3 ms·

The vocation crisis in journalism is being driven by economics. Papers sold classified ads, broadcast television sold commercial spots, and this was profitable

The vocation crisis in journalism is being driven by economics. Papers sold classified ads, broadcast television sold commercial spots, and this was profitable because it was difficult to replicate the distribution systems (as in the music industry.) Now the FAANG companies have captured the ad revenue because they own the distribution, and those companies (so far) don't seem interested in investing in quality journalism. This is unlike the entertainment industry, where Amazon and Netflix have become content producers to some extent. They did this because they realized they could get more money by creating entertainment content.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
But this is a book review. The book is not about what causes a _perceived_ vocation crisis. It is about how journalists today, in Seattle and Toulouse, France, are dealing with it. The athors' conclusion is that the response is personal to each journalist; there is no unifying theme. The book argues journalism has non-commercial as well as commercial motives. It has a social function as well as an economic one. There is an entire Epilogue titled "Is Journalism Dying?" The authors do not think so. I agree with the authors that the economics of journalism alone cannot kill it. It will persist so long as there is a belief in its social purpose. Maybe so-called "tech" companies that insidiously intermediate peoples' web use are the world's greatest profiteers from ineffective advertising spend. But journalism is more than selling ads. People want to be journalists for a variety of reasons other than money. Generally, no one pays for what so-called "tech" companies produce, whatever that is; software perhaps. If they pay to use one of these middlemen, and they are not advertisers, it's not much. The companies give away their employees' output for free. But people still pay for books and newspapers, the stuff that journalists produce. "AI" appears to be aimed stealing that business, too. It might succeed. But even if that happens, people still want to do work and produce stuff that is socially useful, like journalism, using their own energy and brains.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

But this is a book review. The book is not about what causes a _perceived_ vocation crisis. It is about how journalists today, in Seattle and Toulouse, France, are dealing with it. The athors' conclusion is that the response is personal to each journalist; there is no unifying theme. The book argues journalism has non-commercial as well as commercial motives. It has a social function as well as an economic one. There is an entire Epilogue titled "Is Journalism Dying?" The authors do not think so. I agree with the authors that the economics of journalism alone cannot kill it. It will persist so long as there is a belief in its social purpose. Maybe so-called "tech" companies that insidiously intermediate peoples' web use are the world's greatest profiteers from ineffective advertising spend. But journalism is more than selling ads. People want to be journalists for a variety of reasons other than money. Generally, no one pays for what so-called "tech" companies produce, whatever that is; software perhaps. If they pay to use one of these middlemen, and they are not advertisers, it's not much. The companies give away their employees' output for free. But people still pay for books and newspapers, the stuff that journalists produce. "AI" appears to be aimed stealing that business, too. It might succeed. But even if that happens, people still want to do work and produce stuff that is socially useful, like journalism, using their own energy and brains.