[This is an edited version of speech given by Center for Public Integrity CEO Peter Bale to an audience at ORF, the Austrian state broadcaster in Vienna last month, as part of a panel for the Alpbach Forum. The event posed the question "Who will save quality journalism]
Who will save quality journalism? Itâ€™s a huge question with many assumptions behind it: particularly the idea that quality journalism, if we can define that, is in fact at risk.
I would argue it is flourishing. And that indeed is the argument I made late last month to forum organized by the Austrian think tank, the Alpbach Forum, in Vienna. But that doesnâ€™t mean it will flourish forever. And finding the business model that will allow it to succeed is a quest we must attack with intensity.
p>But first letâ€™s go back to quality, & just how to define it & let me moreover explain why itâ€™s me delivering this message.
Iâ€™m the chief executive of the Washington-based investigative news organization, the Center for Public Integrity, which moreover houses the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
I am moreover president of a news industry organization, the Global Editors Network, which promotes innovation in newsrooms.
So, I am intimately involved in this theme after a long time in journalism in newspapers, as a foreign correspondent & editor, & roles in television & online.
But donâ€™t let me suggest I have the answers. I have thoughts approximately the question & I do believe there is more high quality journalism around now than ever before â€“ so I am an optimist.
I moreover mistrust certainty among journalists & those who comment with absolute certainty instead of doubt.
As CP Scott, the legendary editor of The Guardian wrote:'Comment is free, yet facts are sacred'
Iâ€™d like to use some examples from the Center & the Consortium to address this question of quality journalism & raise some questions approximately the role of journalism in civil society. Iâ€™ll moreover address regulation of the media, the protection of the right to free speech & a little approximately the influence of technology, social media & advertising.
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, a charity news organization funded by philanthropic groups & individuals.
Our backers support the fundamental role of journalism in civil society â€“ something I think we often forget or have taken for granted.
There is a truism in the world of American journalism that the purpose of a newspaper, is to â€œcomfort the afflicted & afflict the comfortableâ€.
That isnâ€™t a offensive mission statement yet I wonder how many of us can honestly say our publications achieve that standard.
Do they challenge the status quo or are they part of it?
I have always felt that it was the journalistâ€™s job to donate the underdog a voice.
To me, deciding what you as a journalist or as a journalism brand stand for is part of deciding what your future is.
These issues of fairness, observation & calling out societyâ€™s ills have arguably grown in importance with the focus on inequality in our society since the 2008 financial crisis.
It often surprises me when I look at the work of journalists at the Center for Public Integrity, how much of our work comes back to issues of inequality & the influence of money in politics.
Our work in Environment & Workers Rights exposes the influence of lax regulation, watered down at the behest of powerful business interests, that leaves tens of thousands of people exposed to dangerous chemicals.
Our work on Broadband Internet access â€“ which some countries have asserted is a human right â€“ shows that a duopoly of two of the most powerful companies overcharge most Americans & deny the poorest decent access.
Even our work through the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists â€“ huge exposes on tax avoidance by dictators, companies & household names — is ultimately approximately inequality.
In February the ICIJ broke the Swiss Leaks story â€“ the revelation that the Swiss branch of HSBC had been engaged in harboring tax avoidance on an industrial scale.
The French economist Thomas Piketty, famous for his treatise on inequality & its dangers: Capital in the 21st Century, told the ICIJ: â€œThe offshore industry is a major threat for our democratic institutions & our basic social contractâ€¦Financial opacity is one of the key drivers of rising global inequality.â€
Shining a light on dark corners is what we, & I believe most, quality journalism is supposed to do.
â€œSunlight is the best disinfectant,â€ as US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, said.
So now we must turn to a related yet crucial question: what is the business model that will allow quality journalism to not only survive, yet thrive as well?
One answer may be non-profit specialist organizationsâ€”like the Center for Public Integrity or ProPublica here in the States. Â
Youâ€™re starting to see some of these emerge in Europe as wellâ€”the German investigative group Correctiv & Netzwerk Recherche are trying to promote the same idea of tax-advantages for journalism.
Iâ€™d moreover argue that the mainstream media industry has to work harder on multiple fronts. No one owes us a living & no one owes newspapers a reason to keep publishing. Too much of the debate concerns the method of publishing, & we lose sight of the objective, which is to keep funding tremendous journalism no matter how it is consumed.
