|
I met a neighbor at a party last weekend and mentioned that I write for TIME. This led to a conversation about the New York Times--specifically, how many typos shes noticed in the paper lately. They must be getting rid of all their copy editors! Yeah, I said, theyre probably stretched pretty thin--more copy to edit, in the paper and online, and fewer people to do it--and theyre in the middle of a big round of layoffs.
I know, she said, its terrible! Anyway, she continued, were dropping the daily paper and just getting the weekend from now on. Im not going to keep giving all that money to a newspaper thats riddled with typos!
There you pretty much have the dilemma of the old-line media outfit today. Your readers expect old-fashioned editorial standards, and they want you to maintain them with a new-fangled revenue stream.
And heres the thing. Yes, Ill admit I had a sarcastic comeback: "Yeah, thatll really help them beef up their copy desk!" But really my neighbor had a perfectly good point. Why should she support with her money a product that shes not satisfied with? You could make the argument that shes only further beggaring the Times by cutting back her subscription, but if maintaining the subscription isnt giving her a satisfactory product, why shouldnt she?
It goes against my interests as a journalist to say it, but that kind of response is entirely reasonable—if youre honest with yourself about the consequences. Its true that technology can boost productivity; it may be true that papers like the Times should be finding a better business model. It is also true that you get what you pay for, to an extent: no one is going to copyedit the New York Times on a volunteer basis for the pleasure of it. But you could decide that, if paying full price, in the current economic climate, doesnt get you the level of service you want anyway, you may as well choose to pay less and get less.
When journalists say "you get what you pay for," theres often a moralistic tone to it that does no one any good. No ones going to save journalism by hectoring people. Instead, journalists, and their audience, should look at it as a simple practical question: as it stands today, if you pay less, eventually you will get less. (Assuming, that is, no one invents a new means of subsidizing journalism without you paying anything.) Are you OK with that?
Its an important question, without an automatic answer. A few days ago, The Awls Tom Scocca and Choire Sicha wrote a dialogue about a recent Times public-editor column by Clark Hoyt. One of the controversies Hoyt had written about was a case in which a Times freelancer had written about her boyfriends restaurant.
I wont belabor the details, but Scocca and Sicha made an outstanding larger point about the Times freelancer guidelines: the paper is using far more freelancers to cut costs, yet expects them to abide by the same rigid guidelines as full-time staffers. But one thing that makes it easier for full-time staffers to follow those guidelines is, well, being paid a living wage by the Times. Which the Times either no longer wants to do or can no longer afford to do.
Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/12/16/doing-less-with-less-what-are-you-willing-to-give-up-from-journalism/#ixzz0b9SL7BMC |
