There has been a considerable amount of talk about the rise of “fake news,” and various technological maneuvers to try and combat the spread of low-brow content on the Internet.
It begs the question whether consumers have shrugged off the more traditional news operations because of monetary hindrances like paywalls — a move that limits the content available to non-paying subscribers — and, if such revenue-generating strategies serve to thwart the influence of legitimate news.
As time progresses, it develops like a slow leak. Drip, drip, drip. Turning future generations away from well-researched, responsible reporting, and soaking society with “citizen journalists” willing to put out a variety of content for free.
Twenty-two years ago I graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and have owned and operated a media-related marketing communications business ever since. In the intervening years, I have watched the entire communications juggernaut undergo more change than it had the previous 40.
People used to travel through life with the understanding that they would pay for news. Families had subscriptions to daily newspapers, and would also subscribe to “specialty” magazines with more targeted content. People watched television newscasts with the idea that “commercial breaks” were a way to pay for valuable information.
But the paradigm has changed. We are creating an entire culture built on the idea that content is free — whether it be news, sports, or entertainment.
It has happened before our eyes. We’ve seen a rise in consumers “cutting the cord” on traditional cable and satellite television subscriptions. They are dropping these things in favor of cheaper services like Netflix, and free offerings like YouTube. Many are using old-school technology like over-the-air TV antennas to bring free television into their homes.
Newspapers have been trying to find a way to keep revenue positive. Some have found wealthy benefactors willing to prop up shaky foundations. For example, billionaire Warren Buffett owns the Omaha World-Herald (my city’s daily newspaper), and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.
While these organizations try to fight off layoffs — as they continue to manage the amount of original content produced on a daily basis — they soldier on with the notion that people will continue paying for news.
The problem is that the gatekeeper function has radically changed. The entities controlling information have names like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Those entities — through sophisticated analytic filters — determine the content you see.
There are plenty of operations out there willing to produce content for free (often plastered with banner advertising and sponsored posts). I’m not altogether sure people prefer such “news sources,” but access is free, and free typically wins the day.
One of my favorite documentaries is the 2011 film “Page One: Inside the New York Times.” The documentary focuses on the fall of daily newspapers, the collapse of automobile and classified advertising in those publications, and the erosion of subscribers to Internet-based outlets. It also focuses on the effort large news organizations undertake to bring consumers news.
This past week, the Omaha World-Herald unleashed a “revamped” paywall — its "Subscriber Plus" digital option ($9.95 per month) is the only way you can see online articles about the Nebraska Cornhuskers, Creighton Bluejays, and UNO Mavericks. In essence, the World-Herald has decided to restrict access to more of the local, home-grown news stories focused on our community (the stories not readily distributed across the globe via the Associated Press). The OWH also lists as a benefit that its web pages will load faster for digital subscribers (which I find to be an odd thing to mention).
We have a Sunday subscription to the Omaha World-Herald (and also have a digital subscription).
On the one hand, the desire to protect content is noble.
On the other hand, it has a “limiting effect” on the impact and influence a news organization has within a community. It might not seem that way initially, but the long-term effect basically reduces the influence of a publication when people can’t easily read an article shared via Facebook, Twitter, or other social media outlets. You see the comments on articles shared on the Omaha World-Herald's Facebook Page.
It is a harsh reality, but a reality that news organizations share. The quest to keep dollars flowing is just as vital as keeping eyeballs reading. While paywalls might stir up cash in the short term — or at least give value to a print subscription — such efforts thwart readership.
If I am a media relations professional trying to get coverage via local news outlets, I have to start asking myself how valuable it is to get an article about a business/organization in daily newspapers if the only people who see it are print/digital subscribers behind a paywall.
Just follow some of the “influencers” on YouTube if you want to see how corporate communications strategies have changed. YouTubers like Casey Neistat regularly pimp products from companies like Samsung — essentially paid-for promotions that reach millions of viewers.
It doesn’t matter if the content lacks polish or sophistication. Editorial purity isn’t the goal. For advertisers, eyeballs are king, and the kingdom is being run by common folk with clickbait content.
When you get down to brass tacks, it is a sobering proposition for society...and for the future.
It’s very possible the situation has no fix. It’s as if the playground teeter-totter has fallen too far to one side, with no capable partner on the elevated end to weight the apparatus back into balance.
Part of the reason I have this blog is because I feel an odd sense of responsibility to bring well written and thoughtful pieces to the endless sea of crowd-sourced content. My goal isn’t to change the world — nor is it to become some advocacy bulwark. I just figure information-hungry people could do a lot worse. Might as well put that journalism degree to use.
As time moves on, we have to hope there are others who share this same sense of duty.
Previous post: Movie Review: "The Commuter"
