@John Thanks for pointing it out. All fixed now That’s essentially subbing isn’t it?

Nice, nice way to express your support.
So you think it’s terrific that a company that, until now, has acted in support of mainstream investigative journalism now proposes to sack some of those journalists?
You think that, rather than fight for the medium we write for and believe in, we should meekly turn around and say ‘ok, fair enough. There’s a digital future. Sack me’.
I get it. You’re on the forefront of digital journalism. You reckon everyone else should be here.
Um… they’re not. Yet. And we’re yet to see any proof that this medium can financially support the extent of investigative journalism that mainstream media currently supports.
Sure, there are some niche exceptions like SCO vs IBM. But most digital news reports are still effectively sponsored by mainstream media.
I challenge you to go through Perthnorg and remove every link to, and every reference to, a story that originated or was sourced in a Fairfax or WAN or News Ltd report (or wire story, which are paid for by mainstream media)
Then see what you’ve got left. A lot of gossip, sure. And gossip is often the start of a news story. But it’s not news. There’s a lot of work that happens after gossip and before news, and some commercial model has to support that work.
Is there yet a viable digital model for a comprehensive and investigative news source that can replace mainstream media? I don’t see one.
‘Investing in your audience’ is a lovely feelgood phrase but it don’t pay the bills.
One day you might be right. We’ll all be self-employed journalists syndicating our content to the highest bidder.
But not yet. Not for a long yet. And in the meantime, stop being snarky for the sake of congratulating your fellow bloggers on how cutting edge you all are. Support your colleagues in journalism.

Nick Miller,

I agree – there isn’t a viable business model for most blogs.

The problem is that there is no longer a viable business model for many traditional news organisations either.

I disagree with Bronwen, in that I think you’ve got every right to stand up and try to fight for your jobs and indeed your industry… Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, most news organisations still do a better job than the blogosphere…

… however, only in the same way that hand-made cars are better than mass-produced ones. Most of us don’t drive Rolls, Bentleys, Bristols, or even Morgans… we’ll pay less, and drive a Toyota, and that means that the companies doing the BETTER job had to lay off staff, because the cheaper way not only pushed consumption to a new audience, but cannibalised the market at the top as well (IME, lots of millionaires drive Toyotas.)

It’s hard to see how traditional news organisations will continue to employ the same numbers of staff they used to, no matter how much better a job than they do.

(And yes, I know that the blogheads will now jump on me telling that the Blogosphere does things BETTER… well, not always, IMHO.)

Just to be clear, I think The Age and SMH journalists have every RIGHT to fight for their jobs. I’m just pointing out another option.

“Is there yet a viable digital model for a comprehensive and investigative news source that can replace mainstream media? ”

The assumption here is that ’something’ will replace the MSM with it’s reach and size, maybe that’s not the future. Maybe the future is distributed, smaller and (inter)connected. Maybe the MSM is just the bridge new media needs to get to that point of critical mass when it will survive on it’s own.

Parasitic? Sure, but only until they fatten ourselves then jump off the now anemic dinosaur carcass of the MSM and fend for themselves.

It’s happening already as many small enterprises like this one grow, one post, one reader, one comment one UG item and one new employee at a time.

Oh, and they/we all enjoy snark and self congratulation. Why? Call it professional courtesy.

PS. “…our colleagues in journalism.”??!! So they are journalists now? Nothing like staring at a pink slip and the incoming blogging/new media/digital barbarians to force a change of attitude is there?

If you are right – AND your correspondent (Nick M) is right, will this mean in the future the only real news comes from the BBC and the ABC?

I hope new models can evolve, for if they don’t, government controlled News media could be a very dangerous thing. Diversity is one thing, but critical mass is another.

We know the Foreign office will direct the BBC in wartime. We must assume the same here. It is too easy to do in peacetime with no competition, and also to hire only the ‘right sort’ of journalists.

If Bush/McCain was forced to introduce government media, how different from Fox news would it be. (And Obama, NPR, I guess). And, how likely would it be that we would maintain something like the news variety (and hence some integrity) that we have today.

I happen to think that a new model *will* evolve, say, something involving on-line subscriptions and content delivered to ‘Kindle’ like devices as well as the web, but the potential of a vacuum forming to be forever filled by government controlled media is I think a real threat and one we need to watch.

And speaking of government control, the Russians have found a way of dealing with those pesky web journalists who may speak against the government line. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/01/2351307.htm

At the risk of sounding like a fence-sitter, I can see both sides here and come to the conclusion that the two media – old and new – can and should co-exist (for the foreseeable future). Or at least someone comes up with a better commercial model.

