Journalism “For the People” May Be Over

Cable subscriptions are drying up for CNN, and advertising revenue has fallen for them also, as observed by Joshua Benton at Nieman Lab. And nobody wants to pay for a subscription.

Is journalism “for the people” on a clock?

Maybe.

But first, what is journalism “for the people?”

Other than a term I’ve haphazardly invented for this short essay, journalism for the people is a component of the definition many of us have in mind when we use the term “journalism” colloquially.

Namely, journalism for the people is journalism that exists for the broadest possible audience and offered at a negligible price point. Think of the mainstream cable news channels, the biggest newspapers in the country, and the biggest news websites—these companies attempt to appeal to a general audience across the country and can be accessed by almost any American.

(One might argue that many of the outlets that have come to your mind are actually appealing to a specific part of the country, but more on that later.)

However, it’s important to remember that journalism for the people—as I’ve defined it—has not always existed. Therefore, it might not exist again.

Turning to history, it’s important to remember that journalism for the people is actually a relatively recent and unique phenomenon in American history.

Tim Wu, in his book detailing the history of the American media industry The Attention Merchants, documents the rise of the “penny paper” in New York City with the advent of the advertiser-funded newspaper in 1833. Benjamin Day, founder of The New York Sun, began selling a newspaper to the masses lower than the cost necessary to produce it—one cent at the time.

Before that, newspapers were generally not widely read by the public. Printers offered them at prices higher than what was often considered affordable.

To put it shortly, this inception of news produced at a price the audience does not pay started the chain reaction to where we are today—traditional news organizations are dying.

I would argue this is at least partially due to their reliance on advertising revenue and an attempt to appeal to mass audiences based on a subscription model that did not work in the past.

But as journalism “for the people” has begun to die, more niche publications have gained traction. The newly drawn partisan lines drawn by mainstream outlets is evidence of this—most of the publications that were once respected by all are now trusted by a given half of the country.

And entire publications now exist for niche aspects of life and culture with the advent of the internet and social media platforms.

I see two possibilities.

The first is that journalism as a practice will decentralize, and outlets will be forced to cater to specific audiences to survive. Newsrooms will shrink or altogether disappear while the subscription model experiences a rebirth in popularity.

Our country survived and even thrived without journalism for the people. I believe it can do so again.

The second possibility is that a new model for creating revenue is found, and journalism will evolve into something else. I have no idea what that innovation might be, but humans are inventive creatures.

Here’s hoping that people can continue making a living writing about the important things going on in our world.

---

Matthew Giffin is an independent journalist based in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Image provided by Wix.