Kerry Statement on the Future of Journalism

[ProSense]

05/06/2009

Kerry Statement on the Future of Journalism

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In advance of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet's hearing, "The Future of Journalism," Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) released the following opening remarks.

Today's 2:30 pm hearing will be held in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building and simultaneously webcast on the Commerce Committee website at http://commerce.senate.gov.

Full remarks as prepared are below:

A brass plaque on a wall at Columbia University's School of Journalism bears the words of legendary newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer: "Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together." If we take seriously this notion that the press is the fourth estate, or the fourth branch of government, it is time we examine the future of journalism in the digital Information Age and what it means to our Republic and to our democracy.

Americans once counted on newspapers to be the rock on which journalism was based. As Princeton University communication professor Paul Starr notes in the most recent issue of Columbia Journalism Review, "More than any other medium, newspapers have been our eyes on the state, our check on private abuses, our civic alarm systems."

Most of us in this room probably begin our day with a newspaper -- maybe two or three. Newspapers have been a part of our daily lives since we were old enough to read, and since our first paper routes, for me delivering the now defunct Washington Star. We learned about our neighborhood, our country, our world from newspapers - they entertained us; they enraged us; but always, they have informed us.

But today, newspapers look like an endangered species. The latest circulation figures, released just last week, show that the largest metro newspapers are continuing to lose daily and Sunday readers - a long-time trend that is now accelerating to record rates. In the six-month period ending March 31st, major metro dailies in great cities like Boston, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, and Atlanta all saw double-digit percentage decreases in daily circulation.

The 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News ceased publishing altogether this year; the 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the 100-year-old Christian Science Monitor shifted completely to the Web; and the Detroit Free Press cut home delivery to only three days. And this week, efforts are intensifying to keep the Boston Globe from closing.

If you look at the stock market, the fortunes of the newspaper industry look just as bad. Earlier this year, a share of The New York Times sold for less than the $4 it costs for a Sunday edition of the Times. In 2008, newspaper stock prices fell an astounding 83 percent. The New York Times bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993, but the value of all Times stock is less than $800 million now. And this past weekend, the oracle of Omaha himself, Warren Buffet, gave newspapers a vote of no confidence when he said that he wouldn't invest in newspapers at any price.

These are the stark numbers that newspapers face. The numbers for broadcast journalism are not much better. We're here today to talk not only about the conditions that have led to these jolting statistics, but about the path that lies ahead for news delivery, and how during a time of great creative destruction within the market for news delivery we might preserve the core societal function that is served by an independent and diverse news media.

Now, as many in this room will remember, I have frequently spoken out against relaxing media ownership rules, such as the cross media ownership rule, which bans a media company from owning a newspaper and television station in the same market. Some may even look at the current set of circumstances and think that further relaxing this rule is one step that could be taken to save the old model. But when you look at how fast technology is moving—how the economics of news delivery really work in an age where everything you read in ink can be found on the web faster and cheaper and further from where it is printed—well, you are whistling past the graveyard if you think that relaxing cross ownership rules will save newspapers.

We saw a sign of the times just this morning, when Amazon introduced a new larger version of its e-book reader Kindle as an alternative to the newspaper in an effort to salvage the dying print media.

As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet. But just looking at the erosion of newspapers is not the full picture; it's just one casualty of a completely shifting and churning information landscape. Most experts believe that what we are seeing happen to newspapers is just the beginning—soon, perhaps in a matter of a few years, television and radio will experience what newspapers are experiencing now.

The rise of newspapers and broadcast news was made possible by the fact that they served as market intermediaries - that is, they connected buyers and sellers through advertising. But the Internet makes it possible for buyers and sellers to connect at virtually no cost and with no need to attract either with general interest news. It is no surprise, then, that with advertising dollars going elsewhere, these are hard times for what is now being called the "legacy" media.