The only people funding investigative journalism are what you called controlled media (in spite of reports of crowd funding etc). You may argue it’s in their financial interest but it doesn’t change the fact that, whatever the cynical arguments behind it, they (sometimes) get the job done and break the majority of big stories. However, while we expect organisations like Fairfax to support journalists because it’s in their interest, the fact remains that as long as they can make money with less journos, they will. BTW, I note the fact that Fairfax Digital employees are not included in the same EBA as the print journos – hmmm.

But I think you are right, Bronwen, in pointing out that the blogosphere is an entirely better medium for the ensuing public debate that should arise from issues like sacking journos or, for that matter, any other major issues in the field of public interest.

I do hope most Fairfax journos take up the fight – David Kirk and Bruce McCarthy certainly won’t fight for journalism. Someone has to.

Let’s not hold too dear to a particular concept of ‘news’.

There’s no intrinsic right or wrong way to provide people with information about the world around them.

‘News’ under its current concept worked well in a mass media market, where a small number of ‘news makers’ controlled the distribution of information to large audiences.

A different definition of news may apply in the future (as it did in the past) – one better suited to a fragmented real-time environment.

Journalism is a young profession, there’s no law of nature that says it will exist as a profession into the future – and if there is a hole left in society, some other approach will fill it.

Journalism is over. Fairfax is a commercial entity. It’s goal is to make money. No matter how ‘noble’ or ‘good’ the quality of its content is, if it’s not making money it fires people. If the general public are not interested in what Fairfax is putting out there, then there’s no money.
Tough.
I would argue that the Fairfax people have brought a certain amount of this outcome upon themselves – they are supposed to be professionals responding to the need of their audience, not some pontificating self-righteous authority.
Maybe that’s what their mistake is here.
It’s hard to recognise that what you do isn’t cutting it. Suck it up.

Bronwen – you say that there are options but you don’t say what they are. “Give up your job and start up a blog, don’t have an income and rely on other people to support you”?

Fairfax Digital, and most of the blogs that get read in Australia, are all part of the MSM – they are just a different distribution channel, not new business models.

Philip:
”PS. “…our colleagues in journalism.”??!! So they are journalists now? Nothing like staring at a pink slip and the incoming blogging/new media/digital barbarians to force a change of attitude is there?”
- I don’t know which straw man you’re gloating at here but there are few left in the MSM who don’t count blogging as journalism. You might think you’re the only person who noticed the internet but, actually, here in the MSM we are very aware of how news is changing. The point is it’s a different kind of journalism, with a different reach, different strengths and different weaknesses. I would argue that it intrinsically cannot compensate on its own for a weakening of Fairfax doing what it does. And even if it can, that time is a long way off yet and no excuse for the present weakening of a still very widely read and respected news source.

RaniaG:
”BTW, I note the fact that Fairfax Digital employees are not included in the same EBA as the print journos – hmmm.”
- You’re trying to imply a lot in that ‘hmmm’ but I’m guessing you’re unaware that one of the things we went on strike over – and have still not resolved with the company – is that Fairfax Digital employees should be part of the same workplace deal as the rest of us. The company is deliberately trying to hive off online journos, probably because it thinks it can save money by treating them as second class citizens. We’re arguing that they should have the same pay deal and rights as the rest of us.

PS RaniaG reread yr comment and I may have misunderstaood your point, apologies if so.
n

Yes, Nick. That’s exactly the point my hmmm was making.

Good hmmm.

Nick,
How are we ever going to develop an online equivalent to good investigative journalism by continuing rely on corporations like Fairfax, whose only business is making a profitable return to its shareholders? The kind of media companies we have created were built up around the fact that they owned the methods of communication. This has changed that fundamentally. Sure, in the beginning the notions of a Fourth Estate were real, but that has slowly been eroded as news organisations have become the large corporate entities they endeavored to inform the public about. The sackings at Fairfax confirm this.
We are only ever going to prove that online media can support good investigative journalism when more of us take the risk to prove it. And we need good writers as well as clear thinkers. My piece, which you claim was snarky, was an honest shout out to Fairfax journalists to take that passion and love of their craft and invest it in the future. Yes, a lot of news is “sponsored” by mainstream media, but it’s not always going to be that way and to make sure we are not left with a void we need to start taking action now.
This is not a bloggers vs journalism debate. This is about creating a better media.

Megan,
Fairfax journalists have been offered payouts if they take volunteer redundancies. It is a golden opportunity for those who want to take a risk and try a new approach outside of mainstream media. New models will emerge, because the market will take care of that. Where there is a need for something, then an economy will evolve around it. The problem with current mainstream media companies is their value proposition has been fundamentally undermined by the fact that people can now source news from anywhere, leading to smalller audiences and advertising dollars.

