Logic of newspapers survival

by Crispin Hull on July 4, 2009

The news about news came right from the very top.

The chief executive of News Ltd, Australia’s largest newspaper company, John Hartigan, told us that newspapers in Australia are not dying in the face of the internet.

Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

As it happens, a lot of arguments he put in a speech this week to the National Press Club had a ring of truth to them.

He noted that newspapers broke most of the big stories recently, not bloggers or even radio or TV. Naturally, he cited his own company’s newspapers’ breaks. Nonetheless, Fairfax newspapers, including The Canberra Times, too, have similarly had many more national and local breaking stories than their electronic competitors.

That alone, of course, is not going to ensure eternal life for newspapers. Good journalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for continued existence.

Newspapers need a good economic base. This is where the figures continue to add up for newspapers.

The advertising market in Australia is worth about $13.5 billion. Yes, internet advertising is growing more rapidly than any sector. It grew by more than 25 per cent in the past year to $1.7 billion – still, for all the hype, one in eight advertising dollars. Newspapers take almost one in three advertising dollars — $4.1 billion, slightly up on the previous year despite the downturn. Free-to-air television attracts less than newspapers at $3.4 billion.

There is a virtuous, as distinct from vicious, circle here. The $4.1 billion raised by newspapers is a lot of money to support quality journalism. And bear in mind the core product of newspapers is journalism. Sure, a lot of space goes to advertisements and a lot of money goes into production, but the non-journalism expenditure is a far less proportion of revenue in newspapers than in other media. The revenue from television and radio advertising largely goes to the entertainment that takes up, perhaps 90 per cent of air time.

As for the internet, precious little advertising revenue goes to journalism. Indeed, the little that does go that way goes to mainstream newspaper companies and their newsrooms anyway.

So lots of advertising dollars are raised through print journalism. Sensible newspaper managers will see that that revenue will only continue if the journalism is worthwhile. So they will support good journalism which will attract the advertising dollars.

Businesses would not fork out $4.1 billion a year unless they were getting value for money.

Advertising in print obviously works and it is worth asking why.

For the quality dailies, advertising success stems from who is reading and how are they reading. They are a valuable audience: attentive, intelligent, discriminating, and with high disposable incomes.

Readers usually get the paper and spend some time with it. They usually turn every page at least in the front part and those other parts that interest them: sport, business, entertainment or whatever. They are relying on the newspaper to contain the important things of the past 24 hours and some extra.

No-one reads all of it, but most readers feel that if they have browsed through it they will not have missed anything important.

They do not want to be distracted in this time. They will happily move within the paper from item to item seizing on anything that interests them, including advertisements. When they look at or read ad advertisement they are interested and attentive. They only read what they want to read. They absorb the details, and in any event can always go back later to check details.

Most readers of quality dailies have higher education and usually higher incomes and higher disposable income. They can usually afford the things they want to buy without waiting.

It is worth comparing them to the consumers of other media.

Television and radio advertising is a distraction to the main program. It is not, as with newspapers, absorbed voluntarily with interest.

Internet users are even more immune or even hostile to display advertisements, so much so that internet designers have to throw the advertisements in readers’ faces, often blocking sought-after material for several seconds – very annoying.

Internet users are usually pre-possessed in a search for particular information. They are so intent they will not be distracted easily.

However, some advertising works very well on the internet – that which the user actively seeks. Usually that is classified advertisements, particularly jobs, car and real estate.

This is the sad part of the history of the internet v newspaper competition. In the early days of the net, newspaper companies moved too slowly. They allowed others to take significant chunks of advertising instead of setting up their own internet arms early on.

Non-news companies have taken a huge portion of the cars, jobs and real estate markets and the news companies are having difficulty getting them back. That is money lost to journalism because these sites do not do any independent journalism.

Some have pointed to newspaper closures in the US as a harbinger. But they have almost all been cases of the closure of the lesser of two newspapers in a single city. That shake-out already happened in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s.

It defies logic that newspapers could survive in the internet age. The internet can deliver the same written information and more and better graphics and video. It can arrange information more effectively.

But it now appears there is a continuing demand for good journalism on paper and that businesses will continue to advertise in it because it works. Newspaper classies have taken a large and permanent dint, but the display ads continue to work. Indeed, some job and real estate ads appear in the news pages rather than in the classifieds because they successfully target people who were not even thinking of changing jobs or houses but get the idea from the ad.

The journalism will continue to change. The internet may attract readers who want the short and sharp but print will remain the medium for the longer, analytical, specialist articles and newspapers will continue to give the 24-hour package.

Indeed, the tabloid newspapers may be more vulnerable than the qualities because they lack those attributes.

Perhaps “defy logic” is the wrong phrase. Markets have a logic of their own with a fundamental premise – what people will buy.

{ 0 comments }

Questioning Opposition judgment

by Crispin Hull on June 27, 2009

Just like the rest of us, Members of Parliament have to question how they come to conclusions about the world and people around them.

It requires judgment to assess the degree of proof needed before coming to a conclusion and it requires character and courage to admit when you are wrong.

The process arose yet again with the two main political issues of the week: climate-change legislation and the question of whether anyone got special treatment under the Government’s plan to help car dealers.

Of course, the conclusions politicians draw are more important than most because they affect us all. Therefore, it is more important they apply greater diligence to get them right.

The more consequential the conclusion, the more diligence required. That does not mean endless agonizing because part of diligence is to come to a conclusion within a reasonable time.

