Chatalas Shrugged

If politicians don’t measure very high on the public opinion scale, the press doesn’t stand much taller. Both are roundly criticized by Americans in polls gauging public satisfaction. It’s really no coincidence, though, as the fortunes of both have been intertwined since the early days of our democracy. And the media even inherited its nickname as the Fourth Estate due to its relationship with the three branches of government.

In Political News Media, from Governing With The News, Timothy Cook deconstructs this co-dependent relationship, and makes clear that far too often editorial and news coverage decisions are made with political considerations. Cook says the news media plays a role in the authoritarian allocation of values by “reinforcing political power or providing resources to official actors to pursue their agendas.” This manifests itself in bias and news judgment, and the results have an effect upon the general news process.

While it can be depressing to think of our watchdogs being in cahoots with the political class, the press is not in itself a government institution that makes decisions for our citizens. The Constitution carves out freedom of the press in the bill of rights. And Richard Neustadt describes the relationship as “separate institutions sharing power”. The media isn’t involved in the decision-making process, but it certainly can influence decisions.

At the same time, though, news entities are run by corporations, and that inevitably leads to decisions based on business considerations. It comes as no surprise, then, that the state of the media faces a crisis. It isn’t fully self-inflicted by the practice of journalism, however; the press has been wounded by its business practices and the emergence of the Internet as a means of mass communication. Print media in particular is suffering, and the Internet is a nearly perfect foil. Among newspapers’ largest costs are printing and distribution (trees and trucks), two elements that online publications don’t require. Papers have also seen their ad revenues diminishing, in many cases moving to online sources. And even though online ad sales are on the rise for newspapers, it isn’t nearly enough to overcome the loss of print ad dollars. David T. Clark, a research analyst for Deutsch Bank, says that the Internet “steals readers, destroys pricing, does classified advertising perfectly, offers greater targeting, breaks news 24/7… and gives it away for free.” This is the reality that media companies are facing as they consider the future of their once-proud and profitable franchises.

Quality journalism will always be in demand. How the business adapts to the challenges will determine its ability to provide it. There is no shortage of ideas as to how to sustain journalism in our society, and some of these potential models are well underway. Using foundation funding to support community journalism is becoming more common for some websites, including ChiTown Daily News and Voice of San Diego. Others seek to have donors cover the costs of news coverage, a crowdfunding approach, including investigative reporting outfit ProPublica and David Cohn’s Spot.Us. And the overarching trend toward community news, and building strong hyperlocal sites, signifies the perceived value of local advertising and the pride that citizens have in their neighborhoods. Cohn stated in a recent interview that ideally there would be thousands of media start-ups trying to get a piece of the online action. That number would eventually be winnowed down, he says, but those that survive will be setting the stage for successful news business models.

I’m a big supporter of this online local news approach, and the promise it holds. But there’s also a need to better use the Internet to build community. Community networks have existed since the mid-‘90s, and they were created to promote civic, social and educational community objectives. In Putting the Community Back Into Community Networks: A Content Analysis, Michael Horning examines if these networks have lived up to their noble intentions.

While community networks have been helpful in building social capital, Horning finds that they have not been particularly effective at promoting a stronger democracy. There are several reasons why this may, including a lack of logistics, manpower, funding and quality content.

I believe these networks can provide value, but they just aren’t adjusting rapidly enough to embrace the growing capabilities of communicating and organizing online. The Seattle Community Network (SCN) is a perfect example. Many groups use SCN to gain an online presence and communicate with members. However even those efforts are not being done particularly well. Furthermore, the functionality of the tools is vastly out of date and difficult to use. SCN certainly succeeds as a bridge across the digital divide, providing access to disparate organizations, but beyond that the results are decidedly mixed.

The thrust of a community network is a worthwhile goal with great potential. But under the current framework, it will never reach its promise. I see great opportunity in combining community news, providing digital tools, and promoting collective action. Social media tools, including blogs, wikis, forums and videos can all be utilized to make the site interactive and engaging. And if community networks were created as non-commercial entities, a truly successful network may necessitate a business approach with ad revenues, service fees, crowd-funding and foundation/government grants.

Moving forward, journalism, politics and community will find a way to co-exist in a productive and successful manner in the digital era. Settling on the best approach to this hybrid is going to require experimentation, funding, and an understanding of digital media. This subject is of great interest to me, and I will continue to delve into methods that integrate news, politics, community and the online world.