Abstract
The subject of this book is one which must concern readers of the BJR, whatever their definition of “quality news journalism” in the context of swiftly evolving technology, both in the collection and distribution of information and in the way it is absorbed by recipients. What emerges from the many different strands in the volume is just how nuanced the subject is, and the complexity of seeking to preserve serious news coverage in a world where commercial pressures seem inimical and technological developments have raised a plethora of uncertainties.
Some may question the premise with which one of the editors, Peter Anderson, starts the volume — a definition of quality news journalism. There will be those who say simply that they know a good serious news story when they see one and have no need of definitions from a reader in media studies. At times, Anderson's language veers off into the thickets of academic terminology, but he lays down a useful ground plan, with five Cs — comprehensibility, context, causality, comparativeness and comprehensiveness on top of the basic requirement of accuracy Succeeding chapters examine the situation of quality hard news from a variety of angles and in different geographical settings — print and broadcast news, funding issues, the merging of print and digital journalism in American newsrooms, citizen journalism, social media and the situation in India, South Africa, Kenya and the Arab world.
There are some omissions. News agencies are not considered, though they are a prime source of serious global hard news reporting; although it is the major international source both for other media and for direct recipients, there is only one reference to Reuters — a passing sentence on the way its service fits with internet distribution. Nor is there discussion of the shading between traditional hard news and analysis, especially with the growth of specialised online services for discrete audiences, which have produced a new dynamic between producers and the audience.
The overall answer to the question of the present and future health of quality journalism presented in the book (ridiculously overpriced as it is) is far from as pessimistic as doomsters would have it, as they forecast that accumulating pressures will mean the end of decent news reporting except for an elite ready and able to pay for it. The chapter on US television notes that only NBC makes a profit out of news but then points to the significant role of PBS, which is available for those who want it. The survey of UK broadcasting opens with the statement that “UK TV news and current affairs are in rude health, with sound prospects for the short to medium term”, though sounding a less positive note as far as radio is concerned.
Chris Blackhurst from The Independent stable points to the sales success of the i and the resurrection of the Evening Standard as examples of the way new formulas and new market approaches can draw readers, though he does not hide the huge cost incurred by the owners. Even if the Indian press is subject to commercialism that undermines editorial standards, there are striking achievements in the press scene there. Citizen journalism, for all its limitations, can contribute a useful new element to the flow of information. Despite the recurrent forecasts of its imminent demise, investigative reporting remains vibrant, as The Guardian has shown to huge effect.
Still, if the horizon is not as sombre as sometimes imagined, the outlook remains clearly troubled. The rush into free internet content while maintaining print production costs and failing to develop a viable revenue model showed a lack of business sense, which underlies the present financial problems. Finding a solution to the financial problem has been the Holy Grail for serious media for a long time but business policy towards the internet and lack of co-ordination between hard copy and electronic delivery has seriously aggravated their plight, however estimable the goal of making information available for nothing round the globe may be. Editing models remain rooted in the past and show too little awareness of reader-contact techniques evolved by online marketeers a dozen years ago
Pointing to the importance of serious news media for the political process, Anderson concludes with a proposal of co-operation between them and the makers of new technology which has disrupted their traditional business models, in order to limit the disruptive effect of advances in delivery and display mechanisms. “This might from time to time, where possible, involve the slowing down of the introduction of new, step-changing communications technologies within one or more democracies in order to allow news producers, manufacturers and, to use the jargon, other key stakeholders in the democratic process adequate time to work out ways of coping with their negative effects and harnessing their beneficial ones. That would bring greater stability to the news business and, in so doing, would bring another crucial benefit because stability is a key attracter of increased investment and that, in theory at least, should help provide the resources necessary to protect the budgets for quality news, should the owners of the relevant businesses choose to use the investment in this way and not channel it off into increased returns for shareholders.”
Quite apart from the basic fact that it is potential profitability rather than stability that is the key attracter for investment, such a deal seems unlikely. Why would technology firms want to slow down their development and marketing for the sake of quality media, and why should they bail out newspapers and broadcasters who have been unable to make their businesses work? The conundrum of how to solve that last question is plain but Anderson's solution would sell the pass of independence that is at the heart of quality news. It is up to the industry to solve it, if only to safeguard its own independence rather than becoming dependent on the kindness of strangers.