The U.S. critic A.J. Liebling once wrote that newspapers are "the weak slat under the bed of democracy."
Toronto Star public editor Kathy English also agrees with this statement by Liebling: "I am an incorrigible optimist about newspapers" -- a view she holds despite the ongoing financial difficulties in which newspapers find themselves.
Liebling was a press critic who, at heart, loved newspapers. The same can be said for former Star publisher John Honderich, who cited Liebling's words on receiving an honorary doctorate of laws from Ryerson University during its fall convocation this week.
Now a Torstar director and head of the Toronto Star Advisory Committee that guides this newspaper, Honderich spoke with great passion about the connection between a well-informed community and a healthy democracy. The online revolution has "decimated" the media, he said, and, "that weak slat Liebling spoke of is bending precariously."
Newspapers, more than any other media, have played the leading role in setting the agenda for public discourse through "groundbreaking investigative projects, searing features, pointed commentaries and columns, hard-hitting crusades and biting editorials," he said.
"They provide, when well-run, the means for a populace to examine itself, a channel to ferret out lies, abuse and corruption and a vehicle to give voice to those whose voices are often not heard."
Honderich drew on his long-time experience leading the Star to speak frankly about the reality that quality journalism that serves the public interest "comes at a significant cost." He revealed that an award-winning 2002 investigation into racial profiling by Toronto police cost this newspaper more than a million dollars.
This commitment to journalism as a public trust is indeed the soul of the Star. And whether this is sustainable within the current grim reality of newspaper economics matters greatly to both journalists and the public good. Of course, a newspaper is also a business and businesses must profit. As Liebling also wrote, "the function of the press is to inform, but its role is to make money."
Determining how to pay for quality journalism in this evolving digital world is one of the most important questions now facing newspapers. The reality is that print advertising revenue, which has long funded journalism, is falling and online ads provide far less revenue.
Last week, a daylong summit on the future of journalism I attended at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism in New York, brought together more than 100 journalists and academics to discuss the certainty that "finding, sharing and creating new business models for news is an urgent need for journalism." The summit presented many questions but few answers, beyond a hopeful, passionate consensus that investing in quality journalism still makes good business sense.
The Star should be given full credit for putting significant resources into pursuing serious investigative journalism projects.
But it had to go through a downsizing exercise earlier this year.
The New York Times has been known to produce some fine print journalism of its own. Here's some headlines from that newspaper's website:
Oct. 28 - Time Inc. plans 600 layoffs
Oct. 28 - Gannett to cut 10% of its workers
Oct. 27 - Newspaper circulation continues to decline rapidly
Oct. 24 - New York Times Co. reports an earnings decline of 51%
Oct. 12 - Newspapers' web revenue is falling
In fairness to English, she did mention some of the recent bad economic news about newspapers earlier in her column.
But my point is that the financial malaise being suffered by newspapers is widespread. In fact, it goes beyond newspapers. Network television news shows don't draw the audiences they once did.
A disquieting question to ask is whether this is happening despite what journalists think of as good journalism, or because of what journalists think of as good journalism?
If the notion of citizenship is in decline, for example, and people simply see themselves as consumers who value entertainment in their product, then the "eat this, it's good for you" model of journalism might find itself challenged.
I would idly point out that voter turnout in last month's federal election dropped to 59 per cent. It's conceivable that within the next decade, fewer than half of Canadians will exercise their right to vote in federal elections.
To me, that means the notion of citizenship is in decline.
This has ominous implications, not just for journalism and the news business (two different things, in my opinion), but for society. It's something that we should be talking about, but we don't.
However, in the meantime, that doesn't negate the need for good journalism.
While one would hope every article has mass appeal, what if the publishing or broadcasting of an item doesn't have wide readership but has a huge impact among those who do read it -- and some positive social change results?
I would argue such reportage still has value, but as an overall business, you have to remain financially healthy, which means generating a profit.
Staying financially healthy ultimately means figuring out ways to either increase revenue, cut costs or both. And it also means understanding the many strategic challenges threatening newspapers and the journalism that shows up within them.
In the meantime, you might want to check out these recent posts:
Oct. 27 - 'The elite newspaper of the future'
Oct. 27 - Yo journos: Escape the discipline of the capital markets
Oct. 23 - Journalism as a tool, not a mission