But these are times of great innovation, too, as journalists, both inside and outside of the mainstream media, are collectively searching for an economic support system for good, solid reporting. Journalists laid off or bought out by the old media are becoming entrepreneurs, building up Web-only news sites in cities throughout the country to make up for the shrinking newsrooms of local newspapers or to reach specialized audiences.

As the economic model continues to shift, important questions require answers. As advertising revenues continue to vanish, will there be room in the budget for the great investigative journalism that marked the last half of the 20th Century? Will the emerging news media be more fragmented by interests and political partisanship?

There also is the important question of whether on-line journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has. The new digital environment certainly is more open to "citizen journalism," bloggers and the free expression of opinions. In the last eight years, we have gone from zero bloggers to more than 70 million, and news is broken over twitter feeds and cell phones instead of on local broadcast networks. Just look at the way Janis Krums, a New York City ferry passenger, broke the news that flight 1549 out of LaGuardia had landed in the Hudson River-- he took a picture himself and tweeted the feed to an audience of thousands.

Consider this:

• Google topped $21.7 billion in advertising revenue in 2008, but the news it provides is an aggregate from free news sources.
  
  
• Craigslist, which provides free classified ads on-line, gets about one billion visits a month, costing newspapers billions of dollars a year.
  
  
• YouTube has more than 100 million viewers each day and about 65,000 new videos uploaded daily. Its ad revenue reportedly totals somewhere between $120 million and $500 million a year.
  
  
• Facebook, the free-access social networking website, now has 200 million users and is adding 700,000 new users each day. It reportedly had $300 million in ad revenue last year. Ironically, the New York Times has a paid circulation of 1.45 million, but on Facebook the newspaper has 447,926 "friends."
  
  
• Mobile subscribers total some 250 million in the United States and send more than a billion text messages each day. This two-way interactive media is getting more and more attention from advertisers. It's estimated that the mobile advertising industry already exceeds $2 billion annually.

The words of Joseph Pulitzer are still true -our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. We are just talking about a new kind of press, a new media, one that Pulitzer and all the other newspaper barons of this country never envisioned. This new kind of press, this new media is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out. That is why I wanted us all to sit down and talk about it - and try to figure it out together.

While we're searching for answers to these questions, there's one thing we can do today to recognize the contributions of online journalists who shoulder the responsibility that comes with covering congress: we can make sure that the rules for credentialing congressional reporters are modernized. I will be working with Senate Rules Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer and the Standing Committee of Correspondents to make sure that is done.

The Standing Committee of Correspondents was created in 1877 as a way to organize and regulate media access to the halls of Congress. It was created to rid the press galleries of lobbyists, or "claims agents," as they were once called. It was created to replace a system of questionable journalism practices. Before the committee was created, in fact, Mark Twain worked as a secretary to Senator William Stewart of Nevada at the same time he was also a "letter writer" to two newspapers - the Alta Californian of San Francisco and the Chicago Republican.

The congressional credentialing system has worked well for more than 130 years, so we should be careful about how we change it. The rules have undergone some changes over the years, and in the last three years, the Standing Committee has struggled with how to address the digital information age. Now is the time to make sure these rules treat online reporters fairly.

[karynnj]

1. This is a fascinating hearing

It is on live now on CSPAN3. It also looks like it will be archived here - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&tID=5&src=atom&atom=todays_events.xml&products_id=285745-1

It was a very good, interesting hearing with many different views.

[PresidentObama]

2. K&R. Thanks for posting this! n/t

[karynnj]

3. The hearing was fantastic in getting a discussion started -

Before the hearing, Kerry spoke to various reporters. Here is a WSJ comment.

Newspapers may be facing tough economic times, but easing the ban on cross ownership with broadcasters won't save them, the chairman of a U.S. Senate telecommunications panel said Wednesday.

"When you look at how fast technology is moving - how the economics of news delivery really work in an age where everything you read in ink can be found on the Web faster and cheaper and further from where it is printed - well, you are whistling past the graveyard if you think that relaxing cross ownership rules will save newspapers," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.

<snip>
"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry's statement said.

