The U.S. Media Bailout

I suppose with the banking meltdown and the auto manufacturer bailout in the United States, it was only a matter of time before the newspapers saw an opportunity. Oh, you haven't heard? Reuters reported 'Government aid could save U.S. newspapers, spark debate'. And the news is already flying around the internet, adding insult to injury. No, it isn't a Federal bailout. But it's a State Bailout being discussed in Connecticut.

After all, the Internet is what is being blamed instead of business planning which encompasses the Internet. That isn't in the Reuters article, but we all know that it should be - the first thing blamed by old media is the new media. Craigslist gets marched out first and pointed at. Then all the blogs, I suppose.

Anything but their own inability to adapt. So, for a bailout proposal at any level, they should explain how they are going to deal with the Internet. And, to this point, it hasn't been very promising. The scale of economy on the Internet means less overhead for traditional media.

Other thoughts on this revolve around a government controlled media, which - funny enough - Fox News didn't mention.

MaketingShift has a great post on this - here are two tidbits:

...I worked at a local paper, and I'll be the first to tell you that a government-funded bailout, at the state or federal level, is NOT the solution. A government-funded press isn't a free press, and it won't fulfill its duty to cover the government without any influence. Once D.C. or your state starts throwing cash at your newspaper, they'll be obligated to return the favor...

...Maybe if those newsroom executives had prioritized online publishing before the major shift occurred, they wouldn't be in the dire situation they now face.

I hate to see ANY newspapers close their doors, but I also don't want to the government play favorites with handouts, and if I wanted state-run media, I would move to Cuba or North Korea. Newspapers need to search for creative solutions,such as the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post's shared content agreement,which is one step in the right direction.

HotAir.com has similar sentiments, as does PoliGazette.

And I have the rare opportunity to quote myself from 2005 where I discussed Newspaper Survival in the age of the Internet:

Nobody Dies But the Inflexible

Back to Robin's article - the part about readers being able to participate is oh-so-very important on a website. The reason is simple - it keeps topics current, it lets people participate, and it also adds value and perspective to topics. It can even lead to future topics and articles, if one is paying attention - many articles I have done have been based off of questions on discussion boards or websites. Of course, I'm not Robin Miller - but if one studies Slashdot, I'm willing to bet that what people see on the front page is probably gained from what people have discussed in the past.

In the end - websites are the future, and newspapers do need to catch up in a meaningful way. Newspapers and magazines that can adapt, that are able to make the leap - those are the aspects of media that will survive. The rest will fight for last place. There's a technology culture - an internet culture - which is changing even faster that the MPAA and RIAA like. It seems only appropriate that the media that reports on such cultures should be able to keep up with internet culture.

The New York Times makes an interesting point:

...But, for now, there’s not much original local reporting on the Web, making it all the more likely that local government will get a pass.

For one, the New York Times is right - most of the news on blogs comes from mainstream media; there really isn't that much original reporting. And, to their credit, the New York Times has been working on using the Internet. Whether it is succeeding or not, I do not know. Ask them.

In the end, though, calling the Governor for a Stay of Execution because you're committing Suicide does not seem smart for the Governor or the organization with the death wish. Government shouldn't be permitted to bailout newspapers because, while it may not directly influence the media, the question will always be there. The credibility will be gone. And a newspaper without credibility is fit for the bird cages.

What could they do? I think the first thing they could do is protect their own reputations. And that means not asking for money from government.

And before we in New Media start chuckling too much - keep a weather eye out. Adapt. Or you end up in the tar pits of bankruptcy or worse... begging the people you report on for handouts.