Journalism's Lost Its Medium

*Second Update* I made a correction to a sentence below about the Ann Arbor News, because Jim Carty himself commented on this post. Awesome!

*Update* Today's Daily has a very appropriate story for this post, with the current EIC's response here; and I also discovered a very deep piece in last month's Atlantic Monthly about the state of the NYT.

In 2007 I wrote a column in the Daily about Journalism's failure as a profession to ask the tough questions, particularly concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time of course, no one knew the expanse of deception and lies in the Bush White House, but in my eyes, it began what I view as a downturn in the profession that should never run out of material or money.

Something near and dear to my heart then, is the health of the print journalism industry. I write this as Walter Isaacson publishes a very deep cover story in TIME Magazine titled, "How to Save Your Newspaper" -- I get it that the two fields I am most qualified for, journalism and nonprofit/historical work, are on a steep decline. I'm having a difficult time finding any work in either field, and so it's with a heavy heart that I pick up where I left off in that 2007 column and regrettably say that journalism is now losing its bully pulpit, its means for communicating information the Americans want, and need (information on Miley Cyrus and other celebrities notwithstanding). It's the modern-day equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein going to write their Watergate opus, and not having a typewriter. And it's accelerating.

Walter Isaacson's piece explains that a newspaper can be saved with a little restructuring, but I have a problem with this. He did go on "The Daily Show" and make his case to Jon Stewart, but it's a bit like a paradox to me. For example, in 2007 the New York Times did away with charging for its premium content, much to the delight of myself, because I could finally read Thomas Friedman on my own accord. Now, two years later, the Times and a lot of other dailies are cutting costs and staffs. The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press no longer deliver on some days of the week, Newsweek, TIME, Conde Nast and others have axed thousands of employees.

How does an organization like the New York Times all of a sudden fall back on its oath to not charge money for premium online content? I for one wouldn't pay for such a thing when it's already free. Isaacson's framework was charging a simple 99 cents for a pledge to use a site, and that would likely draw in a lot more revenue than chaging 10 or so dollars per month would. Journalism as an industry has become so open-source, that it's impossible to go back to something that would have worked five years ago. The Ann Arbor News has cut a ton of staff (and Jim Carty left to do Toledo Law *tear*), and it's mainly because people just are not reading print newspapers as much. I pick up a print copy of the NYT approximately once a month, and it says something about where media is going.

When I was interviewed for an internship with Automotive News, I was told that they were starting to go for exclusive online content, and thats what The Michigan Daily does now even with a lot of multimedia content and stories that are happening in the evening and overnight hours.

I'm no media mogul, but wouldn't it make sense to put out a product that is dependant entirely on readership, have it funded by advertising revenue, and grow the organization based on the quality of work you do? There's all these bloggers out there like myself who write stuff in cyberspace that would gladly work for the online arm of any publication than work in a big stuffy newsroom that has a 2 AM deadline for print (Michigan Daily).

It was no freak occurrence that President Obama called on a reporter for the Huffington Post in a primetime East Wing news conference...

The Winner Is...

Was there ever any doubt ?

Runners-Up included: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, French Prime Minister Nikolas Sarkozy, Governor Sarah Palin, and Zhang Yimou (who is he you ask? he's the man that designed all those amazing productions seen at the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics).

I think it was a given that President-Elect Obama would be the person of the year here in America, but...the world? I think Mr. Zhang would have been an interesting choice, given the times we live in (internationally, that is) -- coincidentally, I finished Thomas Friedman's latest book, and he devotes an entire section of the book to China, and it just seems like China is the most up-and-coming place on the globe right now -- why not pick a man that was tasked with presenting "the good side of China" to the world?

Lots of person of the year-related content up on Time.com now so hop over there to check it out...can't exactly argue with slapping Obama on the cover of a magazine for the 32485437078623th time, but that's why I like that they put that excellent illustration on it instead...he's a symbol of the greener pastures that lie in waiting for us Americans. When Franklin Roosevelt accpeted the Democratic nomination in 1932, he said, 

"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms."

Obama's the guy to call us to arms...roll up his sleeves and take it in the gut for a year or maybe two of his term as President, and I'm guessing that's why he is TIME's Person of the Year.