Canadaland #150 - The News is Dead so What Comes Next ?

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/the-news-is-dead-so-what-comes-next/

Podcast features an interview with writer, filmmaker, and social entrepreneur Ian Gill -the author of No News is Bad News: Canadas Media Collapse―and What Comes Next.

Yet another interesting topic that is rarely discussed on MLW is: how will we get the news when the current media dinosaurs finally die out ?

I just read a thread about the StatsCan head's resignation and got a much better perspective than I could have from The National's "At Issue" panel. Don't assume that paid people will do a better job than people who are able to tell the truth for free.

Canadaland does not have a comments section, so we provide a thread here for people to comment within our moderated forum.

[Guest]

How did you know it was the truth?

[Michael Hardner]

How do I know what was the truth ?

[Guest]

The thread you read. (Where was it?)

Edited September 17, 2016 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Yet another interesting topic that is rarely discussed on MLW is: how will we get the news when the current media dinosaurs finally die out ?

There will always be a need for a paid professional media. The only thing that is changing is the delivery media.

That said, the size of the paid professional media will likely shrink because there will no longer be need for local outlets to repeat national and international stories.

Edited September 17, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The thread you read. (Where was it?)

I didn't say that thread delivered the truth, I said it delivered better (or more) perspectives.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26075-statscan-chief-resigns/#entry1187133

Truth is kind of a plural of perspective.

[Guest]

Complete misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were talking about a thread elsewhere, and I thought your comment:. Don't assume that paid people will do a better job than people who are able to tell the truth for free.

was in relation to it.

[Michael Hardner]

'Telling the truth' is a tough thing to get one's mind around. If I tell the truth, then I am not lying but I may not actually be telling the truth.

Anyway, this is philosophicky stuff that I can't wade far into, though I do.

The point is to not understate (or overstate either) the value of the amateur.

[Michael Hardner]

There will always be a need for a paid professional media. The only thing that is changing is the delivery media.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a viable business model to keep city council in check anymore.

Which to me doesn't make sense. In the era of the paper press, they could make money from small town newspapers with huge overhead. A small town would theoretically work with a small operation and a wordpress site.

Somebody explain why that doesn't work ? Even local funding drives would make that viable wouldn't it ?

[TimG]

In the era of the paper press, they could make money from small town newspapers with huge overhead.

Classified ads used to be as much as 70% of revenue for papers. It is now gone.

That said, how many small town newspapers dared to break stories about city hall malfeasance when the players are often the same people running the local business that bought a lot of ads in the paper?

Edited September 17, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I like your angle, ie. 'there was no golden age'.

Fair enough. But still a basic level of checks and balances, and a dose of 'common sense' (in the Mike Harris sense) to keep out far-fetched ideas like socialism and paid maternity leave.

As for the 70% revenue... also an incisive comment but how much overhead would you shed with a Wordpress operation.

Two kids coming out of journalism school who know photoshop/illustrator could put a town the size of Kingston on its ear, I'm sure.

[TimG]

As for the 70% revenue... also an incisive comment but how much overhead would you shed with a Wordpress operation.

Try working backwards: the site would have to generate enough revenue for 1 full time staffer (~40K/year). That means it needs $100/day in ad revenue. At $0.50/click that means they need 200 clicks per day or about 2000 visits per day. 2000 visits per day would extraordinary for a wide interest blog. Probably unachievable for a small town news site.

[Michael Hardner]

20 advertisers paying $5/day seems reasonable, and would show the business' goodwill to the community. I realize that conventional ad rates are out the window in this scenario, but it's a community interest here not the Dollar Shave Club.

But I concur with your business case here... It's a tough sell.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The end of newspapers is good news for politicians. Amateurs lack the skills and resources to pursue stories over years. They will also be easier to intimidate.

[Michael Hardner]

The end of newspapers is good news for politicians. Amateurs lack the skills and resources to pursue stories over years. They will also be easier to intimidate.

It remains to be seen. Certainly taking bribes from lobbyists and buying elections through TV ads was a certain kind of game... People will vote the old way, basically word of mouth. It will be hard to be a politician.

[Bryan]

Classified ads used to be as much as 70% of revenue for papers. It is now gone.

Yeah, eBay and Kijiji had at least as much to do with the local newspapers' demise as anything else. A newspaper ad has no return on investment anymore. Online ads are even worse both for site revenue AND for advertisers themselves. The savvy consumers they covet are actively avoiding being marketed to by using things like ad blockers, and those same people are offended when such advertising actually does get through.

[Michael Hardner]

Could the answer then be to cajole those ad boards to pay for a 'content' person to produce *some* coverage in any area they serve ?

Why aren't people more upset with these companies ? Nestle is vilified in facebook posts but they employ people and don't take as much water as many other companies... meanwhile the cool kids from Silicon Valley stride in and remove our local media.

As an aside: "content" person is a person that makes something that can go on the web. This is the ultimate victory of non-specialization or generalization. Like calling a Sushi chef, saucier, baker, and short order cook... all "food makers".

[Guest]

Could the answer then be to cajole those ad boards to pay for a 'content' person to produce *some* coverage in any area they serve ?

Why aren't people more upset with these companies ? Nestle is vilified in facebook posts but they employ people and don't take as much water as many other companies... meanwhile the cool kids from Silicon Valley stride in and remove our local media.

As an aside: "content" person is a person that makes something that can go on the web. This is the ultimate victory of non-specialization or generalization. Like calling a Sushi chef, saucier, baker, and short order cook... all "food makers".

I wonder what will happen as traditional news outlets continue to die and are no longer producing the source content shared and blogged about by others. Are people, in general, intelligent or 'with it' enough to demand real investigative news on a meaningful scale or do the majority consider whatever is trending to be the "news"? It already seems as though most would rather just hear about the weather, sports and entertainment news. This is troubling considering that an informed public is one of the checks and balances on our government.

Maybe, the concept of the CBC could change from broadcaster to either strictly a content producer or funder of Canadian news and documentary content distributed to other sites.

There are some of us willing to pay for specific, small scale, content we find valuable like Canadaland; maybe direct funding of individual journalists is the way forward. There may even be people willing to subscribe to news aggregators that seek out and pay the best of these individual journalists and commentators.

Overall, I think the ad based, free content model is unsustainable. More of what is offered on the net has to be monetized via some sort of micro-payment model in order to provide economic incentive to create.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Guest

[Michael Hardner]

Some interesting thoughts, Slick. Would Christie Blatchford not succeed if she asked each of her readers for 1$ a year ?

[Guest]

Some interesting thoughts, Slick. Would Christie Blatchford not succeed if she asked each of her readers for 1$ a year ?

Interesting choice of author. I would hope that your buck per year idea would lead to earnings of less than $100 per annum for Christie, but I suspect she would have an easier time raising funds than many writers I would consider superior. If your point is that a direct funding model doesn't lead to quality journalism, then I agree. However, the idea of replacing CBC as a broadcaster with CBC the content funder/producer might.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Guest

[TimG]

I would hope that your buck per year idea would lead to earnings of less than $100 per annum for Christie

Your hostility to viewpoints you dislike is why "government funded" news coverage is not the answer. One way or another news organizations need to find a viable business model. Things may need to get worse before they get better.

[Michael Hardner]

Your hostility to viewpoints you dislike is why "government funded" news coverage is not the answer. One way or another news organizations need to find a viable business model. Things may need to get worse before they get better.

My hope is that this will encourage more specialized coverage, local coverage and will leave behind the tendency for network news to simply coverage for a mass audience.