Just in time for Christmas, a new installment of the In conversation-series of interviews with journalism researchers here on www.doctorofjournalism.com. This time, I’m talking to Stephan Russ-Mohl, professor of journalism and media management at the Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano and Director of the European Journalism Observatory (EJO) since October of 2003. Stephan’s work is very interesting and highly relevant, as he is studying the business side of journalism - how will journalism be paid for in the future, if at all?
Could you briefly talk a bit about the research you are currently doing – and why it is important?
Most of my present research deals with the downward spiral in which American newspapers – and American professional journalism – find themselves, but also with the innovations bubbling in the industry, particularly due to the Internet. It’s a process of “creative destruction” in the US newspaper business - “creative destruction” being a term the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter coined in the 1940s. I am also referring to Schumpeter because my own approach is somewhat unusual in communications research: my analysis of American journalism is based on economic theory, specifically on rational choice theory. Though behavioural economists have been pointing to the limits of this theoretical concept recently, I consider it fruitful still: for example, Akerlof’s “market for lemons” help explain why people are increasingly unwilling to pay for journalism, and the principal agent theory works well within newsrooms. Additionally, it can help explain the complex relationships between journalists and their sources and journalists and their publics. Part of my research deals also with the impact of PR on journalism. If newsrooms open up the gates to PR, this may well have an effect on their income from advertising as well - why should a smart communication manager pay for ads if there is a chance to get his message through cheaper and more credible by PR? Especially as PR is frequently transformed with a few mouseclicks into “journalism”?
Another area in which we plan to do more research is how results of communications research are transformed into journalism and perceived by journalists. With our website we have made a strong effort to transfer research results from the world of research journals and academic publications to the world of media practitioners – making research more accessible for journalists, media managers, and students. We are also trying to overcome language barriers- So far, the website is providing information in English, German, Italian and Polish – more European languages to hopefully come soon!
In the US, the recently-published report The Reconstruction of American Journalism (by Len Downie and Michael Schudson) has tackled very similar issues to yours – i.e. what the business model of journalism will look like in the future. Do you see any parallels to your own work? Do you think that their suggestions have merit generally, or are they more specific to the American context?
There are a lot of parallels, though I am much more skeptical concerning government funding and philanthropy than they are. One problem with government funding is that politicians will inevitably try to instrumentalize media which are financed by taxpayers. The other problem is that government-funded media may create more bureaucracy than privately-funded media. Production costs of public service providers are skyrocketing everywhere – and in most cases they spend much more money on football rights, tv shows and soaps and comparatively little on high quality journalism, for example foreign correspondents. Philantropy is great – but unfortunately only few rich people will be willing to support independent journalism, and examples (Bertelsmann Foundation, Freedom Forum) from the past clearly show a lack of continuity. Philantropists may change their mind from one day to another on what they want to spend their money. Personally, I believe in paywalls, if they are introduced and communicated in a smart way: Let us simply convince readers, listeners, viewers and users that excellent and independent journalism is costly and valuable, and that we should be willing to pay for it daily, at least as much as they pay for a cup of cappuccino…
Interesting that you mention paywalls. In discussing future business models, currently most talk ends with some kind of paywall idea. Given that linking and aggregation plays such a huge role in online news consumption today, aren’t paywalls effectively limiting your audience rather than expanding it? I know that you have given these matters some consideration.
Of course, if I offer coffee or cars for free, there will be more demand – and something similar happens with news. And not only the New York Times but also the democracy of the US may be better served if 1,5 million people subscribe to nytimes.com than if 20 million visitors get it for free, while the Times cannot pay its staff adequately from its online advertising revenues. In times of targeted online advertising, of search engines, of Craigslist and Kijiji, it’s an illusion to finance high quality journalism without the contributions of recipients.
Thanks for your time, Stephan! If you know your German, by all means check out professor Russ-Mohl’s recent book, Kreative Zerstörung. Niedergang und Neuerfindung des amerikanischen Journalismus, Konstanz: UVK 2009 (a brief summary in English can be found here).