The future of public interest media.

[kickazz]

Anyone catch last night's (13th june) special edition of Media Watch?

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4481060.htm


It went on about how revenue is down, for both print and online, particularly due to declining advertising revenue. Facebook largely to blame.

Experts concluded that people will only pay for specialised news going forward, and that the important public interest news, which is still popular, will need public or philanthropic funding.

Do you agree? Do you currently pay for any news or media and what form is it, specialist/general?

I myself realised a while ago that the traditional 'find out the highlights of what is going on' can be found for free and instantly, and started investing in reading magazines etc for in depth analysis, where Twitter and Facebook could not compete.

Also, is all of this necessarily a bad thing? Will traditional investigative journalism be replaced by algorithms that aggregate first hand accounts (including video) of events, taking away a layer of potential bias or the "chinese whispers" effect of repeating someone else's story? Could articles on sport, court proceedings etc be automated, leaving journos to persue more in depth, "magazine" type stories? How would you feel about more of the day to day public interest news being publicly funded?

Overall, what are your hopes and fears for the media in the next 20 years?

 

[little graham]

Good thread. Typically deserted as all the real thread subjects are here.

Most people cant answer because they believe everything Rupert Murdoch tells them.

 

[kickazz]

Good thread. Typically deserted as all the real thread subjects are here.

Most people cant answer because they believe everything Rupert Murdoch tells them.

Wouldn't say I'm a massive fan, but interestingly, the Media Watch story seems to suggest that the future is either gov or philanthropic funding - if we won't pay, then will it be left to wealthy influencers like Rupert? Even as we speak, The Australian is not profitable, and really only exists as a pet project of the owner.....

A lot of people like to bang on about the MSM, and it's bias or agenda. My concern for them is their relevance. Was watching Nine news the other day and it is just full of news broadcasting cliche's from the fifties. Sport / court reports are lame. Sending a reporter out to be "on the scene" of a car crash or a house that was burgled 10 hours ago - what a waste of resources. A story about how Ikea now have an online store (hardly a revelation) followed by a 'proper' paid ad for Ikea. Not to mention the odd shitty you tube video of some crappy explosion in another country.

I was amazed at how s**t it was. It's like they see social media, esp facebook/youtube as the threat that it is, and instead of trying to create a point of difference, they just lamely try to imitate them.

I feel bad for the people losing jobs etc, but I still think there is a place for good journalism and quality programming. 4 Corners comes to mind as a good example. Perhaps it is time for the MSM to ditch the nightly bulletin / daily paper and focus on something meatier?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Good thread.

I too rely on on free MSM for fact based stuff (How many dead? Where was it? etc). With all the in-depth stuff, I can track it down and read for free. I can consume lots of media, essentially for free. Now this model is unsustainable.

I'm pretty sure paywalls are going to be erected higher soon and I dont think that's unfair. Provided we have a robust public media and that anyone can access the a well resourced ABC, I think the choice is between either enforcing monetisation of net media more strongly, or don't have a news media.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Wouldn't say I'm a massive fan, but interestingly, the Media Watch story seems to suggest that the future is either gov or philanthropic funding - if we won't pay, then will it be left to wealthy influencers like Rupert? Even as we speak, The Australian is not profitable, and really only exists as a pet project of the owner.....

A lot of people like to bang on about the MSM, and it's bias or agenda. My concern for them is their relevance. Was watching Nine news the other day and it is just full of news broadcasting cliche's from the fifties. Sport / court reports are lame. Sending a reporter out to be "on the scene" of a car crash or a house that was burgled 10 hours ago - what a waste of resources. A story about how Ikea now have an online store (hardly a revelation) followed by a 'proper' paid ad for Ikea. Not to mention the odd shitty you tube video of some crappy explosion in another country.

I was amazed at how s**t it was. It's like they see social media, esp facebook/youtube as the threat that it is, and instead of trying to create a point of difference, they just lamely try to imitate them.

I feel bad for the people losing jobs etc, but I still think there is a place for good journalism and quality programming. 4 Corners comes to mind as a good example. Perhaps it is time for the MSM to ditch the nightly bulletin / daily paper and focus on something meatier?

thing is, is that "something meatier" profitable? the last decent news program from the private sector in australia was sunday. it got axed because it wasn't popular enough. i don't think it's a coincidence that much of the decent news media around the world is already public. i've never seen a private version of PBS' the news hour for instance. PBS survives on modest government funding & philanthropy.

i say * 'em. outdone for 3 decades (my life experience) by under-resourced, unprofitable public servants.

 

[evo]

Digital media has made it ever easier to inhabit outlets that appeal to our biases.

I'm certainly guilty of it. There are so many options these days.

 

[Play by Numbers]

thing is, is that "something meatier" profitable? the last decent news program from the private sector in australia was sunday. it got axed because it wasn't popular enough. i don't think it's a coincidence that much of the decent news media around the world is already public. i've never seen a private version of PBS' the news hour for instance. PBS survives on modest government funding & philanthropy.

i say **** 'em. outdone for 3 decades (my life experience) by under-resourced, unprofitable public servants.

I think the main premise of the thread is true.

Few private media companies do genuine investigative work now. One, the guardian was the beneficiary of a trust.

Pretty much, most serious public interest stuff, either requires donations think NPR, centre for investigative journalism etc. or a vehicle like satire and comedy, think Jon Oliver, private eye and so on.

