Trust. It’s the foundation of the news business. We’d like to believe that readers trust us to deliver accurate and fair-minded news. We’d like to believe that we can trust each other in the press to be honorable. Trustworthiness, or integrity, is one of the values we’ve most sought as we hire and promote. And trust has never been more a moving target, as we’ve seen a shuffling of owners, top execs, news managers, and long-time journalists. It’s easy to claim — as in “CNN, the Most Trusted Name in News” — but much harder to earn every day.

Trusts, though, also have a legal meaning, as in the entities set up to administer enterprises, those intended to adhere to the principles of those setting up them up.

We have the iconic Scott Trust, set up in the UK by long-time editor C.P. Scott, to sustain the Guardian newspaper (and now news) long into the future. Though threatened by the same disruptive forces faced by all news media, the Guardian has miraculously made it into 2012. Its worldwide digital reach and many changes in news focus and newsgathering still hew to Scott’s basic principles of “honesty, cleanness [now interpreted as integrity], courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community.” We have the Poynter trust, set up in 1988, which has kept the Tampa Bay (née St. Petersburg) Times going through the years.

Now we hear that Rupert Murdoch, a name not often mentioned top of mind with the word in question, may set up a trust. That trust would put his London-based quality dailies, including the prized Times of London and Sunday Times, as well as the The Sun tabloid, into a trust. News Corp. COO Chase Carey, according to the Telegraph, is having his execs investigative how such a spinoff could work. In News Corp.’s case, a spinoff of the U.K. papers is intended to win back trust — and allow the wily Murdoch empire a fresh bite of BSkyB apple. That satellite operation, the U.K.’s most dominant, was just about to plop into News Corp.’s portfolio — taking full ownership of the company up from its current 39 percent — when Hackgate erupted.

The idea: segregate out the tainted, hard-for-the-British-establishment-to-trust print properties, so News Corp. can be deemed “morally fit” to own the government-regulated satellite company. The idea emerged over the last several weeks as pundits started war-gaming out endgame strategies for News Corp., given that Scotland Yard’s fury at having been compromised means that legal cases against former News Corp. exec Rebekah Brooks and numerous others look like they will proceed well into 2014, at least.

In 2014, Rupert Murdoch, will be 83.

So why not go for a twofer? News Corp. could double-down on the closure of the News of the World gambit; no papers, no problem. It would allow News Corp. to focus on its most profitable businesses like movies, satellite, and cable without the management distractions (and financial drain) of the papers, much to the cheers of investors. The quality papers, like all of the quality press in London, with the exception of the Telegraph, are money losers.

Then, the new News Corp. — with James Murdoch biding his time for the present; when you’re young and in-waiting, even a corner castle suite can be satisfying for a long time — makes its new play for all of BSkyB, having proven its trustworthiness by giving away, for god’s sake, the papers Rupert Murdoch loves most. What else can we do to prove out how trustworthy we are, execs would ask regulators incredulously, while the attorneys would claim that the ridding of the tainted newspaper fruit removes any legal basis to object to News Corp. buying BSkyB.

Yes, MP Tom Watson and the Murdoch Avengers would harrumph a great deal — but would they be able to stop the deal, over which Parliament may have no legal say? Never underestimate Rupert Murdoch’s ability to come back from the near-dead. As observers search for suitable metaphors, one we’ve heard more often is “driving the stake into the heart” of Murdoch or his U.K. operations. How many stakes, driven into whose hearts, is the tactical question here, as we move from metaphor into the three-continent realpolitik world of Murdoch.

One reason News Corp. may move forward with the trust idea rather than a sale of the properties is that it may meet a market without buyers. With the Times’ losses, it’s tough to come up with logical buyers for the papers. Why mess with the market, though, if you can both perform an act of public service — save the venerable Times, only nine years younger than the United States — and move on? Rupert already has denied that his company is studying such a move, though the Financial Times has joined the Telegraph in describing trust discussions within News Corp.

If the trust spinoff moves forward, it could have profound implications for the U.K. press. That press has seen as much or more disruption than the U.S. press; broadband penetration is greater, and digital ad spending passed print two years before it did in the U.S. Now the U.K. recession further depresses the ad market.

Consequently, at least two questions tumble out of the potential News Corp. spinoff. First, who exactly would run the new organization? Second, why have we heard so little of potential trusts in U.S., given the freefall in valuation of the press here, and now a cascade of newspaper property sales, the last Warren Buffett’s surprising pick-up of Media General newspapers (“Berkshire Hathaway Media Group: Financial Engineering Makes the Deal”).

Curiously, we heard a lot more about the promise of civic newspaper trusts a few years ago, as the recession marked a major turndown in newspaper fortunes and markdown in their prices. It’s possible we may hear more about it again this summer, when Tribune finally exits bankruptcy, as it prepared to do this week with a corporate reorganization. Civic-minded groups in both Baltimore and Hartford surfaced early on as Zell’s glass house began to crack, and they could again.

Overall, though, what we’ve seen is the game of billionaire and millionaire bingo. Newspaper properties, at a tenth or so of their prices of a decade ago, now are within the reach and grasp of many more people. Yet, that leaves us — the readers — as spectators to the drama of who will control our news. Says Chris Mackin, an expert in the field of employee ownership, “That leaves us dependent on the kindness of rich people, on persistent angelic interventions.”

It’s not that there haven’t been efforts to corral old media assets into public trusts of one sort or another. Bernie Lunzer, The Newspaper Guild’s president, is among those working to empower L3Cs, essentially “low-profit” companies, now chartered in six states and proposed in others. B corporations and ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans, made infamous by Sam Zell’s perversion of them in taking over, and then quickly under, the Tribune Company) are other related options. Each of these forms and the classic “trust” itself do something fairly simple goal: They add a layer of purpose — usually serving the public through journalism — to the fiduciary responsibilities of public companies to maximize profit for the shareholders. Yet with all the thinking and strategizing, we have few examples of using nonprofits of one sort or another to take over failing newspaper assets.

Why? We can tick off a few reasons. For-profit newspaper companies prefer selling to other for-profits; it’s neater and cleaner. Nonprofits are messier in their structure and would expect “below-market” pricing. Some point to the the lack of fiscal discipline nonprofits may have.

Others point to the difficulty of raising new capital within a non-profit structure — and given the downward spiral of newspaper companies, new capital is often needed. “The question we are dancing around is will news media need investment capital?,” says Mackin. “If so, we cannot abandon ownership structures that permit investment.”

Add together all the questions, and not much happens — other than the wealthy and private equity, such as Alden Global Capital, buying assets.

There’s one more big reason: If you want to inject new money into a public-service journalism company, most would rather pump it into a new company, like The Texas Tribune, the Center for Investigative Reporting/California Watch, or MinnPost. That’s cleaner too. The tradeoff: The brand, cash flows, and newsroom scale are gone, but so are the multiple headaches of asset conversion and operation of a legacy news company.

For those newer nonprofits — and for whatever spinoff News Corp. may design in London — the question of “governance,” while seemingly a dry one, makes all the difference in how good and how much journalism can be done and whether a news operation can meet the multiplatform challenges of this decade.