<snip>
The hearing raises several questions about a news business increasingly driven by the Internet. Will online journalism sustain the same values as traditional journalism? Will the emerging media be more fragmented? Who will fund in-depth investigative projects?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090506-714634.html

[ProSense]

5. Thanks.

The question is fascinating. Much of what we get in Google searches is the online version of papers and magazines. It's interesting to comtemplate what happens when or if print suffers so much that media can no longer support their online versions or if the online entities can begin to generate enough money to sustain them.

[DanLawton]

14. Great Hearing, but Cardin's bill is really flawed

This was a fantastic hearing, but I find Representative's Cardin legislation fatally flawed. First, it excludes local newspapers, roundly perceived as being the most sustainable. More importantly though, it sets up such a dangerous precedent by giving government control over the finances of newspapers. To receive 501 C-3 status, newspapers will have to forgo political endorsements, which isn't a huge problem. However, down the line I can imagine situations in which the government decrees that a newspaper is too objectionable or political (sans endorsements) to receive 501 C-3 status. This is a pretty eerie forecast.

I think if Washington wants to give tax breaks to newspapers, they need to find a better format than via the 501 C-3. Maybe just set up a totally different all encompassing tax category for media.

[ProSense]

15. That's a complete misread of the situation. n/t

[DanLawton]

16. How so?

[ProSense]

18. You first

Explain this: "it sets up such a dangerous precedent by giving government control over the finances of newspapers"

Also, this: "I can imagine situations in which the government decrees that a newspaper is too objectionable or political (sans endorsements) to receive 501 C-3 status."

Really? The model discussed throughout the hearing was that of Public Broadcasting.

[DanLawton]

19. Sure, Just Look at the History Of Public Broadcasting

The model discussed and included in the bill is 501 C-3 non profits. Most of these are churches and charities. However, you are correct in the fact that public broadcasting is also included. In fact, comparing newspapers to public broadcasting is the biggest conceptual flaw in Cardin's bill.

Public Broadcasting is a quasi state entity. It receives around 50% of its funding from state and federal governments. Because of this, it is held to a number of restrictions on the sort of content it can produce. Specifically, it must must have a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature" This is problematic, as objectivity is basically an apparition. Everyone has a different definition, making it impossible to collectively define.

Under Bush there were numerous efforts to alter the content of PBS to compensate for the "liberal bias" of media and exert the Republican mandate. In fact, this was one of the reasons Bill Moyers resigned. Why could Bush do this? Because public broadcasting had to be "objective" in order to keep its tax status and he had the power to decide what objectivity was. Public Broadcasting has been historically subjected to political pressure to alter its content Is this really something you want to happen to newspapers?

If Cardin's bill passes, private entities--which are currently free to print whatever they want--will be forced to fulfill ideological criteria. This criteria will be decided by the government.

You are correct in that I may have misspoke when stating that this bill would "establish a dangerous precedent." That precedent is already there. The danger is subjecting every newspaper outlet in the country to the same sort of political censorship.

[ProSense]

20. Again, this is a model, and

it's pretty clear, as it was mentioned dozens of times throughout the hearing that the government would absolutely not inject itself into the industry. Secondly, this is about investigative journalism, and if one needs a model of that from public broadcasting all one has to do is look at Bill Moyers or Frontline.

I don't see any danger whatsovever.



Edits in italics.

[DanLawton]

21. Do you really think a president like Bush would respect the word of this hearing?

If so, you have an incredible faith in government.

Also, it has already been stated by Cardin that newspapers would no longer be able to endorse candidates if they took the 501 C-3. The government is considering injecting itself into the industry. That was the main point of the hearing.

[ProSense]

23. That was not the point of the hearing, and this has nothing to do with Bush. Period. n/t

[ProSense]

17. delete, wrong place n/t

[beachmom]

4. It was a great hearing. Thanks for posting, Prosense.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Misnomer: It's the future of *newspapers* that was at issue, not journalism.

