Bazelon, Abrams, Brill, and Liptak
This afternoon at the Yale Law School reunion the “Next Generation of Law and Media” panel was noteworthy. So I did my best to take some notes.
All the alums on the panel expressed concern about the effect of the internet on mainstream media, but two (Emily Bazelon and Adam Liptak) see a helpful relationship between the online world and journalism. All of the speakers were worried about the economic model for newspapers. Brill, in particular, was pushing for new legal protection of mainstream media companies (MSM, in shorthand below), including economic support that would guarantee jobs.
Here’s a brief report, paraphrasing what the speakers said.
Steve Brill: (1) Suggests we need government regulation to ensure that we have diverse media voices - and sufficient economic opportunity so that people can make a living. (2) Suggests we think about a new corporate structure for media companies - perhaps a cross between a public corporation and a 501(c)(3). It’s problematic for media companies to be focused so much on the bottom line. (3) Suggests there is more need than ever for good journalists, fair-minded people, and that they need to be protected and paid.
In general, Brill’s take is that it has been a mistake for media companies (like the Times) to make their product available for free online. He’d also like to see some legal protection for these companies (like a Corporation for Public Broadcasting function? this was unclear). He believes that people will continue to pay for the authoritative voice/good information provided by MSM.
Emily Bazelon: Ad revenue for print media offline and online is shrinking, although online ads generally are growing. She’s worried that craigslist is making money. Classified ads, which used to be such a cash cow for MSM, are going away, and that’s troubling.
On the other hand, Bazelon is not dissing bloggers. She suggests they’re adding a great deal of value, particularly in the legal arena (mentions Balkinization and others as good sources) - they’re thoughtful, link to key materials, and help reporters be smart. In her view, this is a good development. Bloggers are making MSM less important, and we’re just at the beginning of this process.
Answering an assertion from the audience about the good reporting that can come from blogs (e.g., TPM), Bazelon points out that although TPM is terrific there aren’t many other examples like it. Usually you have to pay people well to do this work.
Floyd Abrams: (1) People who care about government censorship, and worry about it for the internet, should pay attention to current censorship being applied to broadcast (radio and television). Because the internet is the home of pornography, rascist speech, pedophiles etc. powerful forces will seek to censor it the same way broadcast has successfully been censored in the U.S. (2) Bloggers are not the same as journalists. Abrams went through the front page of today’s Times, noting that [paraphrasing] “the only story here that a blogger could have produced was the tribute to Doris Lessing.”
Abrams later noted that Fox has created a home for people who feel disenfranchised by other news organizations. And we should also remember that there was never a golden age for journalism, when journalists were perfect. People are entitled to have choices about what they watch.
Adam Liptak: It’s astounding that the Times comes out every day - it’s an enormous, expensive effort. The economic underpinnings of this model are at risk. Classified ads are gone, the paper is free online, and the Times has undercut its own credibility at times (Jayson Blair, leadup to Iraq war).
There are positive things to say about the relationships between the online world and journalists. It’s a lot easier for journalists to correct their work. They can “show” their work more easily - and verification can be more scientific. Now law professors can be found online who are real experts in their areas - they’ve “shown” their work too.
There is a caustic, sniping tone in criticism of MSM that can be unpleasant, but that’s fine. The real problem is ascribing partisan motives to news organizations, which happens very quickly these days.
In answer to a question about network neutrality: Understands this issue to be about having only one printing press - issue is whether carriers should be treated as common carriers rather than speakers with First Amenmdent rights of their own.
In answer to a question asking, essentially, “where are the heroic journalists these days?” Liptak said there were plenty of heroes in print media - journalism at the highest level. But only one evening news program followed up on the Times story last week reporting that the torture memo had (effectively) been reinstated.
From the audience: “The Colbert Report followed up.”
Comments
5 Responses to “Bazelon, Abrams, Brill, and Liptak”
Got something to say?
Emily Bazelon: Please answer my papers regarding your grandfather Chief Judge David Bazelon and the judicial complaint he filed against Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
I’m not sure why free Web acces to the Times should offend anyone. Newspapers traditionally have two sources of revenue, ads and payments by readers, and two types of expense, newsgathering/news production and production/distribution of the physical paper. Free internet distribution eliminates one form of revenue and one form of expense. If as a result many more people, even in the most remote locations, have access to the content, potentially the ad value can increase enormously and cover the remaining expense, newsgathering/news production. The key is to maintain the paper’s reputation for high quality to assure widespread use (and thus widespread attention to online ads). Yes, of course if the online ad supported model doesn’t work then the theory fails, but newspapers have always been largely ad-suppported. It’s not clear why the ad model should fail now.
Bruce, I agree with you. Newspapers are finding different ways to make money. Some people were just more comfortable with the old system. Susan
I think it is nice that Brill, Liptak, Bazelon and Abrams think we need government regulation to achieve a “diversity of voices”? From their historical and family perspectives, I am sure that using the government to control the content of the media makes sense.
But I am not Jewish and therefore my cultural concerns are different from theirs. Couldn’t they have asked someone who is not Jewish to be on the panel?
In this era of diversity and multiculturalism, isn’t it a massive step backward to ignore the voices of 98% of people who are not Jewish by denying them a voice at this Yale roundtable? Couldn’t they at least as us 98% Americans what wewant? Are we so hard to find? Are we so stupid that our voices cannot be heard?
Not sure where you got the idea that all of these panelists are Jewish, or why it would matter.