Free Press v. Free News

Today, anyone with bandwidth can be a publisher; and anyone with a word processor can pen an “article” and get it published. In this example, the writer intentionally misinformed the public to further a special interest agenda.

My article with the other side of the story is filed and awaiting publication.

One problem our industry faces is that people don’t seem to recognize the hours, thought and effort we put in to our work so that they don’t have to attend all those stimulating government meetings, read all those riveting technical documents, and put the hard questions to the talking heads.

Yes, it’s the public’s right to know. But, professional journalists deserve reasonable and timely compensation for bringing it to them.

So who’s going to pay for it?

For a long time now, advertisers have subsidized news. People complain that advertisers have too much control over content, but seem to overlook that advertisers and publishers often respond to what is popularly read.

Are nonprofit business models the answer? I don’t know. Initial support and sustainable funding seem to be the main obstacles.

Spot.us has an interesting nonprofit model. I pitch a story idea and the public decides whether it gets reported. Or, the public posts a tip, and a journalist turns it into a pitch. No one can fund more than 20 percent of a given project, which is supposed to ensure objectivity, although I have some doubts.

Most important, I think, is that our industry must re-establish trust with our audience. And our audience must find value in our work and be willing to buy it, however that looks.

Professional journalists across the country are talking about this. I say it’s time the general public weighs in and tells us what they will support and how.