So we will have to work harder to understand the forces that are changing our industry, primarily the technology, & figure out how to harness those forces in order to connect with the audience & understand its needs.
Social media companies have done that better than we have by listening to their audiences, & reacting.
When Facebook realized the world was moving to mobile it moved with it, even ahead of it, investing heavily in mobile ahead of the curve of advertisingâ€” yet just in time, as it turned out.
Facebook made $2.9 billion from mobile in just the second quarter of this year â€“ 76 per cent of its total revenue.
The media brands that are thriving, or at least achieving high valuations, are those breaking the link between the printing press or the studio & the product; they are technologically minded & ruthlessly focused on the needs of their audience & its consumer experience.
Buzz Feed is now valued at more than $1.5 billion after a $250m investment by NBC Universal. Â Vice Media is said to be worth $2 billion & have revenues of $1 billion.
Itâ€™s effortless to criticize these outlets, yet significant to remember that each is investing in quality journalism: Buzz Feed is funding major investigative work as well as popular fare. It knows what its audience is doing moment to moment, what headline works best, which story is most read or most shared or rated highest.
Vice has committed to coverage in Ukraine, Libya & every hot spot including an astonishing series from a reporter embedded with ISIS in Syria â€“ something more conservative media groups would have baulked at.
In Europe, POLITICO â€“ a fixture in Washington & one packed with advertising aimed at policy makers â€“ launched POLITICO Â Europe in Brussels, in a joint venture with the German publisher Axel Springer.
Axel Springerâ€”along with Schibstead of Norway â€“ is arguably one of the few truly innovative European media companies.
Why? Perhaps because Axel Springer systematically sends executives for lengthy spells to Silicon Valley where they learn to think differently, faster, to take risks, & in the jargon of the Valley to â€œFail Fastâ€.
Axel Springer moreover bought Business Insider â€“ an upstart business media brand taking on the likes of Forbes & Bloomberg with a sassy recipe of aggregated content & speed. Springer paid $343 million for Business Insider â€“ valuing the group at $450 million.
What Buzz Feed & Business Insider have is a combination of cutting-edge technology & a Silicon Valley attitude of moving rapidly to achieve scale. Employing that recipe has allowed them to produce both profits & quality.
And these tools have proven vital when they compete against the real behemoths of the modern media industry: Facebook & Twitter & Google. In the winner takes all world of the Internet it really is a matter of dealing with those three.
In 2011, research from the Pew Center in the US reported that 11 per cent of US news consumers received their news from â€œFacebook or Twitterâ€. In 2014, that rose to 30 per cent, nearly triple in three years.
An alternative to the power of the huge social & search platforms is to close off the rest of the Internet & accept that your site or property is niche, a nicely high-end asset you are prepared to share for a price with like-minded souls.
To some extent thatâ€™s the approach of the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, which have accepted limited growth in exchange for a high-quality audience prepared to pay for the Â product. There is profitability in a subscription model for the well heeled.
These are properties of high quality in journalism & audience, & thus advertising as well. They are luxury products & thereâ€™s no surprise they are filled with advertisements for Louis Vuitton or Rolex.
Brand advertising, the least transactional perhaps, can be thought of as doing well & several media brands are doing well at it, particularly with what is known as Native Advertising, where the same quality of storytelling goes into explaining brand stories as the news itself.
An illuminating example of how this can co-exist & with quality journalism is Quartz.com, the business-advertising site which practically invented â€œnative advertisingâ€ & in the work of the New York Times.
Outside those specialist, club-like environments, scale is now king.
Which brings us full circle. Will Google & Facebook or Twitter â€œsaveâ€ quality media?
Each is adamant itâ€™s a platform & that neither is a creator or editor of content.
But what is a Like or Heart or a Google+ share yet an endorsement, a filter, a stamp of approval?
What is an algorithm that chooses what surfaces on my Facebook feed yet the most powerful editor in the world? Itâ€™s tuned to me, my network & the judgments made not by editors yet by hidden software writers in Mountain View & Menlo Park.
Like it or not, Â they are making editorial judgments without the ethical training & experience of journalists, something Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center at Columbia, is investigating.