Governance and management are two peas in the same pod. The question of who hires and reviews management is key and often overlooked.  That question, though, is one we are seeing played out widely, from the Center for Investigative Reporting/California Watch merger with Bay Citizen to the move, to push regional public radio hard into public media, to what could happen to the Times of London. We could also say that the complexion of boards in traditional newspaper companies may be part of the problem in transforming those companies for the digital-heavy near-future.

“Good boards value independence from management,” says Bill Davis, the CEO of Southern California Public Radio/KPCC, which is now making a major push to fill Los Angeles’ news vacuum and compete more directly with The Los Angeles Times (“The Newsonomics of the Death and Life of California Journalism“).  ”Bill Kling [the now-retired head of Minnesota Public Radio, which bought KPCC and turned it into a dynamo] made my life a lot easier, filling the founding board with passionate doers.” Davis has built on that legacy, building what may be a prototypical new board for the new digital news age. The ingredients: money (personal giving, philanthropy connections), diversity (ethnic, cultural, political), and spunk. He credits the board with re-energizing organizational nerve for a capital campaign — and now for forging ahead in building one of the most ambitious local news experiments in the U.S., now midstream in the process of adding 40 positions for local news.

“We’ve had Club for Growth board members and civil rights attorneys. What we want is independent collegiality and collegial independence.” Few boards can stake such an aim, or claim.  Kling, Davis’s mentor, has long keyed in on this boring topic of governance, saying lackadaisical or poor governance has long held back the potential of public media in the U.S. Those views didn’t win him friends all over public radio country, but he can take some comfort in being right. The more we look at the news scene — nonprofit, as well as profit-seeking — we can see his point ever more clearly.

While KPCC aims to get public service journalism right, the new millionaire owner down I-5, Doug Manchester is raising new fears about his use of the just-bought San Diego Union-Tribune as a political weapon. Manchester is now in negotiations to add the Orange County Register to his holdings.

Further north in the Bay Area — California increasingly seems a petri dish of new journalism — that combined Center for Investigative Reporting/California Watch/Bay Citizen “entity” is taking shape. CIR, now with a staff of 70, including 50 content creators, also is staking out a major claim to trust, as it stabilizes itself on a $10-11 million, Knight/MacArthur-led budget.

Yet its board makeup is still a work in progress. Phil Bronstein, former San Francisco Chronicle editor, is now executive chairman of the new board, first put together in an agreement guaranteeing equal number of board seats to the two parties in the March merger, CIR/California Watch, and Bay Citizen. The latter, of course, funded by the late San Francisco philanthropist Warren Hellman, quickly became a cautionary tale of how not to organize a news startup for success, in part due to its board being heavier on civic virtue and lighter on journalistic savvy.

Now with four more seats to fill, Bronstein is clear that he wants to add skills to his board, naming expertise in branding, marketing and mobile to his wish list. Add to those more technology-forward thinkers and — always — well-connected fundraisers, and you see the challenges and needs of news organization oversight. (And I’d have to ask how many traditional newspaper boards have or are seeking newer skill sets?)

Which brings us back to the Times of London and Sunday Times. In addition to the financial and legal questions, there are huge questions ahead. Who’s on the board? What kind of skills and connections do they have? Who is the management? What degree of oversight is exercised? (Too much or too little could be disastrous.) What would the news organizations have in terms of resources, once they’re no longer subsidized by News Corp.?

In most cases, we’d assume a trust would be totally independent of the company that may have spawned it. Rupert Murdoch, however, has proven a master of promising independence (see Harold Evans on the Times of London acquisition, or the Wall Street Journal acquisition) and then true to his proprietorship, quickly assuming full control. In this case, the degree of independence from News Corp. itself would be closely watched.

Trust is a simple word, but it stands for so much, legally, morally and ethically. As we enter the next wave of news wars, it’s one virtue being sorely tested every day.

Who do you trust to get you the news?

Today, we hear that the Newhouse’s Times-Picayune is following the “Michigan model,”  no longer a “daily” paper, but one published three days a week on paper. That model, launched in Michigan at the beginning of February, has quickly proven itself to Newhouse execs. The principles, if not the execution — or the longer-term impact — are clear:

• Pare down print days so as to keep 80%-plus of print advertising. Sunday is a natural here, with its heavy preprint business. Those preprints are endangered themselves, but not immediately; they now account for about a fifth of all newspaper company revenue in the U.S.  Keep another “market” day midweek, both for preprint and display advertisers, and probably add another day, Friday, to get to people as they move in their leisure (and shopping) days.
• Use the print strip-down to completely shake up — and streamline — the organizational charts. In Michigan, that meant two “new companies,” though both, of course, are owned by Newhouse. One, ML MediaLive,  focuses on the core of the digital business (content, sales and marketing)  and the other, Advance Central,  on everything else, production, distribution and all the accounting and HR functions. Importantly, instead of having separate organizations for each of these functions per title, in Michigan, Newhouse could could combine them into a single, cheaper-to-operate unit.
• Bet on the digital future, for readers and advertisers, promising the kinds of advanced digital products — from desktop to smartphone to tablet — that will keep customers coming in.

The New Orleans move looks to be a forced march to digital. With the Michigan results good enough to proceed, and print advertising in a near-death spiral, Newhouse is circling the print wagons, hoping to milk the remaining print advertising by corraling it into a few days of the week. Surely, it will lose some print advertising, but even a small additional loss should be made up by the major cost reductions, in printing, production, distribution and staffing. In one of the earliest moves, Gannett moved its Detroit Free Press to three days a week, back at bottom of the recession, and later claimed it had kept 90% of its advertising; my efforts to confirm whether that meant 90% of ad revenue or 90% of ad customers — a big difference — were unsuccessful.

I’d call it a forced march because it doesn’t look like the Times-Picayune, or its new successor, the NOLA Media Group, is yet ready for the digital transformation. It has been making a digital transition, and there ‘s a big difference between the two. It doesn’t have a digital circulation strategy yet in place; though about a fifth of U.S. dailies do. Digital circulation is key to making this work, so that core print readers become more likely to transition with the enterprise — and keep paying their monthly subscription bills. The Times-Picayune did launch an iPad app in Apri, though it’s clearly in beta, with four of the same stories repeated this morning on the iPad version home page.

Plainly, Newhouse’s thinking itself has been transformed. It is the last major US newspaper company to have kept its digital business separate, through Advance Digital, though responsibility for the digital business has been moving away from Advance Digital to the newspapers over the months. Now, it is embracing full bore the principles of digital first, part of a movement we’re going to see across the U.S. and Europe, as publishers respond to the same environment Newhouse is facing. In fact, Johnston Press, a significant UK publisher, turned five of its dailies — presto, magico — into weeklies and may soon the same with others.

