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.”
Sputnik and Arpanet
Fifty years ago today, the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial earth satellite.
On February 7, 1958 (just a few months later, and arguably directly in response to the launch of Sputnik), the U.S. Department of Defense issued directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
Four years later, J.C.R. Licklider was chosen to run ARPA computer research. Read The Dream Machine for the rest of the story.
Here’s Vermeer’s Navigator, on view here in Frankfurt at the Städel Museum - a Licklider from a different time:
Clinton Blasts Bush’s War on Science - blog entry from today’s NY Times. It would certainly be a good idea to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment. Here’s an entry from this blog from more than two years ago. OTA: You Are Missed.
How newspapers and broadcasters are different
The advent of the digital age has put both newspapers and television broadcasters — until not too long ago the arbiters of opinion and taste in America — under pressure. It’s hard for hardcopy newspapers to survive in a craigslist time, and they generally can’t force people to pay for their content online. It’s hard for broadcasters to differentiate their offerings, and so they are starting to release shows online.
But newspapers (unlike broadcasters) seem to get the idea that they’re better off with an open internet than a closed, cell-phone-like internet. I was happy to see the New York Times editorial today on the importance of the Verizon/NARAL issue:
We have long been concerned about the potential threat to free speech and a free press as communications migrate from old-fashioned telephone lines, TV broadcasts and printing presses to digital networks controlled by unregulated private companies. The threat stopped being theoretical recently when Verizon Wireless censored political speech on one of its mobile services. . . . Given this chilling experience, the Federal Communications Commission should quickly issue regulations that also bar interference with text messaging. Unfortunately, the F.C.C. is in the thrall of the carriers, and the Bush administration has an unblemished record of siding with corporations over the rights and safety of American citizens. That means Congress will have to take the lead, as it must on other issues affecting the mushrooming world of digital communications.
What’s great about this editorial is that it takes the long view. It recognizes that this fight isn’t just about “short codes,” but about the future of communications generally. The Times clearly takes the view that communications carriers - even wireless carriers - aren’t like “newspapers.” Newspapers get to choose what they print, and can’t be forced to “carry” any particular speech. Companies providing access to the internet don’t - shouldn’t - get to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of communications.
The editorial also picks up on the current political reality: the FCC simply is not going to do anything that disrupts the carriers’ business plans. Rather than ignore online communications, or say they don’t matter, the newspaper calls for Congressional action to bring our now-ancient communications law (1996!) up to date. This is brave stuff.
It’s something a broadcaster probably wouldn’t say. Sure, they’re under pressure from the internet. So they’d rather avoid it — by finding a way to hook up with cable systems that don’t have common carriage obligations (but can be forced to carry broadcast signals), and fighting any unlicensed uses of white spaces with innumerable lobbyists “red in tooth and claw.” They must want things both ways: special all-American status, so that must carry rules stay in place and we push the country through a digital transition optimized for broadcast, and affiliation with traditionally-proprietary, newspaper-like cable systems that can freely discriminate between transmissions.
Maybe we should put this to a vote. Who would we vote off the communications island? Who has to go? I’m hoping newspapers can stick around (albeit in different, online forms). Broadcasters, on the other hand…