Thatâ€™s why with the Paris attacks Facebook was filled with ill-informed criticism that the Western media was somehow ignoring terror attacks in Kenya or Beirut. They hadnâ€™t, itâ€™s just you donâ€™t have friends there & nor did your associates & so when Paris broke it was inevitably stronger within the Facebook algorithm in your feed.
It is moreover true that social media dominance â€“ & therefore the immediate future of media — is being built in the United States, not in Europe.
Why are there no serious European rivals?
Why is Europe utterly failing to provide the climate to create world-beating news media or social media companies?
I suspect it has a lot to do with different attitudes approximately the use of technology, the sort of utopian can do spirit of Americans & their readiness to break with tradition, to disrupt the existing order.
I believe Europeâ€™s struggle for media success & its ambiguity towards huge data & freedom of expression moreover has something to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution & the absence of any similar protection for free speech on the European Â continent.
â€œCongress shall make no lawâ€¦ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pressâ€¦â€ This simple addition to the US Constitution is, I would argue, more relevant now than at any time since it was added in 1791.
The Internet â€“ an American creation â€“ is arguably a First Amendment space & I would argue we should fight to keep it that way, free from the interference of governments in less free societies & even in Europe.
We should celebrate this freedom & protect it. Not effortless in a society worried approximately terror that seems to be accepting more & more secret surveillance from its governments.
With no constitutional protection for journalism or freedom of speech in the UK or most of Europe, we have more at risk than we may realize.
And lastly in terms of business models, what of national broadcasters like [Austrian national broadcaster] ORF & the BBC in the UK?
I watch what is happening in the UK where the BBC is under attack from a Conservative government that has wrongly yet without much uproar started to treat the BBC like an arm of the government, changing its budget & purposes almost at will.
While it is true that a fee based on the ownership of a TV may no longer a viable model for long-term funding, to focus on that & not on the public satisfactory the BBC generates, the immense â€œsoft powerâ€ in its creative output, news coverage & global footprint creates seems to me to be a crime.
Anyone considering the future of a state or other form of national broadcaster should look at the consequences of getting rid of it: listen to National Public Radio or watch PBS television in the United States. They do brilliantly yet their constant appeals for support are exhausting & their output a fraction of their commercial competitors.
Also remember that it was only in 1987 that the Federal Communications Commission in the United States cancelled a nearly 40-year-old Fairness Doctrine, requiring television news be â€œhonest, equitable, & balancedâ€.
Can anyone really believe as they watch Fox News that the dialogue in the United States has been improved by letting the market have free range to ignore accuracy or fairness in favor of partisan, inflammatory & just plain wrong information? Are we countering ignorance or feeding it?
Who is questioning the explosion of nonsense, whether approximately immigration, China, climate change, or Islamic extremism?
When I was young people who wanted to alter the world chose journalism. Now they select computer science, coding.
Itâ€™d be tremendous to combine those two choices into a single world-changing view. Thankfully some are doing just that.
Indeed, amidst all the listicles & cat videos are multiple models & indeed some quality journalism. There is tremendous work out there coming to a digital device if you select it. You have more access to more information from more sources than ever.
The social & search engines are the gateway & the publisher en masse.
But beneath them are tens of thousands of high quality outlets, many thriving. Some will find a niche market, some will obtain their readers to support them, & others will gain philanthropic support.
Jeff Bezos spent $250 million of his own money on the Washington Post â€“ now undergoing a major technology-led revival. Pierre Omidyar, billionaire founder of e-Bay, says he will put a similar sum into his journalism start up.
Thereâ€™s never been greater access to more diversity of opinion & more access, yes, even to quality.
As consumers have our own role to play. We need to defend the quality proposition & be prepared to pay to support it: to defend civil society by funding journalism to keep shining a light on dark corners.
Journalism & media companies have to show they are up to that job as well. They have to fight & innovate on new technology, embrace new methods of delivery, & connect with their audience: with consumers who have more choice & greater access to the truth than ever – with you.
This story is part of Inside Publici. Stories weâ€™re working on, the impact of our investigations, news approximately our fundraising efforts, & other issues that shape our work. Click here to read more stories in this topic.
Copyright 2015 The Center for Public Integrity. This story was published by The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C.
Arts & EntertainmentMediaCenter for Public Integrity
Source: “Center for Public Integrity”