cutting is all that is required to tide companies over until there is recovery.

Seriously. We need to know who's forgotten to sip from the clue bottle for the past five years. This isn't checkbook-journalism. It's public service journalism, with a reward.

This is what's killing the news business: piracy!

[caption id="attachment_521" align="alignnone" width="424" caption="Fully-licensed stock photo, arrrrrrrrr!"][/caption]

The AP is again trying to blame bloggers for bringing about the downfall of the news business. In an article yesterday, AP reports the findings of a recent study by Attributor Corp. which claims that 1.5 times more people read pirated articles than legitimate articles, housed at their originating organization, or at a fully-licensed AP site.

But it's not all gloom and doom. Attributor sees a Step Three: Profit! lining in that cloud:

However, the problem, flagged by copyright cop Attributor Corp., could turn into a golden opportunity if media companies figure out a way to mine advertising revenue from the traffic flocking to their pirated stories posted on blogs and other sites.

Attributor, which makes software that trolls the Internet for copyright violations, estimates the average Web publisher could collect more than $150,000 in additional revenue by selling ads alongside its unlicensed material.

It's an unscientific estimate, based on an assumption that advertisers would pay $1 for every 1,000 pages of unauthorized material viewed on Web sites that aren't owned by the copyright owners.

If anything, Attributor believes its calculations understate the opportunity for fleeced publishers. The Redwood City-based company already is working with a few media companies that could generate more than $1 million in annual advertising by enforcing their online copyrights, said Rich Pearson, Attributor's vice president of marketing.

The problem, aside from still not understanding the benefit of having thousands of blogs pointing to your content? The excerpt above counts as piracy for the benefit of the study.

Attributor's study, conducted from Sept. 12 through Oct. 12, reviewed 30 billion Web pages hosting copies of stories from more than 100 major Web sites. None of the sites belonged to Attributor's current customers. After excluding all properly licensed content, Attributor then discarded any page that copied less than 50 percent or fewer than 125 words of a copyrighted story.

Oops. Just upped the word count again.

If Attributor - and the AP - wanted to find actual piracy, they should look for whole-article lifting. That happens every day, and should be attacked and stopped.

But focusing only on the actual pirates wouldn't get them to the big shocking number they want, to make their wrong-headed point, now would it?

Drain, circled?

Alan Mutter, The Newsosaur, returns with another smack-in-the-face post this morning, which analyzes the numbers from 12 newspaper companies and notes, with some horror, how much faster profits are falling than revenues.

The average profitability of newspapers tumbled 18½ times faster than sales fell in the third quarter of this year, according to an analysis of a dozen companies that segment their financial statements in sufficient detail to isolate the performance of their newspaper divisions.

In a three-month period when advertising and circulation sales among the 12 publishers dropped by an average of 10.3% from the prior year’s level, the average operating profits of the group in the third quarter plunged by a staggering 198.3%.

What I appreciate about Mutter's posts is how he 1) does original reporting and 2) often bases that reporting on numbers.

Numbers may prompt emotion, but they're not emotional themselves. They tell an ugly story, but there's little doubt that the story is true.

For at least a year, if not longer, it's been clear to anyone who would look at the numbers that the old cliche is especially true now: Newspapers can't simply cut their way to profit. There needs to be a reset of the business, a fresh look at the business model and the cost structure.

There will be more cuts, but if they're not strategic cuts, executed as part of a rebuilding process, the blood will be wasted and, like Tribune's payday loans to itself, merely forestall the inevitable.

But if the business (or just one brave paper) doesn't heed the warnings of such events as the recent CUNY summit on business models or (one would hope) this week's API summit, then the circling of the drain is only going to accelerate once the advertising money starts drying up in Q1.

Dispatches from behind the locked doors of the API Summit

Mark Potts brings news of a rogue liveblog that made it through the virtual razor-ribbon today at the super-secret API newspaper crisis summit in Reston.

Big ups to Chuck Peters, CEO of The Gazette Company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for 1. knowing how to use Twitter and coveritlive.com to get the news out fast attempt to bring more participants into the room, even if only virtually and 2. having the guts to do it, at the risk of the rolled eyes and possibly hostile glares of his CEO co-summiteers.

Chuck Peters:  Just cutting costs is most likely "incorrect action", without reengineering to meet key consumer needs.

Chuck Peters:  Do you agree with Steve Yelvington that we have "painted ourselves into a corner" by following our success, like GM?   Check out http://www.yelvington.com/node/501

Peters kept the news conversation flowing for several hours, eventually fielding questions and suggestions from participants on the liveblog and on Twitter. It ultimately became impossible for one person to both participate in the conference and field all the questions and suggestions flowing through his liveblog. Too bad the room wasn't filled with others such as Yelvington, Potts, Jarvis and others to bring some perspective and other voices.

But for now, Chuck Peters, your colleagues and friends salute you. And congratulations for making it out alive!

UPDATE: What kind of coverage can you expect to get when 50 newspaper CEOs gather in one place to discuss the future of desperately struggling industry? Apparently, once you get past one brave soul with laptop and an EVDO card and some media-bloggers outside of the mainstream media, not much. Run a Google search for "American Press Institute" and, as of this writing at least, there's nothing. Search the Romenesko blog - the industry gossip and tip sheet - and there's nothing, not even a link to Chuck Peters's liveblog.

What's wrong with the U.S. newspaper industry? In this case, a stunning lack of curiosity, it would seem.

UPDATE 2: Made a few edits based on Chuck Peters's comments below. I still think what he did today was great, but if he chooses to not call it strictly reporting, I'll abide by that.

Quiet day in Zero Percent Idle land

I spent my day on Twitter today, arguing about Jeff Jarvis (Me: generally pro) and learning about the Higher Ed Web space, where I'll be focusing my daily efforts, starting tomorrow, in my new position with Johns Hopkins University.

I will still blog here as well, though things might continue to be a bit quiet for a few days as I get my bearings at my new office on the waterfront in Fells Point. Unless you count my time in the World Trade Center (Baltimore!) at The Inner Harbor (and, on balance, I don't), I've never worked in an area that was actually interesting and loaded with good places to eat and with a real, non-chain coffee shop within a few minutes of my desk. So this should be fun.

Until I get back, look for me in 140-character chunks, on Twitter.