Yes, I share your First Amendment concerns. I am not comfortable with government interference, positive or negative, in speech and especially journalism. But the discussion is past that as bills are flying, so I want to try to examine better alternatives.
You're also right about the focus on the fund. In my paper about the antecedent legislation in other countries, I examine just that: This is about legislative bribery and so, yes, it does come down to the number of dollars.
Absolutely agree with you. Much of the problem in this deliberation is that legacy publishers would wish us -- and legislators -- to make "news" synonymous with them and their dying products. In New York and Washington State, print publishers' lobbyists managed to get legislation passed to give them tax breaks, specifically excluding competitors, including digital and not-for-profit news outlets.
As for my wording of the headline, I was making a too-sly reference to an earlier post of mine about this legislation headlined, "This is no way to save the news." https://medium.com/whither-news/this-is-no-way-to-save-the-news-698ea9e5abf9
Wonderful post. Thanks for the provocative and thoughtful response.
I very much buy what you and Prudan say about offering experiences, about that being separate from the tangible product. This is the problem so many in media have: newspapers think they make paper, and so on.
I also argue that sometimes, we don't offer an experience but a relationship (that's what marketing should be -- without advertising; it's what a newspaper that truly serves its community should be...).
OK, now here's the but:
How is the experience a scarcity? That may be scarce for the "buyer" or "consumer" -- that is, I have only so much time or emotional space for the experience. But I don't see how that's scarce for the producer. I think it's still about abundance, no?
A further thought: The behavior you're describing is exactly that of a religion or cult: You can't know what you're talking about unless you're a believer. Sadly, the old business models for news and newspapers remain only matters of faith.
Note, too, that Siegel has a very strong interest in seeing old newspapers say alive so he can sell them Parade. Every time a paper dies (or cuts its budget), he dies a little. That's why he started that Newspaper Project blog and ad thing to sell the wonderfulness of paper as paper. He benefits a lot more than I do.
As I pointed out in a comment on his NewspaperProject blog (there's no opportunity to comment at E&P - surprise, surprise), Siegel doesn't reveal that he and I worked together as I was president and creative director of Advance.net, the online arm of his parent company, for a dozen years. In that capacity, I tried to bring Parade into the future. I failed.
I quit so I could accomplish more change - helping newspapers - as a professor. I now earn a fraction of what I did when I worked for Advance but I believe I can get more done. Note well that I also still consult for Siegel's company... helping a newspaper.
Mike, what I think you're identifying is both a defensiveness and emotionalism that is taking over this discussion as things get more dire. I'm seeing it, too, in the debate over paid content (otherwise rational people who just stomp their feet and say it SHOULD happen). I guess it's not surprising: a mark of desperation.
I work hard to try to help advance journalism into the next age. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and what I say. But to attack my motive is nothing short of petty and defamatory.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jeff Jarvis.
Agree
Yes, I share your First Amendment concerns. I am not comfortable with government interference, positive or negative, in speech and especially journalism. But the discussion is past that as bills are flying, so I want to try to examine better alternatives. You're also right about the focus on the fund. In my paper about the antecedent legislation in other countries, I examine just that: This is about legislative bribery and so, yes, it does come down to the number of dollars.
Oh, my
Well, oh, my. I guess you haven't seen the news from Canada.
Can we redefine 'news'?
Absolutely agree with you. Much of the problem in this deliberation is that legacy publishers would wish us -- and legislators -- to make "news" synonymous with them and their dying products. In New York and Washington State, print publishers' lobbyists managed to get legislation passed to give them tax breaks, specifically excluding competitors, including digital and not-for-profit news outlets. As for my wording of the headline, I was making a too-sly reference to an earlier post of mine about this legislation headlined, "This is no way to save the news." https://medium.com/whither-news/this-is-no-way-to-save-the-news-698ea9e5abf9
Yes, but... ?
Mike,
Wonderful post. Thanks for the provocative and thoughtful response.
I very much buy what you and Prudan say about offering experiences, about that being separate from the tangible product. This is the problem so many in media have: newspapers think they make paper, and so on.
I also argue that sometimes, we don't offer an experience but a relationship (that's what marketing should be -- without advertising; it's what a newspaper that truly serves its community should be...).
OK, now here's the but:
How is the experience a scarcity? That may be scarce for the "buyer" or "consumer" -- that is, I have only so much time or emotional space for the experience. But I don't see how that's scarce for the producer. I think it's still about abundance, no?
Faith
A further thought: The behavior you're describing is exactly that of a religion or cult: You can't know what you're talking about unless you're a believer. Sadly, the old business models for news and newspapers remain only matters of faith.
Thanks
Appreciate this, Mike.
Note, too, that Siegel has a very strong interest in seeing old newspapers say alive so he can sell them Parade. Every time a paper dies (or cuts its budget), he dies a little. That's why he started that Newspaper Project blog and ad thing to sell the wonderfulness of paper as paper. He benefits a lot more than I do.
As I pointed out in a comment on his NewspaperProject blog (there's no opportunity to comment at E&P - surprise, surprise), Siegel doesn't reveal that he and I worked together as I was president and creative director of Advance.net, the online arm of his parent company, for a dozen years. In that capacity, I tried to bring Parade into the future. I failed.
I quit so I could accomplish more change - helping newspapers - as a professor. I now earn a fraction of what I did when I worked for Advance but I believe I can get more done. Note well that I also still consult for Siegel's company... helping a newspaper.
Mike, what I think you're identifying is both a defensiveness and emotionalism that is taking over this discussion as things get more dire. I'm seeing it, too, in the debate over paid content (otherwise rational people who just stomp their feet and say it SHOULD happen). I guess it's not surprising: a mark of desperation.
I work hard to try to help advance journalism into the next age. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and what I say. But to attack my motive is nothing short of petty and defamatory.