We shouldn’t be grieving for the death of newspapers

My following article appears today in Online Opinion:

As a journalist who spends the vast majority of my life online, the seemingly never-ending debates about the future of the media and newspapers can be exhausting and predictable.

The same mantras are heard over and over again. Where will the news come from when newsprint dies? Our democracy is in jeopardy if more people don’t engage with the news of the day. Bloggers are parasites. Young people have less interest in investigative, time-consuming reporting. What kinds of jobs will be available for the journalism students of tomorrow? The old business model of almost solely relying on advertising is dying a painful death.

All of these questions are relevant and necessary but ultimately circular and indulgent. It’s hard to disagree with the recent conclusion of Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley: “If General Motors goes under, there will still be cars. And if the New York Times disappears, there will still be news.”

But what kinds of news?

For the vast majority of the world, relying on Western news service is rarely considered because of the narrow focus and parochialism of their global coverage. I remember hearing Middle East correspondent for the Independent, Robert Fisk, telling me that he would dine in the evening with senior reporters from the Washington Post, New York Times and other leading American publications and hear compelling stories and honest discussions about the realities of the Middle East. By the next morning, however, the same journalists had published articles that avoided tackling the key issues in the region. Bravery was saved for private conversations over glasses of expensive wine.

With notable exceptions, the American mainstream media shies away from examining the brutal reality of Palestine. The Israeli occupation is almost invisible. The influence of the Zionist lobby on the political and media elite deemed to be conspiratorial.

Witness the recent case of Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, forced to resign after extreme pressure from the Israel lobby. But it was only online through blogs that the issue publicly existed. The majors, such as the New York Times, only registered the case after Freeman pulled out. Big media was deliberately asleep at the wheel.

The question in the Freeman wasn’t so much a lack of resources to report the facts – after all, the story didn’t require overseas travel, as all the players were in the US – but a lack of will. Much of the debate about the crisis in old media (and news about the closure of institutions like the Boston Globe is certainly concerning) overly focuses on a belief that simply keeping newspapers alive will continue to guarantee democracy and transparency. In my view, it will not. Debates over “public trust” journalism are therefore essential. New models are already emerging.

In fact, what we should be asking is whether the old models are adequate to sustain reporting in the modern age. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald recently wrote, far too many journalists play by the rules of anonymity, allowing the corporate, media and governmental elite the luxury of sanctioned links. Democracy isn’t served by far too many journalists seeing their role as integral to the establishment set.

For these reasons alone, we shouldn’t be grieving for the death of newspapers, as the vast majority of reporters working there have long viewed themselves as players, desperate to be liked and feted by colleagues, editors, politicians and media advisers.

Greenwald, speaking last week on the PBS program hosted by Bill Moyers, explained the problems with this arrangement in the US:

It’s actually the fact that reporters and media stars and corporate and establishment journalists are so embedded into the establishment as a cultural and sociological matter. That they’re so completely insular and out of touch from what public opinion actually is. And polls show that huge numbers of issues and positions that are held by large numbers of Americans are ones that are virtually never heard in our media discussions.

This situation is not something that we should worry about losing. If this is the bulk of the mainstream media in 2009, alternatives are surely needed.

Of course, bloggers can be co-opted as easily as corporate journalists and a growing number are. But independence in the modern age can stand for something other than exclusion from press conferences and parties. It can mean integrity, accountability and trust, all factors sorely lacking in the public’s attitude towards the mainstream press. It’s difficult to feel sorry for old media companies that failed to adapt quickly to the internet age, a time where asking what the readers want, rather than just the publisher and journalist, is central. Perhaps non-profit organisations are the way forward.

Israel/Palestine is one issue that demands a new media approach: likewise many other conflicts around the world. Indigenous voices remain hidden. When was the last time we read articles in our newspapers written by Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Palestinians or Tamils? Hardly ever. It’s as if Westerners, most often men, have to visit a country for a perspective to be heard. This is an issue I examine more deeply in my book, The Blogging Revolution.