The perils are three-fold, at least:

• Revenue: Though this is a bid to retain, or regain, profitability, there are too many moving income pieces — print ads, digital ads, circulation — to know how stable revenue may be in 2013-2015.
• Readership: A well-decorated, prize-winning “paper” of 134,000 daily circulation and 155,000 Sunday circulation, it is profoundly a print habit. How will its readers really adjust to the other four days week of digital-only, if they’re not strongly digital — and don’t have great digital products to consume. Big worry: Breaking the daily habit makes newspaper companies far less essential far more quickly. One other thing: a Center for Public Integrity/Lens project showed how relatively poor Internet access is in New Orleans, so the impact of print-less days may have more impact there than other cities.
• Regard: The loss of as many as another 50 newsroom jobs, bringing the vaunted newsroom down to 100, from a pre-Katrina high of 265, is a major loss, and can’t be painted otherwise. The community reaction will be strong, and it’s hard to predict how long-lasting. But, then, the long slide in New Orleans, and everywhere, has already significantly reduced community reliance and regard for newspaper companies and what they do.

The New Orleans move is not a shocking one. By 2020, we’ll be used to a few days a week of print, or maybe just “the Sunday paper,” and wonder why we chopped down whole forests; didn’t we always have these tablets?  Newsprint is going the way of the steam engine, to be visited in theme parks. US newspaper companies are using only a little more than half of what they consumed, in newsprint, a decade ago.

Will the print habit be abandoned by publishers well before then? In 2013? Or 2015%. The when is important, because the creation of community journalism — in tradition or transition or transformation — demands readiness. Readiness to serve community news needs, with a business model underneath that service that can be sustained. Newhouse isn’t yet there, nor is anyone else, but now we’ll see now how this new shock therapy works.

What’s the difference between being informed and being educated?

What’s the line between learning something new and being taught something new?

Are news media and universities just two ways to do the same thing: gain knowledge?

As Coursera, Udacity, edX, and several other offerings begin to unravel everything we thought we knew about post-secondary education, we can’t help but make links to the world of news.

You gotta love the geeky name that applies to this new hybrid for-profit/nonprofit industry: MOOCs, or massively open online courses.

For top-rank universities, the embrace of online education promises to be transformational, upending many of the millennium–old rules of academe, as education, learning, certification, payment for services, and measurement of teaching effectiveness all inevitably succumb to major rethinks. For daily newspapers, themselves becoming mainly digital news products ever more quickly, it’s a time ripe for redefinition, for declaring new and expanded roles as the digital age removes long-ago built barriers — some real, some always imaginary.

At first glance, the question of whether professors and journalists are in the same business seems almost absurd, doesn’t it? We know what a college is, and we know what a newspaper is. One’s got ivy-covered walls, demands on-site instruction, costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, and grants certificates of completion, or degrees. The other is a physical, throwaway product that until lately cost a quarter a day and now can go at the top end — in print — for $650 a year. No prizes are awarded for reading daily — or for 50 years.

Online, though, these historic differences seem to fade rather quickly. We read to learn, whether it’s a course on European history or the latest twists and turns of current European economic drama. Greek tragedies of two different era. We read to understand and make sense of things.

What indeed, then, might media’s greater role in society be, and how can it now harness technology to multiply its impact? MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, among others, are wandering into that territory — testing the reach of technology — without knowing where their travels will take them in this terra incognita. We know that news media may be well suited to new educational roles. Why? It’s what we produce — information and perspective, building blocks of learning — and it’s what we believe when we talk about “public service.”

This emerging blur between media and education joins others. In its mischievous disruption, that’s much of what digital does. It blurs.

As the tablet makes mincemeat of the historic differences among newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio, we see another bright line ready to dim: that seeming line between what a news organization and what a college each do. This is still another stopping point for all those leading the craft of journalism into the new age to ask what business we’re really in. What business does it make sense for us to consider, test, or ply? What fits with our mission?

Let’s take “mission” for a moment.

Our history offers lots of punchy “raise hell and print the news” missions. But scratch deeper and you find a commitment to learning and its cousin, community building — one that reaches beyond simply pitching the news.

How about The Wall Street Journal’s simply elegant, “The daily diary of the American dream.” Or: “The Scotsman. It’s thinking time.” Or The Everett (Wash.) Herald: “If It Matters To You, It Matters To Us.”

While we all know about The New York Times’ “All the news that’s fit to print,” consider its deeper declaration: “The Company’s core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.”

Beyond mere words, we can see small educational extensions of the news companies’ basic businesses. Most every paper has participated in Newspaper in Education programs, providing papers and, sometimes, lesson plans for elementary and secondary students. The New York Times sponsors many talks, lectures, and other learning events in the city. Education in the pre-online sense has long been part of its brand, and its Knowledge Network has offered “adult and continuing education opportunities.” Consider the Texas Tribune’s forays in events, both as a business line and a way of extending its journalistic raison d’etre beyond publication. Many newspapers sponsor candidate forums or public debates on an issue.

Largely, though, newsies inhabit an industry focused on the day. We trot out the well used quote, “News is the first rough draft of history,” but we let others make sense — and value — out of the incredible riches of newspaper archives. Let others create courses, connect the dots, and create knowledge. We’ve always been into a snapshot approach to the world. What’s news today lacks sufficient lineage to yesterday — or to tomorrow. We see such innovations as Storify and a few Google efforts (Living Stories, Timeline) that are efforts to connect the dots of news time.

All these efforts, though, are piecemeal, not intended as new ways of gaining mass impact, as in massive — think thousands or hundreds of thousands of people — open online courses.

So in the emerging age of the democratization of education, let’s consider how news companies could rethink their role in news, and education. Let’s call it the newsonomics of News U. [Update: I should have noted Poynter Institute's long-time and well-used News University, sometimes called NewsU, in the original post. The program, headed by Howard Finberg, offers more than 150 courses in journalism and multimedia. ]

Coursera, which has gotten a huge amount of press, is more than a collection of online courses. Working with the University of California, Princeton, Penn and, of course, Stanford, the Palo Alto-bred company has pioneered an “interactive online learning system.” Read its near-revolutionary mission statement of this Kleiner Perkins-funded company:

We are a social entrepreneurship company that partners with the top universities in the world to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free. We envision a future where the top universities are educating not only thousands of students, but millions. Our technology enables the best professors to teach tens or hundreds of thousands of students.

Through this, we hope to give everyone access to the world-class education that has so far been available only to a select few. We want to empower people with education that will improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the communities they live in.

What if we take the Coursera’s thoroughly democratizing aspiration and apply it to a modern news media company that wants to stake a greater claim to learning and community as part of its mission?

We are an entrepreneurial company that takes advantage of the best sources of news, information, and knowledge in our area to maximally inform our citizenry, at prices that bring civic literacy to everyone in our community. We envision a future where media and citizens work together, building on fact-based knowledge to better the community and tackle long-standing issues. Our technology enables us to broadly engage community as never before possible in building on community knowledge, feeding the democratic process of debate and decision.

We believe that civic learning and engagement are lifelong pursuits, and we are dedicated to using the most contemporary techniques, technological and otherwise, to empower people to improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the communities in which they live.

