Mind your own business

There is a very interesting conversation going on at Joanna Gearys blog on the need for journalists to understand the business models they operate in. Here is my reply.

There is a lot to say on this issue and I will get back to a number of points later.
But for now just a quick reply to Jonathan:
I think you are making it a bit too easy on yourself.
The argument that journalists have no power within an organisation is (I believe) a false one. As individuals I agree we have limited influence and firing off some memos to the MD wont have a huge impact (though it sometimes does, and done systematically often does).
However as a collective we have influence. That is what the whole concept of a union is about. It is here I believe we have failed, both as individual journalists and as a collective entity.

The NUJ is an organisation that should represent the needs and aspirations of its members. On a very simple level, we can not make demands for change (which we want our unions to do) if we do not have a reality-based understanding of the situation we find ourselves in.
This encompasses the economic models and structures our industry operates in. But we have (and I generalise here, I know) abdicated the individual responsibility we have in this area.

The ideology of journalism that allows us to, in Joanna’s words,

“leave the understanding and running of media businesses to financiers and advertisers with their incentives and bonuses. Instead (we) are happy to be striving for the praise of peers of a good story written”

re-enforces that trend.

This would perhaps be less frightening if it were not for the fact that our refusal to learn even the basics of the economics of the industry exactly mirrors the way we have refused to understand the basics of the IT issues we face. Here we have abdicated our responsibilities to technicians. This has led to us allowing the technology to create systems that we then have to suit our content to, instead of our journalistic needs dictating the shape of technology.
There is a pattern here.

I am not saying that journalists should all become economists, nor am I saying that journalists should become IT systems specialists. What I am saying is that we need to have a good understanding of the basic forces that shape the future of our industry and our livelihoods.
Our Unions should be providing us with the tools and information to help us. I fear that won’t happen however (though I may be, and hope to be. proved wrong as I believe we need a strong NUJ and hope more of us join) because they themselves do not seem to understand the issues.

Where is the equivalent to the employer-based think tanks that pump out facts and figures from around the world that would help us make sense of the changes from our point of view? This is not a cost issue. In Sweden, where I am based, there is a think tank [www.mindpark.se -worth a look, use Google translate] that is manned by three people and financed by a number of regional newspapers, which has had a huge informational impact on decision making. We need a similar one from the NUJ.

But no matter what central campaigns are driven, no matter what information is gathered, the responsibility is ours as individuals.
Structural change is occurring all around us. The industry is shifting and the economic models are changing.
They may change to our disadvantage. The new order could be one that makes journalism (as we see it today) even less relevant, less exciting, less challenging and even more commodified.

If we refuse to learn and gather the knowledge that would allow us to mount a challenge to the changes, based on a solid economic understanding of the market place and a vision of a relevant and useful journalism, then we deserve what we (don’t) get.

Comments

[Dilyan]

This has prompted a discussion about what is reasonable behaviour and what isn't. I think it is better to move it here, since we seem to have drifted away from Jo's original post.

That's what we said last:

---

Dilyan October 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm 19

Mark, in saying that we need to have a good understanding of the basic forces that shape our livelihoods are you not pinning too much hope on understanding as a force that can induce change? The only people who probably understand how complex derivatives work are the ones responsible for the current financial crisis: being well-versed in their profession did not help them avoid catastrophe.
Sometimes the smartest people do the most stupid things. It’s just human nature to be unpredictable and illogical. If we get back to the 21% profit margin at TM regionals, it would seem only natural that shareholders will be happy. But they are not, as Trinity Mirror’s share price suggests. Are investors being unreasonable? Yes, they are. They are being greedy in wanting an even fatter margin. They are being scared that they may lose their money.
Does anyone have evidence that would suggest that people are more often reasonable than greedy or scared? What is the rationale behind believing that journalists are any different?

Markmedia October 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm 20

@dilyan I do not agree that TM/JP etc shareholders are being unreasonable. From their perspective the highest return in investment is the most logical expectation. It would be different if they cared about journalism. In that case they might agree that short term high margin profitability might damage the long term survival of the journalistic project. I believe most shareholders (I may be wrong) probably don’t care, they want a product that gives high returns and will go to where these returns are available.
It is one of the reasons I believe that journalism is not well served by the PLC model.

Unless we have a basic understanding of the financial structures we exist in, we can never even start to influence policies and models that will determine the future of the industry we work in.
Just as we, as drivers, need to know where to put petrol in the car, air in the tyres and check spark plugs, we as journalists need to have that same level of technical and structural knowledge. It doesn’t make us mechanics nor financiers but allows us to avoid basic mistakes.

As to the derivatives issue: I wonder how many of the traders and their bosses were made destitute by the crash? Not many I think.

---

Firstly, I will argue that killing your golden goose because it only lays two eggs instead of three is unreasonable. Shareholders do not need to care about journalism, it's enough if they care for money. Dumping a profitable business in seemingly rude financial health to pursue short-term interests is neither logical, nor reasonable.

I agree with you that journalists need to understand how their business works. But I am wary of saying that proper education is the solution. It could help; but journalists who know their business will still be likely to act counter-intuitively.

I also agree the PLC is bad for journalism. It is bad for any kind of enterprise, actually, in the sense that PLCs' stockmarket performance is vulnerable to people's emotions rather than reinforced by strong fundamentals. But on the other hand the PLC is one of the most accessible ways to get money for (seemingly) nothing during a boom. Journalism has prospered thanks, at least in part, to funding by shareholders: this now is just the pay-off.

People have varying definitions of misery. Some people have lost their homes in the crisis. Others have seen their fortunes go back by a couple of million dollars. While one can say that losing your house is worse than losing two million (but still remaining a millionaire), it is not. The millionaire suffers as much as the little guy. That we will see this as unjustified will not soothe his or her pain.