The new journalism - changing, not dying

I don’t think a day passes without someone asking my opinion on the future of journalism. It is an interesting, and important, discussion.

While many of the business models that supported what we have often referred to as “mainstream” journalism are, at best, on life support, the journalism profession is far from expiry.

In fact I genuinely believe the art inherent in the journalistic skill base is on the ascendency. Outside of public broadcasting, giant, generalist newsrooms are probably a thing of the past. But services and skills that society values have a way of rising from the rubble, often stronger and more resilient.

In my observation, these are the seven journalistic forms that will survive the traditional business model meltdown and are already showing of green shoots.

1. Newsroom journalism

Yes, newsroom journalism will survive. The newsrooms will be smaller and the workloads demanding but media companies will still have newsrooms.

Every so often a well-meaning consultant will tell a media company that they don’t need journalists because people are already out there producing great content for free. The reality is most of the “great” content is unwieldy, opinionated and unchecked. It also costs a fortune to collate, edit and check it. These content providers are not sitting in courts, council or Parliament, or calling emergency services to get updates on breaking situations.

News media companies that think they can survive without real newsrooms won’t survive. The ones that will survive are those who recognise the death of the old business models and find new business models that use the journalism to drive audience, brand credibility, rich data that can be matched to advertising segments and influence and expertise that strengthen companion businesses assets.

2. Niche journalism

If you assume that news and information businesses will be reduced to small, core newsrooms, it is likely that the remaining content will be sourced from quality, outsourced journalism operations that provide independent content based on traditional journalism parameters and ethics.

These operations already exist and many are very successful. They can combine (paid) content provision to traditional media companies, specialist journalism to subscribers, targeted sponsor advertising on web portals, presentations and seminars, and broader information services to corporations to create genuine journalistic businesses.

Some of these have been bought out by large media companies who have subsequently destroyed the profitability of the niche provider entity. I suspect these niche provider models work best when they run independently and stick to doing one thing exceptionally well. Big companies have a long traditional of destroying smaller acquisitions.

3. Micro-journalism

On a smaller scale, there are plenty of journalists around the world who have created small, often local, news websites (sometimes with a print component) from which they make a respectable living. The trick seems to be tiny overheads and locked-in advertising. In other words, one very active person (journalist) covers everything that moves in a smallish community and somebody sells sponsored advertising that is based on long-term contracts so you don’t have the labour costs of trying to flog short-term advertising every week.

This model tends to avoid the problem of small digital sites and print publications getting crushed by the weight of head office expenses and bigger-company logistics. It is pretty much the digital equivalent of the way most small town newspapers were born but without the need for a printing press.

4. Advocacy journalism

When you are a “mainstream” journalist, the term “PR” is generally treated with the same contempt as pond scum and cucumbers left in the fridge for more than six weeks (so-called going to the "dark side"). But there is a big difference between PR and writing that deliberately advocates for a single viewpoint.

Many writing and communication jobs within organisations, charities, think tanks, industry groups, education institutions, corporations and lobby groups exist to advocate a particular viewpoint.

To me, a lot of journalism involves taking two or more robustly-help (and often legitimate) views and trying to objectively present the issue to an intelligent lay audience. Advocacy is just writing one side of the story.

The quality and intellectual strength of the advocacy for each viewpoint is a vital part of the public debate. It could be considered journalism as much as a news journalist writing a particular view as an “opinion piece” is journalism. Certainly it is close enough to “real” journalism for people who aspire to be journalists to hone their skills.

I see pure PR as someone with perfect hair on late morning TV shows telling us why a particular skin product will change our lives forever. That is very different to someone writing something powerful that argues a coherent case for tax reform, worker rights, helping the homeless or helping small business. Doing this well requires the skill of a journalist and serves a useful public purpose. (Note, not being critical of PR here, just flippantly pointing out that many of the jobs that journalists sometimes regard as being fluffy PR actually involve high-level journalistic, research and strategy skills. There is nothing wrong with pure PR for people who want that as a career).

5. Corporate journalism

This is an interesting one. In recent years we have seen the AFL, ANZ Bank (Blue Notes which is perhaps a bit closer to a corporate version of Niche described above) and a superannuation fund create or back journalism operations modelled on traditional newsroom structures. This has been happening for years in universities where much of the writing is about fascinating research through stories that would be equally at home in a newspaper or magazine. There is some comfort to be derived from organisations with real money creating journalism jobs.

To me, this is good news for journalism and aspiring journalists. My observation of journalism was that 85% of what we did was purely giving people information about things they needed to know. The other 15% was investigations, exposing rorts and shonks, and keeping the bastards honest.

If you accept some version of that view, the 85% can probably be done effectively and ethically in a corporate setting. If it is accurate and useful (and traditional newsrooms still exist to ensure society gets the other 15% done), I can live with that. If the growth continues, we may end up with more journalism jobs than ever before. And not all journalists go into the professional to bring down the government. Plenty of people just like to research, interview and write.

6. Citizen journalism

Clearly there are many talented people performing a useful version of journalism using blogs and social media channels that they control. The best of these even turn this type of journalism into a job. Some become influencers and make a fortune out of it. Others evolve into the niche operations mentioned above.

This journalism is unwieldy, operates outside of usual journalistic parameters and has few rules but, what the heck, we live in a democracy and if people have something to say, they have every right to say it. I don’t think citizen journalism is a replacement for traditional journalism but it means any citizen (or any journalism graduate) can become a published writer whenever they want. This adds to the diversity of views in the public domain and often becomes the source of gems of stories that might not have been teased out by other means.

7. Philanthropic journalism

This refers to the steadily emerging trend of operations set up along traditional journalism lines to pursue issues and investigations independently but funded by philanthropists who see this type of journalism as important to the greater good.

Such operations have already broken some great stories by having the time to mine data and do deep dive investigations. I’m not sure if there will be enough of these to absorb thousands of journalists but it is an interesting model if enough rich people support the greater good inherent in journalism.

This might be loosely related to the likes of Warren Buffett dabbling in the purchase of mastheads. Many people quote this as evidence that newspapers must have a future because someone as smart as Warren Buffett wouldn’t invest in them otherwise. I expect the reality is that Warren Buffett can afford to have some non-performing assets and there is a certain influence and corporate romanticism that comes from being a media baron. He could get lucky and make some money out of it. But, for him, the risks are marginal.

Plenty of well-known media barons have propped up loss-making businesses for years based on the influence they drive. When Koch Industries was rumoured to be buying the Tribune group mastheads in the US, the estimated $625 million cost was described as a “rounding error” for the billionaire family behind Koch. Hmmm.

The views in this column are personal. Shane Rodgers is a former journalist who held senior business and editorial positions across metropolitan, regional and community media for more than 20 years.