Too high-minded? Or is that simply another way of saying, with the aid of technology, what The Guardian, Journal, and Times first said more than a century ago?

What’s increasingly possible here — recognized by the pioneering elite educational institutions, but available to media institutions as well — is the ability to both increase the institutional reach of their brands and to provide transformational learning opportunities at small incremental cost.

Few traditional media have the know-how internally. One fascinating exception: U.K.-based Pearson. It owns the global Financial Times news franchise, Pearson Education is a leading K-12 publisher, and Penguin Books is positioning itself well to extend ebook links between “media” and “education.” While at Pearson, the press and the educational press share a home, most media will have to partner to test forays into learning, or to position themselves as Pearson does as “always learning.”

Beyond high-minded mission statements, what are some practical ways we can test media/education links? How about these to start:

• Build on in-depth series you’ve done or have in the works. Think of “courses” as an extension of the work. Pulitzer- (and other award-) winning series are naturals here and can take students into environmental science, health policy, hydrology, engineering, sociology, business management, and history, just to name a few academic areas.
• Take a page from One Book projects, in which communities settle on single books to read and discuss, by trying One Series courses that try to achieve maximum community reach. Topics like immigration, bullying and water planning come to mind, will draw new audiences.
• Add courses to the kinds of community engagement initiatives such companies as Digital First Media (and Steve Buttry, its leader in that area) are championing. (Thanks to Steve for the context and thinking, in his follow-up post.)
• Match up burgeoning ebooks initiatives (“The Newsonomics of 100 Products a Year“)  to coursework. Sell the book; provide the course at a low cost? Local history courses are a natural here.
• Think next-gen Newspaper in Education program. While some newspapers put real effort in bringing the news alive in the classroom, many long regarded it as just another way to add a percentage point or three to circulation numbers. What would a digitally revitalized, 2012 NIE program look like?
• Membership programs — think “you’re more than a subscriber to me” — are all the rage from Boston to L.A. Membership needs to have some real benefits, and news-based learning opportunities can be among them.

So where do media companies look for partners?

Consider that this is much more than putting words into lesson plans, or creating education replicas of news products. At the MIT/Harvard-based edX, video lectures, embedded quizzes, interactive learning, online labs, and much peer interaction. So these new MOOC companies themselves could be partners.

Other natural partners would be educators themselves, as school districts and community colleges, as well as the bigger, more prestigious colleges in the forefront of this movement.

The Knight Foundation — the funding pacesetter of the new journalism — should be of help. Its DNA is media and community-building. Just last Friday, Knight’s Eric Newton challenged journalism school educators to adopt a “teaching hospital” model to create greater community engagement and betterment. If transformative technology needs to be applied to enable media to become educators as well, maybe Knight would be a source of aid.

So where is the money here? Is there a business model to be found? The facile Silicon Valley answer may seem unpalatable to current newspaper company owners: Become more essential to people, and the money will follow. And what can be more essential, and more relationship-building, than lifelong education?

We see three other major web concepts in the business thinking of the MOOC founders: freemium, gathering data, and aggregation.

On business model, most MOOC courses are free to students at this point, a wonderful price point that brings in lots of customers, er, students.

On data, Coursera’s goal is to “analyze student data to obtain a better understanding of online pedagogy and student learning…and understand human learning at a scale and depth that has been never been possible before.” Think of the power of that data.

On aggregation, look at edX’s statement about the project, “The gathering of many universities’ educational content together on one site will enable learners worldwide to access the course content of any participating university from a single website, and to use a set of online educational tools shared by all participating universities.” Become the go-to source, globally, nationally or locally for something people value, and the digital world rewards you.

One other way we can look at building value and revenue here. Let’s take the prism of manufacturing. Publishers manufacture content (and ads), use it for a single purpose — the paper, the site — and then discard it. News is a raw resource, whose value is poorly amplified; better for publishers to move up the food chain and find higher-end uses for it in the creation of learning and knowledge.

Establishing new relationships and deepening old ones should create a future pipeline for products and services still to be born.

Forget Udacity — let’s think audacity. The audacity to think, in spite of news organizations’ shrinkage, they can make a larger, not smaller, contribution to their readers and communities.

Many non-profits, like NPR, like to tell the public that they are “mission-driven organizations,” words, I assume, that are meant to separate them from profit-seeking media. With news media profitability now only achieved by keeping the scalpel handy and well-oiled, the profit line works less as a defining difference. More important may be that, in comparison, much legacy news media seemsmission-free. It still exists, but in economic decline harbors increasing doubt about its own purpose. With self-doubt and its apparent clout receding, it has grown less clear about its role in democracy, rather than more clear.

Maybe a mission-based exhortation to adapt the technologies of the day to further community education, engagement and civic problem-solving is a tonic for the deepening media malaise.

Let’s let The Guardian’s C.P. Scott bring us full circle, reconnecting journalism and education.

Scott’s clear-eyed, pre-cable, pre-web view of what journalists — and educators — do rings even more important today: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred. ‘Propaganda’, so called, by this means is hateful.” In fact, one of the greatest shared values of the news and education industries is that both are fact-based enterprises, operating against longer odds as misinformation and disinformation can be funded on a different massive scale.

In 1921, he wrote:

A newspaper has two sides to it…It is a business, like any other, and has to pay in the material sense in order to live. But it is much more than a business; it is an institution; it reflects and it influences the life of a whole community; it may affect even wider destinies. It is, in its way, an instrument of government. It plays on the minds and consciences of men. It may educate, stimulate, assist, or it may do the opposite. It has, therefore, a moral as well as a material existence, and its character and influence are in the main determined by the balance of these two forces.

A billionaire philanthropist buying into the woebegone American newspaper industry does make a good story and prompts the usual question: Why? Does he something others don’t?

As Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway relieves Media General of its newspapers — “We’ve come to understand that most investors do not view the publishing sector as a place to generate the best returns on their capital,” Media General CEO Marshall N. Morton put it succinctly in April  – I think we can see this deal roughly in line with the spate of other newspaper deals that have gotten done in the last year or so.

Most of these deals do not rely that much on the actual value of the newspaper property. Rather than rely on other things — the value of underlying real estate has driven numerous of the deals – and the meager cash flow of the properties themselves is seen as a way to generate enough revenue to pay off low-interest, acquisition debt. In this deal, Buffett has taken more of a three-cushion billiards approach, much as the headlines announce “Berkshire Hathaway Bets Again on Newspapers with Media General Deal.” Each cushion rings up advantages for the company, even if the newspaper ownership itself is the most problematic.

Buffett is, at base, an opportunistic investor. See a business, or industry deep in the doldrums, and think you can leverage money out of a deal, one way or the other, and you’ve got an opportunity. The difference, if you are Berkshire Hathaway, you get a better deal than others, because of your financial capacity and willingness to take the long view. That’s what BH did with General Electric and Goldman Sachs, back when the world seemed to be ending in 2009. With that long-term position, he is perceived much more as an eagle than a vulture, yet he’s a predator nonetheless.