As for blogs being just another distribution channel – that is a gross underestimation of their impact. Blogs open up a whole new approach to journalism in format, conversation and immediacy. But I’ll save that for another post as it’s outside the scope of this discussion, but certainly worth discussing.

David,
Interesting point on government media, which I don’t think would be ideal. There was quite an interesting post on Techcrunch about this earlier in the year.
Here’s the link http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/24/if-real-journalism-fails-as-a-business-should-government-step-in/

Ok Bronwen, I accept your blog entry was meant to be a critique of large commercially-driven mainstream media. I defend my accusation of snarkiness with reference to your peppering it with words such as ”pathetic” and ”forlorn” and the question ”Where is your backbone, your fire, your passion for news?” Your argument being that, by agreeing to stay at Fairfax we’re displaying our lack of passion for news. Which I object to.
I am passionate for news. And at Fairfax I have found an organisation that backs my quest for good investigative journalism with all the resources that that requires. Time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc. The luxury of being able to say ”I didn’t file a thing today, but you should see what I’m working on”.
I don’t see any online organisation in Australia that will support that kind of journalism – beyond simply giving it a place to be published. Therefore, I think it is the right thing to fight Fairfax in its attempt to reduce that support.
I suggest the Norg concept is just as likely to be an online evolutionary dead end as Fairfax’s. We file for The Age online, too, after all. All you’re offering is an alternative site on which to publish my journalism. Why should I bother, when the tools to publish myself are virtually free? If my story’s good enough, it doesn’t matter whether I’m published on PerthNorg, theage.com.au or nickmiller.com.au. It will echo around the net anyway.
The medium isn’t the issue. It’s the search for commercial support for the often highly uncommercial occupation of journalism.

(one other thought)
You say the ‘market will take care of’ funding journalism once we all make the brave leap to digital. That’s a pretty bold assumption. How can you know that? What if the market throws its hands up at the bewildering plethora of online blogs and communities, and severs the link between journalism and advertising? What then?

Well Nick, I’ll stand by what I said in the tone I said it if this is the result. I must remember to be more snarky in future Really, I think this is a great conversation that I don’t see happening elsewhere (if it is, let me know!)

So we both believe in the value of a good and informed media, but the way I see it, there’s no looking back, like it or not, the horses have bolted and there’s no getting them back in the barn.

I think we have no alternative but to start looking at other options. One thing you can’t deny is that Fairfax as it exists will not survive in the future diversified market. Maybe a leaner new organisation that aims less for quantity and more for quality will evolve. I think it will give it the best chance of surviving. But, for reasons I’ve pointed out, I have some grave doubts about this happening and I’m not willing put my faith in it.

I believe that all the things you list: time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc – can be made available outside of mainstream media. Crikey is an early example of a news type organisation which offers this to writers. Stephen Mayne is trying to do it again with The Mayne Report. Cameron Reilly’s TPN is trying to do it with podcasting. For myself you don’t need to convince me of how hard it is Nick – I’m well aware of it, but I think the risk is worth it if not essential! I’ll keep doing my bit to try and evolve a model that can support new media. Have I done it? Not by a long shot, but I intend to keep learning and evolving to try and find a way to offer an online alternative that incorporates the opportunities being hyper-connected offers us and which mainstream media largely ignores. Everyday I see a reason to keep going.

I have avoided making this a debate about the Norg and more about a broader challenge for mainstream journalist, so I’ll respond to that in another post. My vision for Norg is pretty broad and open, because it is essentially controlled by its audience.

On your last thought about the market taking care of journalism, yes I do think that will happen. We may see many niche publications that don’t make the millions that Fairfax does, but are still sustainable for their publishers.

Hi Bronwen, I checked out that link which I hadn’t seen before. “…Looking for a government handout to perpetuate a quaint but outdated way of life is the last resort of the desperate. It should be avoided at all costs…”, is I think a particularly American view. They seem to assume the worse aspects of my suggestion by default. After all, the closest they have to the ABC is NPR and that is funded mostly from private donations. Here, in the UK and in Canada we already have government Radio, TV and Web media. And if newspapers die, and Television stations do one national news service out Sydney – they will be all that is left for the journalistic written word.

And, for the USA, perhaps it is already too late. One gets the impression, from this distance, that balanced journalism has gone, that it is all opinion or channels pushing specific interests, mad shock jocks and ratings chasing tabloids; while the slow reasoned voice of NPR gently unwinds some long winded tale about nothing at all in some country backwater.

I wonder what evolve for journalism and new media. Is balanced journalism a thing of the past, or is it something that never existed anyway?

