Five Myths about the Future of Journalism

Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism's Tom Rosenstiel recently published his thoughts on the future of journalism in the Washington Post.  His "Five Myths about the Future of Journalism" is worth a read. But in case you're wondering, his myths (and my take) are below.

1. Traditional Media are Losing Their Audiences
(While I agree this isn't the main problem, I would argue that it is true, at least in the U.S.  Rosenstiel argues that the audience's shift to online sources isn't a loss, because 60% are going to online sites affiliated with traditional news outlets.  I wonder about the other 40%, and the fact that the shift from traditional media with higher advertising value, online, is a leading cause of declining revenues, which is the real problem.  Rosenstiel does end his argument with a similar point, that the crisis in traditional news is about revenue, not audiences.)
2. Online News will be Fine as Soon as Revenues Catches Up
(In terms of the actual statement, that's not a myth - but Rosenstiel's point is that online (ad) revenues will not catch up with traditional news media revenue levels - at least not for quite a while.  When you also figure that news will capture only a share of online revenues, the prospect for returning to traditional media revenue levels is bleak.  Well, traditional news media only captures a share of all media revenues now - and the lower costs of online news means that you don't have to reach the old traditional media levels to be successful.  But for me, the bigger problem is the (unstated) assumption that ad revenues will remain the dominant source of funding for online news.  Online news doesn't have to reach traditional ad revenues levels to be successful, and it would probably be better off if it focused on finding multiple revenues streams rather than waiting for online ad rates to "catch up.".)
3: Content will always be King
(Rosenstiel makes some good points. First that just producing news content and assuming that people want and will purchase it is not enough to ensure success. Second, that the more you know about your audience's preferences and the value they place on various types of content, is critical in this more competitive environment.  But content is still king - people don't buy newspapers for the paper, but for the content.  And newspapers were successful because they offered a range of content that its readers valued (not just "news").
One problem with US newspapers is that new media developed more valued ways to access a lot of that valued content.  And the continued viability of news media will depend on doing a better job of creating and distributing "valued" content.  They just have to work on what audiences value (not merely what journalists are interested in or think is important), and finding ways to distinguish their content from that available elsewhere, by adding value to the content or its distribution.  But content remains king - just not the old content)
4. Newspapers around the World are in Decline
(This is a myth we've already debunked in class.  Or at least they are not yet in decline.  The problem facing newspapers is the increased competition, and as new media emerge and are adopted throughout the world, creating not only competition, but competition that often has competitive advantages in portions of the "news" marketplace, old-line newspapers will decline if they don't adapt. There are examples of newspapers successfully adapting, carving out a niche for paper readers.  So call this one a myth for now, anyway.)
5. The solution is to focus on local news
(Rosenstiel makes the argument that going local, particularly hyperlocal, creates two problems: it reduces the market (and ad revenues), and he's not sure who will produce hyperlocal content.  While he has a point there, I'd argue for this being a myth more on the idea that there is not likely to be any single broad solution that will rescue traditional news media.  I will suggest that there is an approach which is likely to be successful in a hypercompetitive market environment - that media's best shot at success (and supranormal profits) will come as a result of carving out a niche and not trying to compete with every other outlet.  That means examining who your main competitors are, where your competitive advantages may lie, and what can you do to increase the value of your product within your new market.  There is no room for a single solution to be successful, unless it's going so hyperlocal that there is no competition (at which point Rosenstiels arguments are persuasive). For some media outlets, that may mean going local, even hyperlocal; as the smaller the market, the less likely you are to have competition.  But there are other ways of competing (offering increased access via mobile devices, better content, figuring out how to exploit all that "amateur" content out there, or employing gatekeeping more consistent with audience preferences, for instance).  The challenge facing all media these days, is to stop assuming that you're valuable and to start figuring out how you can be more valuable, and how you can monetize that value)

So over all, Rosenstiel makes some good points, but has missed some others.  Not too bad for an old line news guy