I'm here at Annenberg because I wanted to take a year off and think. I've worked the past 12 years in a great newspaper and had loads of fun and great experience. But I don't honestly believe that the next 12 years in the business will be as pleasant. Money is tight, everyone's scared about the future and the accounting department is trying to gain control in the newsroom.
So I guess it's better to take year off and decide if I want to continue in media business. The first week at Annenberg has been a blast for me: a continuous stream of new ideas and paths that journalism could take in the future.
Take the Monday night dinner. Jerry Swerling takes the stage and starts talking about the indifferences between journalism and PR, introducing scotusblog.com. And I'm sitting there going PERFECT! This is what I've been looking for: the perfect meltdown of new kind of corporate money and quality journalism!
I'm pretty sure I was probably one of the few in the room that got excited about this. Most Journalism Graduates were probably worried. Melting PR and journalism, that's dangerous!
But folks, get real. Journalism today is made with corporate money. The corporates providing money for the newsroom are making money on selling ads and subscriptions. Why selling ads and subscriptions is considered more trustworthy business than selling antitrust practise? Or selling serials (as I noted in my previous post)?
It's because we are used to this business model. We think that this is the only way to make money and good, reliable journalism at the same time. But we have been told several times during this week that ithe readers are in charge. They decide what they consider reliable. They don't care about who's money it is that enables the newsmaking process. Fox news has proper "media corporate money", but do you honestly believe they are providing quality journalism?
Big questions. I'm happy I have a full year to think about them.
So I guess it's better to take year off and decide if I want to continue in media business. The first week at Annenberg has been a blast for me: a continuous stream of new ideas and paths that journalism could take in the future.
Take the Monday night dinner. Jerry Swerling takes the stage and starts talking about the indifferences between journalism and PR, introducing scotusblog.com. And I'm sitting there going PERFECT! This is what I've been looking for: the perfect meltdown of new kind of corporate money and quality journalism!
I'm pretty sure I was probably one of the few in the room that got excited about this. Most Journalism Graduates were probably worried. Melting PR and journalism, that's dangerous!But folks, get real. Journalism today is made with corporate money. The corporates providing money for the newsroom are making money on selling ads and subscriptions. Why selling ads and subscriptions is considered more trustworthy business than selling antitrust practise? Or selling serials (as I noted in my previous post)?
It's because we are used to this business model. We think that this is the only way to make money and good, reliable journalism at the same time. But we have been told several times during this week that ithe readers are in charge. They decide what they consider reliable. They don't care about who's money it is that enables the newsmaking process. Fox news has proper "media corporate money", but do you honestly believe they are providing quality journalism?
Big questions. I'm happy I have a full year to think about them.
By Ian Joulain
August 19, 2009 11:26 PM
"Journalism today is made with corporate money."
Well Pekka, what can I say? You're not wrong by any means in this statement and the picture you painted with the accounting department trying to gain control of the newsroom isn't far fetched either.
I remember working for a magazine and having the ad sales folks always on the editorial side of the building. They would poke and prod us about perhaps covering one of their clients to make them happy and so that they would continue to buy ads in the magazine. I often gave them half a smile and asked them to talk to the editor-in-chief.
There was a war going on. Ad people attempted to strong arm us, but we held strong. The lines are no doubt getting blurry and that is no doubt an unsavory reality.
Let's face it, without ads there is no magazine or newspaper. Printing words onto a page costs money and it has to come from somewhere. I hope I don't live to see the day where people can't tell the difference between an editorial piece and an advertorial one. If that day does indeed come, Pekka, I want you to cover my eyes for me.