Neil Arun didn’t want to miss a rare but risky opportunity to embed with an Iraqi police unit, hunting members of al Qaeda. But his employers -- responsible for Neil’s security -- weren’t happy. This film by Richard Pendry nvestigates how a frontline journalist balances risk and reward.
This week (Monday 30/11) a newspaper innovation is launched that can help the free world’s news industry to recover the prosperity it first achieved in the in the nineteenth century. Johnston Press, Britain’s most prolific newspaper owner with 286 titles, will place the online content of six of its local titles behind pay walls.
Online readers of the Worksop Guardian, Ripley and Heanor News, Whitby Gazette, Northumberland Gazette, Carrick Gazette and Southern Reporter will have to pay £5 for a three-month subscription.
It was widely expected that Rupert Murdoch would be the first proprietor to admit the twin stark truths that journalism is not free and that no good has come of the nigh universal pretence that it should be. But the News Corp Chairman is not the only one who has noticed that free access to online journalism has been bad for newspaper profits, bad for their editorial independence and bad for representative democracy.
Pretending that online journalism costs nothing has left titles from Los Angeles to London in the same grim predicament. Each has been obliged to subsidise its online presence from the revenue generated by its printed edition. But it did not take the mightiest intellect to guess that people would be less willing to pay for the printed product if they could read its contents online for nothing.
Newspaper owners were persuaded that online publication should be free by a potent cocktail of commercial fantasy and woolly ideology topped with a sprinkling of youth appeal. Plausible salespeople emerged from the wreckage of the Dotcom boom to persuade them that advertisers would slash each other’s jugulars for the privilege of promoting their products beside the work of expensive correspondents.
It was soon plain that believing that links create value is not more rational than imagining that the Mass turns comestibles into the flesh and blood of a prophet. But newspapers were reluctant to admit the emperor was stark bollock-naked for fear of sounding old-fashioned and remote from the democratic ethos of the internet.
It is time to admit that giving away value is not democratic. In fact it undermines processes that keep representative democracy healthy.
In the first years of the internet era thousands of professional journalists have lost their jobs because online revenues cannot pay their salaries. Trained reporters who sit in courts and council chambers have become rare. Community reporting has been replaced by global celebrity gossip touted by PR companies. The workings of the state are no longer monitored at first hand and the electorate is deprived of information it needs to exercise choice.
Johnston Press alone cannot restore sanity. But the experiment it launches this week should remind us that nothing as valuable as the information required to hold power to account can be produced free of charge. Good journalism is the lifeblood of representative democracy. It supplies the raw material without which freedom of conscience becomes meaningless. Ensuring its supply is essential.
The internet is a stupendously valuable tool. It can bring inspiring, diligent and creative reporting and commentary into every home. But it will not do so by obliging consumers to accept the shoddy, propagandist ranting some categorise as citizen-journalism and less credulous critics recognise as a deplorable reversion to the days when news was always deployed as a political weapon and only occasionally reported, explained and analysed.
Never mind that Johnston Press is primarily interested in profit. It is no more a commercial entity than the Washington Post was at the time of Watergate or the Sunday Times when it exposed the scandal of thalidomide. Johnston is leading a change that must happen. People who care about democracy must hope it happens fast. European nations have not attempted political freedom without well-funded, intelligent journalism, but we can assume that it would not be pretty. When accurate reporting dies it is usually replaced by gossip, prejudice and bigotry.
The same thing happened to my old paper when we first tried charging for online content. But, let's face it. That was then. The reason I expect it to work this time is that everyone will be obliged to do it. There will be no choice of pay here or read it there for free. The choice will be pay or don't read it at all. Johnston Press alone will not change the world, but when Rupert Murdoch persuades aggregators to pay for News Corp content the Guardian will be the first to follow suit. After all, it is losing £100,000 pounds a day by not charging and one reader who pays is worth infinitely more than 30 million who do not. The future is bright. The internet is new and nobody properly understands it, but the rules of commerce are ancient and we have a pretty clear grasp of how they work.
In articles about News Corp's plans to charge they always make clear that the Guardian won't charge, eg. "The Guardian, have said that their websites are likely to remain free of charge". Do you know something we don't, Tim?
Don't know if you ever read Jeff Jarvis, John - but I thought you might find this blog post interesting. It mentions Rusbridger. Ignore me if you've already read it.
Here's something Jarvis said half an hour ago: "Yes, I got to say on Murdoch's air (SkyNews) that Murdoch's pay plan won't work & I wasn't shot."
I wish I could share your optimism that JP's experiment will end in anything other than disappointment for John Fry and the rest of the industry watching hopefully from sidelines.
But it's not some misguided passion for the democracy of the free internet that makes me so concerned that the Paywall As Saviour is a chimera. It's a bleaker expectation of human and commercial behaviour.
At Press Gazette, as the dotcom boom turned to bust, our initial instinct was indeed to reinforce our online paywall to protect the fruits of our diligent journalism for those subscribers who were prepared to pay for it. But I remember the feeling of weekly helplessness as all those pages of print exclusives hit the newsstands and were instantly shared - in essence, if no great depth - for the non-paying masses by a slew of new, free online services. One of them - that fearless defender of quality journalism, the MediaGuardian - even used the gleeful tagline: 'We read Press Gazette so you don't have to.'
Such is the nature of competition, and neither the Johnston Press weeklies nor The Times will be immune to it.
Similarly, I don't believe that the reason that any reader stops buying newspaper X is not purely because Newspaper X is giving away its content online for nothing. It's because those extra things that only Newspaper X supplied - TV listings, horoscopes, lively debate - are now available in so many other places.
The monopolies that newspaper publishers were once able to defend have disappeared. Setting a few toll booths forlornly bobbing about in an ocean of information and comment isn't going to reverse that.