My “Future of Newspapers” Hearing Testimony

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, fellow Americans:

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet to discuss The Future of Newspapers.

I have no idea why you invited me, since I am just a former newsroom toiler who fled for the digital world about three years ago and never looked back, except to use my blog to roll stinkbombs into American newsrooms in order to smoke out the cowards, fools and sentimentalists who are holding back the very innovations that can not only save journalism but allow it to thrive in spectacular and mind-bending ways none of us can imagine yet.

Note how I said “save journalism,” not “save newspapers.”

These are very different things. Journalism–let’s define that, just to be quick, as independent, energetic reporting on significant matters of public importance–can reach the public any number of ways.

It just so happens that for a long time it was economically feasible, indeed very rewarding, to distribute journalism via a process involving forest products, petroleum distillates, rail cars, really big energy-hog printing presses that are a hoot to watch, various conveyances powered by internal combustion engines, plastic bags, union labor, etc.

There are many ways, nearly all more time-, labor- and resource-efficient, to distribute this journalism. The Internet comes immediately to mind, but we’ll get to that in a second. By suggesting it’s important to “save” newspapers you are essentially saying you want to preserve the stunningly inefficient distribution process described above.

This is a bit like saying you want to feed America’s hungry by saving the tin-can industry.

Dudes [can I call you that?]: Focus on delivering the food, not on the container it comes in.

As a way to help committee members stay focused on this, I have asked my supporters–which is to say, both regular readers of my blog–to attend today’s hearing and shout the word JOURNALISM whenever a panelist or witness uses the word “newspapers.” I understand this may be disruptive to the proceedings, but please know that they are doing this as patriotic Americans who believe deeply, as I do, that without independent journalism America would be an even scarier place than it is now.

For instance, all that hoo-ha about “government transparency” wouldn’t mean squat without smart, skeptical, literate people of no obvious political affiliation who can help explain what it means to the public. I’d say that’s a good job for journalists right now, regardless of whether their work is delivered via the Internet, Kindle, iPhone, NPR podcast, god-help-usTwitter, e-mail or — hey, it’s still sort of a free country — ink on paper.

The problem is, the very well-intentioned, hard-working and absolutely bug-eyed terrified newspaper executives of today, some of whom are sitting so close to me I can smell their deodorant, are so determined to protect the cash flow derived from newspapers that they are stifling the innovations that can transform journalism so it serves members of today’s public, who consume and use information in very different ways.

It sounds crazy, but I’d much rather see a news organization quit publishing in print today–this afternoon is one idea–while it still has a positive balance sheet, a line of credit and some well-trained professional journalists on the payroll, than to see them ride the revenue curve all the way into the basement.

If they keep doing what they’re doing until they’re bankrupt, seized by creditors or overtaken by rogue board members who want to sell for scrap, all that invaluable human capital–journalistic talent, passion, experience–will be lost, scattered, squandered. They’d have nothing left to invest in creating the journalism of the future. And then look at who will be left to carry the values of journalism forward.

I’m guessing that a pull-the-paper-plug-today plan would lead to several possible outcomes for newspaper companies:

• They’d whither and die due to inability to adapt. It’s not clear whether they’d survive for a longer or shorter time than if they kept putting out a printed newspaper every day. I’d like a look at the numbers, though.
• They’d get bought by newer, nimbler companies that understand that original journalism has economic value and are furiously committed to capturing that value in a new media environment. At least some of the journalism DNA would convey
• They’d try a bunch of dramatic new things with content, delivery and businesses arrangements, most of which would fail but some of which could be small or even breakthrough journalistic successes or–who knows?–money makers

Frankly I don’t see a downside to any of those. The worst case is imminent death, which is pretty likely either way. The best case is finding a way to sustain at least some journalism in today’s media environment.

The middle ground is to go out in a blaze of creative glory, hoping at least to be remembered as a company that did its best when it mattered most and contributed to the body of work that helps others invent the future of journalism.

The alternative is continuing to publish in the most expensive way available, cutting all other costs–including journalism! and journalists! the most precious national resources on the table!–in order to sustain a distribution model that is being rejected by the public and advertisers with stunning speed and certainty. I am not a criminal lawyer, but isn’t that against the law or something?

Lately some government officials have talked about needing to save companies that are “too big to fail.”

I submit that companies that continue to devote their most valuable resources to print-based products are “too foolish to succeed.”

Members of the committee, fellow Americans, I implore you: Save journalism by letting the free market take its course. Some newspapers must die so journalism can live.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Is there a back exit to this room?

Addendum, Thursday, April 23: Before I wrote the above item, I read a Tweet of Jeff Jarvis’s, saying that he’d written his fake testimony to the committee. This annoyed the hell out of me, since I was sure my idea was so clever that nobody else would think of it. Ha. But I went ahead and wrote mine anyway–without reading his. Honest. I just did read it. While his approach is characteristically more refined and coherent, and probably less insulting to those who disagree with him [he makes no references to stinkbombs or deodorant, for example], the ideas we share are eerily similar.  Actually, the similarity isn’t eerie, since I’ve been reading Jarvis for a long time and think he’s brilliant, at least on a good day with the wind at his back. Anyhow: Just wanted to say.