So, Berkshire Hathaway takes the newspapers off of Media General’s hands. At $142 million, he is buying 63 titles or about 21 actual “newspaper” properties. So that’s like buying a top-of-the-line house in each city, but you get a newspaper with with it. When the pool ball drops in the corner, BH Media needs to figure out a new game plan for those properties, one that I’ll bet will involve bringing a higher degree of technology application in cutting legacy costs faster and deeper.

It’s the early movements of the ball that make this deal more a feat of financial engineering than a newspaper deal. Three cushions provide investment relief:

• Lend Media General $400 million, and extend a $45 line of credit, at 10.5% interest. That allows Media General to escape shorter-term financial pressures, and gives BH a good profit along the way.
• Gain warrants that are convertible to about 19.9 percent of Media General’s outstanding shares. The new Media General is mainly a broadcast company, a sector with its share of issues, but with lots more projectable upside than the newspaper industry. So it’s gotten — as Buffett earlier got in General Motors and other “bail out” deals — a better deal than your average investor, as Media General re-charts its future.
• Takes title to all the real estate these newspaper companies sit on.

Now the new BH Media Group can move forward with its properties — where and how will the Omaha and Buffalo properties fit here?  – and unencumbered by debt or short-term pressures. If you are a long-term investor like Buffett, you can afford to give “newspaper” properties a breathing period.

He, as well as anyone knows that the future will be mainly digital, though it will slower to unfold in Lynchburg and Winston-Salem than in competitive major metro markets. He can be buoyed by the profound industry move to charging for digital access, after decrying free digital access: “Newspapers have been giving away their product at the same time they are selling it and that is not a great model. You’re competing with yourself… you shouldn’t be giving away a product you’re trying to sell. That’s key to the future of the newspaper. giving away a product free in one place that you charge for in another.” We now have enough evidence to believe that core newspaper readers will transition over their payments for “circulation” as they themselves move to tablets and other devices, if publishers approach the transition smartly.

The problem is print advertising is far deeper; it’s in an unending and accelerating spiral. No doubt he is buying — by bypassing Media General’s Tampa Tribune — profitable entities. Indeed, we may find out, looking back, that Buffett is just another greater fool, having believed his buy was close enough to the bottom to justify. Or we may see the code broken well enough on new business models, as the BH Media Group takes a long, hard look at the realities of John Paton’s Digital First Media initiatives, to manage downturn and change well enough to stay in the black. As that drama unfolds, it’s the profits from a Media General broadcast bet, loan interest and potential sales of real estate that buffett this deal from the harsh day-to-day reality of newspaper downturn.

When the price of your digital product is zero, that’s about how much you learn about customer pricing. Now, both the pricing and the learning is on the upswing.

The pay-for-digital content revolution is now fully upon us. Five years ago, only the music business had seen much rationalization, with Apple’s iTunes having bulled ahead with its new 99-cent order. Now, movies, TV shows, newspapers, and magazines are all embracing paid digital models, charging for single copies, pay-per-views, and subscriptions. From Hulu Plus to Netflix to Next Issue Media to Ongo to Press+ to The New York Times to Google Play to Amazon to Apple to Microsoft (buying into Nook this week), the move to paid media content is profound. The imperative to charge is clear, especially as legacy news and magazines see their share of the rapidly growing digital advertising pie (with that industry growing another 20 percent this year) actually decline.

Yes, it’s in part a 99-cent new world order as I wrote about last week (“The Newsonomics of 99-Cent Media“), but there are wider lessons — some curiously counterintuitive — to be learned in the publishing world. Let’s call it the newsonomics of Pricing 101. The lessons here, gleaned from many conversations, are not definitive ones. In fact, they’re just pointers — with rich “how to” lessons found deeper in each.

Let’s not make any mistake this week, as the Audit Bureau of Circulation’s new numbers rolled out and confounded most everyone. Those ABC numbers wowed some with their high percentage growth rates. Let’s keep in mind that those growth numbers come on the heels of some of the worst newspaper quarterly reports issued in awhile. Not only is print advertising in a deepening tailspin, but digital advertising growth is stalled. Take all the ABC numbers you want and tell the world “We have astounding reach” — but if the audience can’t be monetized both with advertising and significant new circulation revenues, the numbers will be meaningless.

When it comes to dollars and sense, pricing matters a lot.

Let’s start with this basic principle: People won’t pay you for content if you don’t ask them to. That’s an inside-the-industry joke, but one with too much reality to sustain much laughter. It took the industry a long time to start testing offers and price points, as The Wall Street Journal and Walter Hussman’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette provided lone wolf examples.

The corollary to that principle? If you don’t start to charge consumers — Warren Buffett on newspaper pricing: “You shouldn’t be giving away a product that you’re trying to sell.” — then you can’t learn how consumers respond to pricing. Once you start pricing, you can start learning, and adjust.

We can pick out at least nine emerging data points:

