Journalists prefer their craft not be cheapened with a label like “content.” But what if that’s what’s been killing the business?
Do consumers (readers) differentiate between a product called journalism than one simply known as news or content? They pay for this content with their time and attention, which is why plenty of web sites that publish content are making plenty of money with advertising. Sites that focus on journalism, however, are still struggling with this basic economic model.
Supporters of pay walls or freemium pay models for news sites are making an argument that journalism is a type of premium content that consumers will (or should) pay for. The product is expensive to produce, the thinking goes, so the consumers need to bear some of the direct cost.
I think it’s more of a failure to execute successful online advertising strategies and has less to do with the content vs. journalism debate. But one of the first arguments pay-wallers make is the importance of journalism to our democracy, suggesting this will tip the economic scale in their direction and make consumers open their wallets. (I don’t have much faith in guilt as a business model.)
In this new information ecosystem, the lines between content and journalism are blurred. Journalism is a specialized type of content that attracts a certain type of audience. Consider the activity in the comments sections on many news sites and blogs, especially in the topics of politics, technology and sports. It suggests that the user generated content piled onto journalism is as much a draw for the audience as the journalism itself.
Is talk radio journalism? The host generally does some research to collect some facts to hang his or her opinion on, then plays off callers who offer their own take. Do listeners tune in to hear the facts (journalism) or the conversation (content)?
Journalism vs. content: Does it matter? I think it does, since many coverage decisions are made every day in newsrooms based on this tacit struggle. There are journalism contests, after all, but none that I know of that celebrate “content.”
Except the ultimate contest, of course: The competition for audience and business viability. News sites that publish content based on what’s interesting and important to readers, and what will get the audience talking, seem to have a better business model than news sites aiming to produce the best journalism (and win the most awards). I haven’t seen a study on this, but it would make a fascinating master’s thesis.
Social media confuse the issue even further, with Facebook, Twitter and niche social networks like those featured on Beatblogging. While important elements of journalism in the digital age, journalists are trying to reconcile the difference between social networking for personal and professional motives.
On a recent Rebooting the News podcast, Jay Rosen talked about the curated group of 600 people he follows on Twitter for the topic of journalism and new media. He built it to share, so others could benefit from his research and decision-making. He then suggested that news organizations should do the same, cultivating a recommended list of people on Twitter to follow for other niche topics.
Is this journalism? Is it content? Or is it something else altogether? It doesn’t much matter what we call it as long as it adds value to what we’re publishing and is interesting and important enough to draw an audience. That’s the new contest.
Next: What should colleges do? Offer a content and community major with a special track for journalism? I’ll explore that in my next post.
Mark Briggs 
Posted in 
I think the content vs. journalism semantics debate matters, too, but only because it represents a cultural and mental shift in the way traditional journalists look at their work. “Content” seems so cold—where’s the blood, sweat and tears? But with the advent of the social Web, news is what the masses say it is; it’s not about Pulitzers and the trusted newsman anymore.
It’s humbling and even scary to think that one’s job has basically shifted from being a hired gig to being an elected office, but that’s essentially the effect social media has had on journalism—and the public trust is more fickle and fragile than ever.
I think if you offer a pay model for exclusive content then you are generating revenue but you have to market the content as “exclusive.”
Content or journalism does not really matter it is the message which is being sent which matters and how people perceive it.
It’s interesting to note that there is a vibrant news site called paidContent that publishes a steady flow of news about the business of content, usually with figures in the millions for deals. (The site was started as a side project by journalist Rafat Ali because he couldn’t find a journalism job and has since sold it for a nice windfall.)
I have yet to find a site called (or focused on) PaidJournalism.
But you’re right, no one is drawn to the calling of content.
People won’t pay for public affairs journalism for the same reason that people don’t vote, especially in smaller local elections — rational ignorance. Everyone wants and benefits from good government policy. But that benefit has to be weighed against the probability that my efforts to become informed and vote for the best policy will effect the election results. And since that probability is close to zero, the rational thing for me to do is to let my neighbor, sap that he is, do all that hard work and trust that he’ll do good by me.
This saddens me, as a graduate of journalism. To cheapen our craft to a mere “content” is a huge slap on every journalists face who have passion, and poured out sweat and blood to finish and pursue (and perhaps paractice the course).
This I consider is a big fight content vs. journalism. It is very rampant and almost inevitable, considering the power of the “internet.”
And another thing which decreases the value of journalism — blogging. This is another issue: blogging vs. journalism.
While many of us who studied and practiced journalism wish that our passion for the important work that journalists do would support a business model in the digital age, it unfortunately is not the case. The reality is that we need to build better content businesses to help pay for journalism because, by itself, journalism is not a business model and never has been.
Blogging didn’t break the business model, either. Local distribution monopolies paid for journalism in the past, Now that they’re gone, let’s train students on how to contribute to viable content businesses so that, one day, they might get the chance to practice the sacred craft once again.
Interesting post. You define journalism, but you don’t really define what you mean by ‘content’. What do you mean by the term?
I think of content as information, but define it broadly to include all types (news, opinion, humor, etc.) and all forms (text, audio, video, SMS, etc.). So a more practical approach to learning the ropes of digital publishing would be to include a much wider scope than just journalism. This is the focus I wish more schools would explore.