Nice post, Bron.

It’s not like the journalists shouldn’t have seen this coming ages ago. For years people like yourself and myself, not to mention Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch, have been predicting that the economics of running a large traditional news org were changing and that journos should start thinking about their future.

Some of the local journos, like Mark Jones at the AFR, saw the writing on the wall and forged a career change. Okay, I’m not suggesting they all decide to become priests, but you get the idea.

Most just stuck their heads in the sand, told us we were full of shit, that “the brand” would save them and now they are whining about their situation like every other employee who doesn’t pay attention and thinks daddy is going to look after them.

You have to wonder how good they are as investigative journalists if they couldn’t even see what was happening under their noses.

Nick, I’m as big a fan of true investigative journalism as anyone. And I hope someone out there has the deep pockets to keep investing in it. But I don’t remember seeing many Australian journalists going out on strike over the last 20 years as the quality of journalism in this country reached ever-deeper lows. I don’t remember reading too many stories in the AGE or SMH about how tabloidy our news was becoming, either.

It’s too late to fight for an industry when you’ve let it decompose for 20 years around you.

Here’s the big news – this is just the beginning. If you think this situation is bad, wait five years.

The myth being perpetuated here that MSM is ’suddenly realising it’s doomed’ is just silly. Fairfax and News Ltd have been hacking into newsfloor numbers for years. Just because we hit a small crisis point doesn’t mean we didn’t notice the gradual slide that preceded it. I’ve been having these conversations with colleagues for years.
I think the central issue should be restated: that there’s a disconnect between problem and action in Fairfax’s case.
Problem: classified advertising is moving from print to online. In its new online incarnation it no longer subsidises journalism. Therefore, there is less money in the pot to pay for good quality general news reporting – which demands more resources than your standard churnalism, specialist industry/interest group publication or part-time blog.
Action: Fairfax is making a heap of journalists redundant from its print operations.
If a business is struggling to make ends meet it has two ways to counter the problem: cut costs or increase revenue.
The first option holds long term dangers, but is the easiest. And they’ve gone for it, without any ideas or vision as to how the second option might have been be approached.
Online news ‘pioneers’ should ask themselves if they are actually journalists, or rather publishers (there’s a grey area, but is your job essentially finding the news, or publishing news that someone else found?).
I think that, with this distinction in mind, you’re encouraging print journalists to get out there and become digital publishers. We’ll end up with a million news sources with nothing in them.
I don’t want to be a publisher. I haven’t been trained to be a publisher, I don’t think I’d be good at it. I’m good at journalism.
Are you saying that the only solution is to employ and publish myself? That journalism as a pure profession is doomed? If so, I worry that a hybrid journalist/publisher means worse journalism and worse publishing. If not, what’s the online model that proves it has a future?
Cameron: I’m not going to respond because you didn’t make any good points, and even your mediocre points were aggressively overstated.

One of the annoying elements of these posts is the persistence of the rush to define the end of established media. Typically these posts exhibit a form of narcissism that in itself is a better reason for established media to fail than the existence of any new media. The likelihood that communities will prefer a new form of self-centred media over an old one is in my opinion one of the more fragile planks of this debate. (Which, I might add, seems to go on. And on.)
By the way, it’s unlikely that any blogger could pay the bills when Joe Corporate bungs on a multi-million dollar law suit over some perfectly defensible “independent” reporting. That is the fact of life about established media and a very good reason to not wish it away.

“Just to be clear, I think The Age and SMH journalists have every RIGHT to fight for their jobs. I’m just pointing out another option.”

Nah, you’re just pissing on them from a great height.

Nasty.

Nick, I think journalists need to start thinking of themselves as publishers, which was an important reason I wrote the post as I did. Following on from the discussion I had at the Future of Journalism event and the conversations I’ve had since, I’m working a post on online models for journalism at the moment. Would love to have your thoughts on it.

Gregor, “A new form of self-centred media” is a pretty hollow description I think. A lot of fantastic content creators out there are writing for love not money. Traditional media companies are about making money for their owners. Did the Fairfax sackings not prove this for you?
I’m not *wishing* established media away, just pointing out that the business models it’s been created on have come undone and if we value journalism – be that by journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists or any other term to describe what are essentially content creators – then we better learn how to operate in this new medium pronto and start embracing the alternatives. Online news creation is a new skill with many challenges but it opens up a lot of amazing opportunities for us to achieve a better media. We just need some people willing to forge ahead and take some risks – and yes, that can mean being exposed to defamation – but has that ever been a good reason NOT to run an important defensible news story?

Bill, really don’t have much to say to that one, except *sigh*