• 33-45 percent of consumers who pay for digital subscriptions click to buy before they ever run into a paywall. That’s right — a third to a half of buyers just need to be told they will have to pay for continuing access, and they’re sold. As economists note that price is a signal of value, consumers understand the linkage. Assign what seems to be a fair price, and some readers pay up, especially if they are exposed to a “warning” screen, letting them know they’ve used up of critical number of “free” views. Maybe they want to avoid the bumping inconvenience — or maybe they just acknowledge the jig’s up.
• If print readers are charged something extra for digital access, then non-print subscribers are more likely to buy a digital-only sub. Why pay for digital access is the other guys (the print subscribers) are getting it thrown in for “free”? Typically, Press+ sees a 20-percent-plus increase in signups on sites that charge print subscribers something extra. That extra may be just a third or so of the price digital-only subscribers pay (say, $2.95 instead of $6.95), but it makes a difference. Consequently, Press+ says 80-90 percent of its sites charge print subscribers for digital access. The company now powers 323 sites and thus has more access to collective data than any other news-selling source.
• You can reverse the river, or at least channel it. The New York Times took a year, but figured it out righter than anyone expected. It bundled its Sunday print paper (still an ad behemoth) with digital, making that package $60 or so a year cheaper than digital alone. The result, of course, is that Sunday Times home delivery is up for first time since 2006. It’s not just NYT or the L.A. Times which have embraced Sunday/digital combos. In Minneapolis, the Star Tribune began a similar push in November. Now, of its 18,000 digital-only subscribers, 28 percent have agreed to an add on the Sunday paper, for just 30 cents a week, says CEO Mike Klingensmith (“A Twin Cities turnaround?”). So we see that consumers may well be more agnostic about platform than we thought. Given them an easy one-click way of buying even musty old print, and they will. Irony: If you hadn’t charged them for digital access, you probably wouldn’t have sold them on print.
• New products create new markets. 70 percent of The Economist‘s digital subscribers are not former print subscribers, says Paul Rossi, managing director and executive vice president for the Americas. That’s surprising in one sense, but not in another. Newspaper company digital VPs will tell you that they’re surprised to see how little overlap there is between their print audience customer bases and their digital ones. The downside here: Many print customers seem not to value digital access that much. The Star Tribune is finding a low take rate of 3 percent of its Sunday-only print subscribers willing to take its digital-access upsell. One lesson: The building of a new digital-mainly audience won’t be easy and will require new product thinking; it’s not that easy just to port over established customers.
• The all-access bundle must contain multiple consumer hooks. Sure, readers like to get mobile access as well as desktop and print, and maybe some video. Yet some may especially prize the special events or membership perks they are offered, as the L.A. Times is banking on (and start-ups Texas Tribune, MinnPost, and Global Post have applied outside the paywall model). Some will like the extras, like The Boston Globe telling its new 18,000 digital subscribers, as well as its print ones, that they now get “free” Sunday Supper ebooks (“The Newsonomics of 100 Products a Year“). Sports fanatics or business data lovers will find other niches to value — and ones that make the whole bundle worthwhile. Archives — and the research riches they offer — will prove irresistible to some. In 2012, a bundle may offer a half dozen reasons to buy, casting a wide net, with the hope that at least one shiny lure will reel in the customers. By 2013, expect “dynamic, customized offers,” targeting would-be buyers by their specific interests to be more widely in use.
• While pageviews may drop 10-15 percent with a paywall, unique visitors remain fairly constant. We see the phenomenon of those who do hit a paywall one month coming back in subsequent months, rather than fleeing forever. “It may be the second, third, or fourth month before someone says, ‘I guess I am a frequent visitor here, and I’ll play,’” says Press+’s Gordon Crovitz.
• Archives find new life. Archives have lived in a corner of news and magazine websites for a long time. They’ve been used, but not highly used or highly monetized. Now, courtesy of the tablet, and a new way to charge, The Economist is finding that 20 percent of its single copy sales are of past issues. Readers will pay for the old in new wrappers, whether back e-issues, or niched ebooks. The all-access offer can be much wider than cross-platform, or multi-device. It can extend across time, from a century of yesterdays to alerts for tomorrow.
• News media is probably underpriced. Take the high-end Economist. CEO Andrew Rashbass — speaking to MediaGuardian’s Changing Media Summit 2012, in a recommended video — said that a survey of its subscribers showed that a majority didn’t know how much they were paying for the Economist. When pressed to guess, most over-estimated the price. At the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, an early paywall leader in the middle of America, a recent price increase to $8.99 from $7.99 has so far resulted in no material loss of subscribers. At Europe’s Piano Media, early experience in Slovakia and Slovenia is that price isn’t a big factor, says Piano’s David Brauchli. “Payment for news on the web is really more a philosophical mindset rather than economic. People who are opposed to paying will always opposed to paying and those who see the value of paying don’t mind paying no matter what the price is.” That suggests pricing power. It makes sense that publishers, new to the pricing trade, have approached it gingerly. Yet the circulation revenue upside may well be substantial.
• Bundle or unbundle — what’s the right way? Mainly, we don’t know yet, and the answer may be different for differing audience segments. The Economist started with print being a higher price than a separate digital sub. Then it raised the digital price to match that of print — to assert digital value. It now offers all-access: one price gets you both. Next up: You can buy either print or digital for the same price, but if you want both, you’ll pay more. It’s an evolution of testing, and so far, it’s been an upward one.

Overall, this is a revolution in more than pricing. It’s a revolution in thinking and, really, publisher identity.

The Boston Globe’s Jeff Moriarty sums it up well, as his company aims (as has the Financial Times before it; “The Newsonomics of the FT as an Internet Retailer“) to emulate a little digital-first company called Amazon:

I think overall publishers have to start thinking more like e-commerce companies. More like Amazon. You can’t just throw up a wall or an app and expect it to just sell itself. We’re still building that muscle here at the Globe, and some of our colleagues in the industry are even farther along. We have extensive real-time and daily analytics and are employing multivariate testing to try offers and designs to refine the experience that works best for each type of user.

Honk if you still love newsprint enough to pay $700 or more a year for a seven-day print subscription to The New York Times. Of course, you have many other choices.

You can try one of several print/bundled options for considerably less money. Or if you want to be parsimonious, you can get 10 free article views a month, or more if you want to work the social and search on-ramps to NYTimes.com. Maybe you want to be among those who pay Ongo $1.99 a month, and get 20 Times news stories a day, among lots of other news content.

Love the Guardian, and want to follow each tick of the U.K.’s Murdoch saga? If you’re in the U.S., you can subscribe to the lively iPad edition for $13.99 a month — or access it for free via the Safari browser on the tablet. In the U.S., its smartphone app is free, but in the U.K. and Europe, it requires a subscription. Of course, it’s quite successful Facebook app gives you access for free as well, anywhere.

If you’re shopping the Ongo news kiosk, look at wide spectrum of prices individual publishers are charging for access through that product: The Guardian is 99 cents a month, The Christian Science Monitor is $3.99, while the Chicago Tribune is $9.99 and The Boston Globe $14.99.

It’s not just newspaper companies that offer a patchwork of buying (or not buying) choices.

Are you a late-arriving fan of AMC’s series “Breaking Bad”? If you want to catch up and subscribe to Netflix streaming, you’ve got a good deal at the $7.99 a month rate. Cram in the first three seasons’ 37 episodes in a single month (where did that month go?), and you’ll pay just 21.5 cents per show, and anything else you have time to watch is gravy. Ah, but if we want to watch Season 4, which you can’t yet see on Netflix streaming, you have to upgrade to those red envelopes and get Season 4 DVDs — but it’ll cost you another $7.99 a month, and you’ll have to wait until the DVDs are released in June. (Ah, maybe that’s one of the reasons Netflix’s maladroit move to streaming is pushing it to a loss.)

Or you can turn to Amazon VOD and get the episodes for $1.99 each (or $2.99 in HD!), or $25.87 for the season. Or why stream when you own the DVD in a few weeks for $29.99 (or add an extra 10 bucks for added Blu-ray clarity). But wait — I’m an Amazon Prime customer. Can’t I watch it for free? It’s not part of the Prime free streaming offer, but I can watch a whole lot of other stuff as often as I want for nothing. Or maybe I can access “Breaking Bad” through Comcast’s Xfinity $100-a-month plus service. Nah, no deal — “Breaking Bad” isn’t available.

One more try: on the AMC site itself, there’s quite highlights, blogs, and more on the series, but no full episodes.

Let’s add in music.

Take Tristan Prettyman. It’s $9.99 (or 83 cents a song) for her last CD on iTunes. Through my $36 annual ad-free Pandora subscription, I can listen to dozens of her songs, her musical soundalikes, and thousands of other tunes in a year, bringing down the cost to pennies per song. Or there’s Spotify, where her songs are available for either zero, five, or ten bucks a month, depending on what devices I want to use and whether I can stand ads.

Magazines, of course, are offering their own split-screen experiments. The U.S. magazine industry (“The Newsonomics of Next Issue Media’s All-You-Can-Eat Kiosk“) is testing the all-you-can-eat, cross-title buffet, bringing some its titles down to as long as 37 cents a month (if you consumed all 27 “basic” titles) through the kiosk, but $39, or $59, or $79 a year if you buy a single title directly through a publisher.