So this week some of our politicians made conclusions about perhaps two of the most important decisions they could make: whether the country should change its leadership and whether Australia should start contributing to do something to save the planet from the consequences of humans putting too much carbon into the atmosphere.

They failed on both counts.

I suppose it is easy to boo from the sidelines, but the politicians are not alone in having to draw conclusions. And not alone in sometimes getting it wrong. Doctors have diagnose. Juries have to decide guilt. Journalists have to decide whether to publish. Professionals have to decide on clients’ courses of action. Police have to conclude whether to act on their suspicions.

You cannot expect them to get it right all the time, but when they get it wrong it is fair to ask how and why. Decision makers can behave diligently and reasonably and still get it wrong – a correct decision that turns out to be wrong. A good example is the prosecution of Lindy Chamberlain.

Was Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to call for the resignation of the Prime Minister in that class — a correct call that turned out to be wrong. In other words, we should remove the advantage of hindsight before judging his action.

We can well ask: how on earth was he expected to know that the email asserting the Prime Minister was urging special treatment for a mate was a fake?

Good question, because it provides the answer to a test of judgment.

Turnbull was coming to a high-consequence conclusion: that the nation should have a new leader. It was not whether to support or oppose some low-level legislation. So the decision required high-level diligence.

Without the benefit of hindsight, the diligence was lacking, even for a lower level of conclusion drawing.

In publishing, for example, editors have to draw conclusions.

Most editors apply a “what if” test whenever a breathless reporter had an exclusive story alleging malfeasance on the part of a politician, company director, public servant or average foot slogger.

It is no guarantee of immunity from defamation actions because so often defamation threats arise from articles way back in the paper to which the test was never applied.

But for big-ticket politics or business stories the what-if test works, provided deadline or staffing pressures do not short-cut it.

The “what-if” test is to ask the simple question: what if the people about whom this story reflects badly say it is false?

What would have happened if Turnbull had applied this test? Easy. If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asserted it was all false, all Turnbull would have to do is wave the email from his office to the Treasury and he would have Rudd nailed.

That is what an editor would say to a reporter: let’s have a look at this email and what it says to see if it supports the conclusion.

“Oh, you haven’t got a copy of the email,” the editor would say. “Well, we better get a copy before we publish.”

Because the editor would know that in any subsequent defamation action, that is the minimum a court would require.

Turnbull never had the email. Now, Turnbull has been both a journalist and a lawyer, so the test is not unreasonable. He could, of course, have drawn a lower-level conclusion: that the hearsay about such an email required answers from the Prime Minister. Not as dramatic, but far more supportable.

So we can see how the blunder was made and question the judgment of those who made it. That leaves the question of why was the wrong, higher-level conclusion drawn? — pure political advantage.

Having made a poor decision poorly, then comes the text of character.

Usually, one would expect an apology. That is what people defamed by the media demand, as well as pots of money in damages.

It is similar with climate change. The Opposition and Senator Fielding are showing a lack of judgment on assessing the risk. So, too, incidentally, should public companies who have a duty to shareholders to assess risk.

We have had any number of fossil-fuel dependant companies whinge about carbon pricing and the affect on their profits, but few appear to be assessing the risk of inaction which might have an even greater affect on their assets. Has Qantas assessed the risk to its assets of Mascot going under water, for example.

It has been a poor time for rational decision-making in Australia.

We really have to hope Opposition decision-making improves, particularly that of its leader because he is an obviously talented man, but more importantly, absent Peter Costello, the Opposition, heaven help us, does not appear to have anyone to take his place if he continues to stumble.

{ 0 comments }

Work on minds not climate science

by Crispin Hull on June 20, 2009

MAYBE something came of the trip to the United States to investigate climate change by family first Senator Steve Fielding. He might even have become convinced that the Earth is round. [click to continue…]

{ 5 comments }

Gold building saved but who will save church?

by Crispin Hull on June 13, 2009

powder-magazineA SHORT way out of the town of Beechworth you can find the powder magazine. It was built in 1859 out of local granite to store gunpowder used in underground mining which began shortly after easy alluvial gold had been extracted. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Openness pays for public and pollies

by Crispin Hull on June 6, 2009

THIS week I was given some pertinent advice during a course for directors of non-for-profit companies.

It was one of several questions directors should ask themselves about making decisions. The question to ask was: “Would the board be embarrassed if its decision and the process employed in arriving at it appeared on the front page of a newspaper?” [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

State abolition efficient but not democratic

by Crispin Hull on May 30, 2009

A WONDERFUL Yes Minister skit has Minister Jim Hacker putting on his best Churchillian voice to Sir Humphrey and likening the economy to a runaway bus.

“It is time for someone to get into the driver’s seat, Humphrey, and put his foot on the er, er, er.” [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

ACT’s democratic deficit

by Crispin Hull on May 23, 2009

THE Feds are at it again – another unprincipled, ill-thought-out interference with the affairs of the people of the ACT. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Evolution of electoral system

by Crispin Hull on May 16, 2009

Article written for The Canberra Times’s special edition on the 20th anniversary of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory.
IF THE ACT were split in 17 single-member electorates, the ALP would have won all 17 of them at the last election – on just 37.5 per cent of the vote. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

House of farce no more

by Crispin Hull on May 16, 2009

Article written for The Canberra Times’s special edition on the 20th anniversary of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory.
THE House of Farce. The words stared out from the newsagents’ posters. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Unelected judges the least of our worries

by Crispin Hull on May 16, 2009

JUSTICE Lex Lasry, of the Victorian Supreme Court, had a great big slash at the media this week in the Blackburn Memorial Lecture in Canberra. [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }