Vicious Cycles

Within the media industry, you encounter many people who believe that the internet and its scourge of bloggers are killing journalism. Old-school reporters and editors moan about readers and viewers defecting to non-traditional sources for their information, decrying the lack of appreciation for the work done by media outlets that are held to high professional standards. There's a little bit of truth to this myth, of course, but when it comes to the declining fortunes of mainstream media, the boogeyman isn't the chubby slacker with a laptop, it's the immaculately-groomed suit in the boardroom.

Consider for a moment this cycle: A media entity - let's say Magazine X - is in some financial difficulty due to scarce advertising dollars and decreasing readership. Magazine X is owned by the massive Corporation Y, whose bean-counters don't like the way Magazine X's beans are adding up. Corporation Y puts pressure on Magazine X to cut costs in the form of layoffs to the editorial staff and to look for "creative" ways to satisfy the desires of advertisers. In a bind, Magazine X does both of these, thinning its roster of reporters and editors and stretching the remaining group to breaking point, while attempting to disguise advertorial copy as genuine reporting. Over time, Magazine X's readers notice the effects of these compromises in stories that are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise sloppily reported (due to the unreasonable demands on the skeleton crew of a staff) and in copy that reeks of undue advertiser influence. Many of these readers, quite sensibly, decide that Magazine X is no longer worth their time or money. Subscriptions are cancelled and, in turn, advertisers stop advertising in Magazine X because of the dwindling readership. Which puts Magazine X under even greater financial strain. Which causes Corporation Y to ask for more staff cuts and church-state compromises. Which causes reader trust to decline further. Which results in fewer readers. Which results in fewer ad dollars. Which puts increasing strain on Magazine X. Which...

It goes on and on. And it is happening. More and more Magazine X's are owned by massive Corporation Y's, who don't understand what it is they're selling. To the suits at the top, the product in question is pages of pictures and words bound together, or rolls of film and video. They are wrong. The commodity that media organizations are in the business of selling is credibility. No more, no less. The only reason for a person to pick up a magazine or a newspaper or watch a news program is to get information from what they believe to be an honest and effective group of journalists. When the suits allow advertisers to exercise control over copy, they compromise the honesty of the stories in that publication/program. When they cut staff beyond a certain level, they compromise the ability of reporters and editors to do their jobs effectively. And when all of this happens, they compromise the credibility of a publication/program. They damage the quality of the very product it is that they sell.

Leaving aside the high-minded moral arguments, these compromises make no business sense. No consumer is going to continue to buy a damaged product. The boardroom geniuses that control media companies need to think beyond the next quarterly report and consider the long-term future of their products, lest they be left with nothing to sell.

Never mind the bloggers. If journalism's dying, the wounds are mostly self-inflicted.