How much to charge?

It’s a fool’s paradise of pricing out there in the digital world, right now, at least for wily consumers. The Department of Justice’s ebook suit and related settlements only complicate things. Five and ten years ago we were wondering whether people would ever pay for digital media — Newsweek’s Steven Levy took us into the terra incognita in “Meet the Napster Generation” back in 2000. But now the question isn’t whether people, young and old, will pay — it’s how the hell to figure out how much to charge them throughout what we politely like to call our multi-platform world.

Content no longer demands to be free. It wants a fee — but how much of one?

Consumer pricing is not a core competence of many media companies. For decades, media pricing was on automatic. Newspapers picked a quarter or fifty cents, and then re-programmed the coinboxes. Magazines kept prices low enough to build audiences to reap substantial ad rewards. Book publishers did some minor stratification. Music companies picked a couple of price points, and let the vinyl and CDs fly.

In the digital era, though, pricing is confronting — and confounding — media companies. Just what in the digital world of vanishing manufacturing costs is digital media worth? Now with those 20th-century costs — printing, manufacture, distribution, shipping — passing into the night, the question of price, and value, is making itself loudly heard.

We can certainly identify the wrong-headedness of the Department of Justice’s price-fixing suit against book publishers and/or point out how the DOJ had little choice in pursuing the case, neither of which is a surprise. The law has struggled unsuccessfully to keep up with business changes wrought by the Internet, from fair use to antitrust to media monopoly. Oft-earnest American regulators find themselves falling farther and farther behind, trying to track technology’s dominating nature and make new sense of it. Often, European Union regulators take a more forthright stab but end up retreating.

Create a new legal framework that better balances producers, distributors, and consumers? Forget about that in this age of politics where stalemate and status quo is the order of the day.

Publishers of all media are on their own, then, and they’d better make sense of pricing. It’s core to their survival and future sustainability. Sure, the Amazons of the world will try to monopolize book pricing, returning closer to its pre-”agency pricing” market share of 90 percent from its current paltry 60 percent. Yet, publishers — especially of news and feature media, news organizations and “magazine media” — have many pricing plays to try as customers discover content near and far from traditional outlets.

The magic of a good price point

I’ll call this the newsonomics of 99-cent media because that’s the world into which we have moved. Today let’s look at that 99-cent model, and next week we’ll delve into the early lessons that pricing’s practitioners have stumbled across as they’ve moved into paid content.

At first, it looks like a tyranny of 99-cent pricing (or the parallel expected tyranny of $9.99 Amazon book pricing). Will 99-cent pricing cause brand damage? Will it last? If the U.S. follows Canada and forsakes the penny, then the 99 cent pricing may fall into history. For now, though, it’s got a certain consumer magic.

“Ninety-nine-cent introductory offers have done wonders for take rates,” says applied economist Matt Lindsay, president of Mather Economics. His company has worked with more than 200 titles — about 75 percent of them newspapers — on pricing and related strategic issues. Take a look across media pricing, from The New York Times to Hulu Plus, and 99 cents (or its derivatives of $1.99 to $7.99 to $9.99) are everywhere.

Take rate is simple: What percentage of customers click yes — and provide precious credit card data — when confronted with an offer. Offer readers the ability to start a “trial” for 99 cents, and you’ll see results two to three times any other number, says Lindsey. At 99 cents, readers “take that as a signal. They understand that you want them to adopt this product. By setting the full price at a high number, you are basically saying, ‘This is the true value of the product.’”

Steve Jobs understood signaling in a parallel way. As Chris Anderson described well in Wired last November (“The Magic of 99 Cents”), one of Jobs’ great successes with iTunes and the iPod was that 99-cent pricing for songs. He could get the hardware and software right, but in the not-quite-post-piracy age, 99 cents was the third leg of the value equation. It worked as a signal: somewhere in between free and too much.

Start with 99 cents and you can conquer the world. As they set off on that quest, what are some of the pricing guideposts for publishers?

• 99 cents is a beginning and not an end. For newspapers used to being paid $200 or $400 a year, 99 cents seems like a declaration of cheapness. Put some round 0s on pricing; it just seems more honest. The oft-cited example of Louis CK’s $5 video is a case in point. Five bucks says authenticity. Yet media that answer thousands of reader questions every day aren’t comedians. Just because you set an intro price of 99 cents, the down-the-road price sends thatother important signal to value. Ultimately, says Lindsay, it’s true that “people take price as a signal to quality.”
• If you have lots more to sell, then 99 cents isn’t a price, it’s a price of admission. Responding to my recent column about ”small things” adding up, Rob Pegoraro asked, on Twitter, how The New York Times’ earnings results related to the notion. “I think NYT 454K dig subs become great market for ‘small things’ like ebooks, events+,” I responded. David Johnson then added, “You pay to be in a market. These business plans resemble theme parks and non-profit fundraising strategies.” That thought fits perfectly here: it’s not about the money, large or small, an even buck or 99 cents — it’s about establishing a new relationship. Or, to use the vernacular, 99 cents is gateway-drug pricing.
• Get ready to sell lots of stuff. So if you are Six Flags, or The New York Times or the L.A. Times, you’d better be able to leverage that new relationship by selling lots of stuff. Maybe not yet 100 products a year, but at least a half dozen to start. Ebooks, of course, fit perfectly here, as add-on products offered to members or subscribers. Sure, use some, as The Boston Globe is doing with Sunday Suppers, to reinforce subscriber/member value. But price others to match potential value. A guide to Boston-area colleges from, who else, the Globe, could be a $19.95 solid seller, given the $100,000-plus parental investment ahead. “Ebook,” though, is much too limited a name to put on it, and sounds like something not current. Wonderfactory founder and creative director David Link made this basic but hugely important point when we talked last week: There really isn’t a fundamental difference between an app and an ebook. “From an agency and a technology’s point of view, it’s only in how you create them. Talking about a recent product Wonderfactory worked on, “You go to the ebookstore, and it’s just text. You go into the app store and it’s got the text with 50 percent app-like sauce.” So, right now, publishers and their creative people are having to create multiple forms, but essentially the same product is both an app and an ebook. The technologies, and the costs, will clarify, as will the marketplaces for all the digital paraphernalia of our lives. The point for publishers selling more stuff is clear though: solve audience needs better than someone else, create products for the devices of the day, and price accordingly.
• It’s not just the content we’re paying for. That’s a tough, tough lesson for literal newsies. As with the music revolution Apple wrought, it was the combination of convenience, ease, presentation, pricing, and wonder that rationalized (for good and bad) the digital music industry. Today’s first batch of digital news subscriptions rely as much on convenience and mobility values as they do on the words and pictures.
• We’re all in the same business. Think of your own media purchases. A little music, more and more video, selective news and magazine subscriptions, increasing numbers of ebooks. Yes, the marketplaces for ebooks and apps, alongside this kiosk and that e-store, are confusing. Media, though, is media, and the pricing schemes are forming in a remarkably similar way across movies, music, newspapers, and magazines. We all like, for instance, the notion of All Access; we’ll pay once and get our stuff everywhere. So news and magazine publishers must look through the assorted lessons of the music and movie industries, those lessons still in much progress. News pricing is not an island.