If we want high quality coverage, that skirts overt bias and digs relatively deep into issues that affect the public and is not beholden to censure on subjects that have commercial sensitivity, then we need public funding.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I've often thought public funding makes sense because it is often most useful as a public policy service, but I don't know how to make it work in practicality. The politicisation of it would be immediate if govts had choices, and if it went to an independent body to choose or they were chosen like judges are then you'd have a huge ****fight over who deserves it. Because the Murdoch media would demand high representation but the amount of journos they have that are well respected is relatively low, and that respect generally revolves around their ability to present an opinion not in line with Murdoch's opinion, which in the eyes of his minions means they are 'left' (Malcolm Farr, Megalogo back in the day). Even on Crime you have the Fairfax guys behind a lot of detailed reporting (although one of those Underbelly guys I think was poached by News Corp after its commercial success, like they did with Matt Preston post-Masterchef). Murdoch papers do better on sport often, but that wouldn't need public funding.

At the very least we should always have the ABC (and SBS, although I think it will be merged) doing TV investigative reporting and satire. The BBC dominate the landscape with that in the UK already, so it isn't a hugely controversial possibility.

There is a global investigative journalism organisation already (probably more than one) so there would be some other alternatives, and Warren Buffet believes local papers will retain relevance enough... If Fairfax hasn't moved to the right over the last 5 or so years I might pay them. As it stands the Guardian is a bit light-on for content. Tricky situation.

 

[medusala]

Few private media companies do genuine investigative work now. One, the guardian was the beneficiary of a trust.

Scott Trust. Still is. Though changed to ltd.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I think the main premise of the thread is true.

yeah, so do i. i didnt intend my post to be a disagreement. just a general "* you!" to private enterprise's s**t product and my utter lack of care for their hard financial times (exceptions exist though, of course). always liked the economist, and time (before its quality declined).

 

[kickazz]

Is it simply time for the daily paper to reassess it's purpose? What percentage of it is a high level overview of the events of the last 24 hours? Pissing into the wind if they think that will be their bread and butter.

 

[medusala]

I've often thought public funding makes sense because it is often most useful as a public policy service, but I don't know how to make it work in practicality.

A lot of councils in the UK produced (I think some still do) their own newspapers. Just blatant propaganda from whichever side was in power at the time.

The BBC dominate the landscape with that in the UK already, so it isn't a hugely controversial possibility.

I am surprised SBS hasn't been merged already, its long been talked about. The BBC is a bit different to the ABC as it has huge market advantages the ABC doesn't (and its far easier to justify ABC due to its rural coverage etc). Its also gets quite a bit more thrown at it (20,000 odd employees) Few would argue with one channel and BBC World News but 6 odd separate radio stations and BBC2? Channel 4 is also publicly owned. I think it will change dramatically going forward with the scrapping of the TV licence and eventual privatisation of ch4 (Cameron wanted to but in a Turnbull like effort gave up).

always liked the economist, and time (before its quality declined).

I used to subscribe to the Economist but their Eurofanaticism got too much for me. The best economics stuff IMO comes from hedge fund chaps but getting hold of it isn't easy.

 

[medusala]

Is it simply time for the daily paper to reassess it's purpose? What percentage of it is a high level overview of the events of the last 24 hours? Pissing into the wind if they think that will be their bread and butter.

See Daily Mail online and their concentration on showbiz.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Only three real options outside continued public funding as far as I can see it.

- The dick-rag model: Mail Online is really the only masthead to completely nail this (zero-ethics, plagiarism). People lap it up, but its a god-awful product with zero public merit.

- The Bezos/Buffet/Murdoch model: Public benefactor cross subsidises the product for ego/public good/personal power/whatever else. Works, but runs into the problem that the publisher's interest at the public's interest inevitably wind up clashing.

- Telling people what they want to hear: Crikey et al. Will survive on the smell of an oily rag, but eventually be undone by the fact there's plenty of people out there wanting to tell readers what they want to hear for free.

Cross subsidisation will be the name of the game for the next decade: Domain for Fairfax, TV for News Corp. They can't rely on subscription, clicks, ads etc as the sole revenue stream anymore.

 

[WA ROO]

Most people cant answer because they believe everything Rupert Murdoch tells them.

I only believe what Milo tells me

 

[Long Live HFC]

I used to subscribe to the Economist but their Eurofanaticism got too much for me. The best economics stuff IMO comes from hedge fund chaps but getting hold of it isn't easy.

but europe accepted a kind of quasi gold standard! that's gotta get a little lead in your pencil

 

[GreyCrow]

Is it simply time for the daily paper to reassess it's purpose? What percentage of it is a high level overview of the events of the last 24 hours? Pissing into the wind if they think that will be their bread and butter.

Yep. While I still buy the paper I find myself flicking pages without reading as I have looked them over in the last day.

I buy it for
1. Crossword
2. Obits
3. Football Gameday

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Do they still do hard copy editions of the Weak Green Lefty? I haven't seen one of them being sold for a while...

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Do they still do hard copy editions of the Weak Green Lefty? I haven't seen one of them being sold for a while...

You mean the paper I've only ever seen handed out by two anarchists on a street corner at Uni or on Swanston St? I don't think they've ever worried about a lack of takers.

 

[kickazz]

Yep. While I still buy the paper I find myself flicking pages without reading as I have looked them over in the last day.

I buy it for
1. Crossword
2. Obits
3. Football Gameday

Yep the hub is still good for the puzzles and quiz.

Interesting fact i heard from someone who works there: the thing that gets them the most telephone complaints is when they * something up in the crosswords.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

You mean the paper I've only ever seen handed out by two anarchists on a street corner at Uni or on Swanston St? I don't think they've ever worried about a lack of takers.

They're not anarchists, it is the organ of the Democratic Socialist Party, a hard left party that seemed to take a long time to recognise the barbarity of the Communist regime in the then Soviet Union.

 

[Gough]

+1 for the crosswords. I think the need for a newspaper is disappearing for the same reason the old fashioned department store is struggling, the grab bag, bit of everything approach is no longer viable. People can now concentrate on specific interests, visiting sites that explore these in depth. and ignore completely things of little interest to them.