One of the key reasons I wrote the work was to highlight the vast gaps in Western media knowledge when it comes to countries such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Syria and Egypt. Blogs were one of the ways to understand a culture largely hidden behind the iron curtains of “repression”, “dictatorship” or enemy of Washington.

For many years now, the best sources on the Middle East have largely not been the Western establishment press. A US blog such as Mondoweiss gives daily information about Israel/Palestine and Jewish identity lacking from most mainstream papers. Israeli paper Haaretz shows that honest reporting on the West Bank occupation and Gaza is possible (and the Zionist lobby therefore recognises the paper as a threat). Any number of other bloggers – such as this Israeli detailing the devastating effects of checkpoints on Palestinians – have almost replaced the old sources by necessity. If corporate reporters won’t report the truth – because of fear, bias, intimidation, gutlessness or owner’s rules – then blogs will fill the space.

The last ten years have seen an information revolution of unparalleled proportions. The coming decade is guaranteed to be as challenging. Rather than worrying about journalistic practice, less reporters doing more work and diminished democracy, we should be celebrating what’s possible.

And create our own media today.

  • http://benjaminsolah.com/blog Benjamin Solah

    Great article. I've never had much faith in corporate media at all. They're owned by some of the richest men in the world and they'll bloody make sure what's reported is in their interests, that of the rich, and make sure things against their interest, that threatens their rule, won't be published.

    Blogging plays some part in bypassing that filter of corporate media, but ultimately, I think, change comes from the consciousness people gain when what happens around them, what they see for themselves, contradicts what Rupert Murdoch and Co. try to tell them.

  • paul walter

    Well, if the print versions of the AGE and SMH have deteriorated even a fraction as badly and rapidly as the online versions, I'd say there is a LOT of significance aesthetically, of the death of the commons type, let alone tragic sabotage/wastage of expertise and resources, with the "death of broadsheet".

    Its a sort of press/media version of Kristallenacht: so ugly and unsettling to watch the new brownshirts go about their business.

    The really sad example came on Media Watch this week, involving the once world-renowned "Age" reduced to overt brainwashing kids thru in-program placement passed off as "editorial", as to meat products.

    It left me with the same feeling I get walking thru a shopping centre, when I watch seedy great-coat types rummaging thru dumpsters for cartons, cans and the like.

  • delia

    This is an excellent article, the grammar error in the opening sentence notwithstanding. What the MSM is good for is getting a quick take on the current propaganda. My day begins with a brief glance at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and three or four other major papers; then it's on to TPM, the Nation, War in Context, the Real News, a few other indies, and the blogs to find out what's really going on. But not everybody has the time for this–and that is the problem.

  • Pingback: More media panic for the boys | Antony Loewenstein

  • anon

    I find Hagar good in the SMH when a copy becomes available in the coffee shop. I later look up Antony, Whatreallyhappened.com, the informationclearinghouse.com, 911blogger.com, the rawstory, Alex jones' prisonplanet and a few others. Sometimes the stories later turn up in the mass media; about 3 days on average, then again, others never turn up, as for example; David Chandler's three part presentation in rregard to the NIST report on builidng No 7 at the WTC indicting the 2.25 second freefall which demonstrates that that building must have been blown up, the 9 scientists who have just published a peer reviewed paper on the finding of nano-thermitic exploscive in the dust of the Twin Towers and that surely indicates that the controlled mass media is a fraud.

    Weapons of mass deception anyone? How aout some 'concoction of war on terror' and a bit of hate to encourage support to go kill Iraqis and Afghans to steal their oil and put in a few pipe lines.

    The controlled corporate mass media and their apologists are surely culpable for all the killings and they will have to face their demons, as the world is waking up.

    Spend your paper money on a good cup of coffee, you will be better informed by just sitting and thinkig for yourself.

  • Pingback: Newspapers are Dying because they Missed the Story — will to truth