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Alfredo Corchado was used to getting mortal threats.

He received three in Mexico, but now he was in a Laredo bar, north of the border.

You better stop what you’re doing, or you’ll end with a bullet in your head and your body in a vat of acid, he was told. And then we’ll deliver the bones to your family in El Paso.

It was a chilling warning, or at least we’d expect it to put a chill into Corchado. An investigative reporter for the Dallas Morning News (and a former Nieman Fellow), he’s been covering the ravages of drug trafficking for years, much to the concern of his parents living, as the traffickers plainly know, in El Paso. Yet Corchado goes on with his work — as do Adela Navarro Bello of Tijuana’s Zeta news magazine, Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., and Ramita Navai of the U.K.’s Channel 4. As Navarro Bello explained of her paper’s coverage of the drug trafficking that has consumed at 50,000 Mexican lives, “If we don’t publish this information, we are part of the problem.” (Filmmaker Bernardo Ruiz has captured Zeta’s struggle — including the murder of two of its journalists — with a new movie.)

Each is an investigative reporter who put their lives on the line to reveal stories they think readers must know about. They spoke on the “When the Story Bites Back” panel this weekend, at UC Berkeley, part of the sixth annual Reva and David Logan Investigative Reporting Symposium (live blogging of the conference, here, with a #Logan12 Twitter feed).

That panel and the entire spirited weekend, organized and led by esteemed investigative producer Lowell Bergman, tells us a fair amount about the business of journalism. Though it is not — like most of my work — concerned with the dollars and cents of the business, in its very essence, it describes why the current crazy-quilt economics of the business matters. Funding the journalism business isn’t like funding Sears and Kodak  (“The Newsonomics of the Long Good-Bye“) or other fading institutions. It’s not even about saving a perhaps-vital American industry, like the auto industry.

It’s about keeping a lifeline of funding open so that our best reporters can do their jobs.

I’ll call it the newsonomics of risking it all because that’s what these reporters do. Many of the other Logan participants and attendees, thankfully, do less life-threatening work. Yet those represented at the conference — from ProPublica, the Washington Post, and New York Times to ABC, NBC, and NPR — are among the cream of the crop of investigative work and produce work with real public interest impact.

As we endlessly debate pay models, whether or not to work with Facebook, how to deal with Apple and Amazon and multi-platform journalism, the Logan Symposium is good tonic — certainly for those of us who attended, but really for all of us who know why this business matters to democracy. Whether and how the economics of the new news business work out isn’t an arcane question; it’s central to our collective future. The value of good, deep reporting is truly priceless.

So what about the state of investigative reporting? Look at the glass as half full and half cloudy.

What emerged from the conference, surprising to some, is that national investigative reporting is keeping its head above water. Both NBC and ABC talked about their expansions in the investigative area, while companies like NPR and Bloomberg have put new resources in as well. Units at the Post, L.A. Times, and New York Times may not be growing much, but seem to be sustaining themselves, for now.

“For now” is an important qualifier, and New York Times managing editor Dean Baquet’s opening interview at Logan, in its over-the-top self-assurance, bothered many of the conference participants with whom I talked. (See my related post about that.)

Washington Post investigative editor Jeff Leen suggested that there were 200 investigative reporters paid by news media in the U.S., which I calculate as one for every 1.5 million Americans. That’s not a ratio that’s going to hold many big institutions — government, business, labor — to account. Maybe that’s why as Logan participant and new-media vet Neil Budde tweeted, “How many times will ‘existential’ be used this weekend? I think count is six so far.”

Importantly, it is largely the largest news media — mainly national and global ones — that continue to put money into investigative work; these are the Digital Dozen companies I identified in my Newsonomics book. For them, as NBC senior executive producer David Corvo put it, investigative work is a “differentiator,” important to distinguishing big news brands from one another in the digital age.

What’s going on regionally is more of a patchwork.

Dozens of people like the Logan family are using their wealth to fund investigative enterprises from coast to coast, most with little fanfare. The Knight Foundation, represented at the conference by its senior advisor and grant-giver extraordinaire Eric Newton, has put $20 million into investigative journalism. With the decline in newspaper budgets, and thus in funding of investigative teams at many regional papers, such private funding has been a lifeline, though there’s a profound sense that significantly less in-depth work is being done at former powerhouse regional papers.

This Logan conference lacked the always-odd spontaneity of a Julian Assange appearance, but it offered intriguing emphases:

• Front and center, though not appearing in person was Rupert Murdoch.After screening “Murdoch’s Scandal,” Bergman’s Frontline documentary that aired March 27, “The Murdoch Effect: News At Any Price,” made for a raucous panel. Milly Dowler attorney Mark Lewis told how the phone hacking scandal had consumed his life and spoke of the “commercial despotism of Murdochracy” in the U.K., given the News Corp. CEO’s multi-party, decades-long influence. Big questions: What next, and if and how this tale plays out in the U.S.
• “If it’s not on TV, the American public doesn’t know it,” observed Diana Henriques, the New York Times financial investigative reporter. Yes, we may be on the brink of this multi-platform age, where old newspapers like the Times and the Journal do video alongside print, but still — in terms of notice and public action — there’s nothing like the impact of TV documentary.
• This is a generational challenge. Journalism has always had its challenges, but never has there been more uncertainty about how one generation can pass along its best practices to the next. Through that foundation funding, a couple of dozen younger journalists and students had their way paid into the conference. Surveying the group on the last day, Robert Rosenthal, executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting and California Watch, summed his baby-boomer generation’s role: “I’m a bridge — we’re all bridges to the future.”

Bridging is, in part, what Lowell Bergman’s program does. UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program is a partner in the new Collaboration Central project, along with PBS MediaShift. With new funding, IRP will soon move into a new permanent office. It provides lots of training and fellowships, bringing along new generations to work alongside people like the Pulitzer Prize-winning Bergman, whose career has spanned from early Ramparts through CBS, The New York Times, and Frontline, and who was played by Al Pacino in the tobacco industry exposé The Insider.

Bergman paid tribute to his one-time CBS colleague Mike Wallace, underscoring Wallace’s storied tenacity. That tenacity, based on Wallace’s fierce journalistic power (highlighted at CBS, in story and video), is what it took a non-journalist to highlight in Berkeley.

Jules Kroll, who led the invention of the modern intelligence and security industry, gave the trade good, pointed advice. Saying he had heard a lot of journalists talking about how beleaguered they are, he noted, “You have a big impact.” His shared his inside view of the power of a good investigation. Colloquial translation: Stop whining and get on with it.

And that’s always good advice. As ProPublica managing editor Steve Engelberg aptly said, “They were whining in 1989, when times were good.” That’s true. There may be more to whine about these days than in 1989, but the power of great public service work, sometimes when lives are on the line, is one of the things that must propel the trade forward.