[ProSense]

7. It was both, or more correctly, all. n/t

[karynnj]

9. Did you watch the hearing - it was on the future of journalism

Kerry named it that - and the list of panelists - including a VP from Goggle and Ariana Huffington show that is exactly what he meant. In the article I posted, he speaks of the fact that it is faster and easier to get the news online.

[beachmom]

11. It was about journalism. That was Kerry's view. However, different

members of the panel had different views as did Senators. Thing is we on DU don't do journalism. We copy and paste it.

[NYCGirl]

8. I'm very happy to know that John Kerry gets it. We don't necessarily need

more newspapers. We need more journalism.

[karynnj]

10. Exactly and it was a great hearing

It will be interesting to see if any discussions continue. Some of the ideas thrown out - though maybe not ready for prime time- do address different ways to try to fund real journalism.

[ProSense]

12. This is a really great hearing.

Extremely insightful.

[BeFree]

13. Good thread

Interesting isn't it that the fat cat right-wingers invested tons of money in buying up as many media outlets as possible and now they are losing their shirts.

They are going broke!!

[politicasista]

22. Kick. Good thread

to echo BeFree. :hi:

Our local newspaper is getting really thin and short on real journalism these days. :kick:

[ProSense]

24. Stick to the facts: no one's bailing out newspapers

Stick to the facts: no one's bailing out newspapers

By Kenneth Corbin on May 7, 2009

For an Internet reporter, the press table at a Senate hearing on the gloomy future of journalism is an odd thing. You're surrounded by print reporters who are all too aware that their medium is on its way out. They joke about being dinosaurs and grumble about the union dispute that nearly shuttered the Boston Globe. One is the Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News, whose CEO and publisher is brought in to testify about how the thriving traffic to the paper's Web site isn't nearly enough to sustain the newsroom that produces the content.

It's an altogether dreary affair, full of gallows humor and unsatisfying assurances from Arianna Huffington and Google's Marissa Mayer that quality journalism will flourish on the Internet.

<...>

Consider Joe Weisenthal's take on yesterday's affair at Silicon Alley Insider. Writing about a hearing that he apparently didn't see and linking to an AP story, Weisenthal headlines his blog post, "The Ridiculous Newspaper Bailout Begins."

There was talk about a bailout at yesterday's hearing. It came in the context of categorical opposition to any such proposal from all parties present.

<...>

At the same time, when you come across a completely inaccurate blog post linking to an AP story that at least got the facts down, you wonder if Simon didn't have it right about the parasite and the host.

Excellent example.

[karynnj]

25. I'm glad he singled out Weisenthal -

His article was ridiculous because he didn't even read Kerry's statement, much less watch any of the 3 hour hearing. To make matters worse, when challenged by people who did, he still insists, in a major show of chutzpah that he doesn't consider it a problem that he wrote up what he thinks would happen and called it what happened.

As this was a hearing on journalism, in the best of all worlds it should have provoked a thoughtful dialogue in the blogospher. In the first place, the very best, most persuasive things I have read on any blog are when someone puts together a narrative backed by substantial backup links on the facts that either pulls together things or explains something in a way I hadn't thought of before. Most of those links are to the content that Kerry and others hope can be supported in a world where most news is electronic.

To me, bloggers asking themselves where they would be with no dependable reporting, when that is usually the basis of what they write. The fact is that the new media really does need the old media - and they admitted to the committee. What I hope is that this bringing together of these people could create the interactions needed to hash out ways to preserve the good parts of the old and the freedom and openness of the new. Both have virtues and together they are richer than either one alone.

The old media is forced to work hard on these options - their viability depends on it. The new media's involvement may depend on seeing that they need a way to have reliable content. Some won't see that. From just this, Weisenthal might not see the need for real newsgathering. Here, he did not even have to depend on the hated MSM. The hearing was easily available on cable or internet. He could have had a front row seat and actually viewed the entire hearing. Now, that would be reporting - whether well done or not.