Dear Facebook and Google: Thanks for the Effort, but You’re Missing the Broader Point About Local Journalism.
Early 2018 is a transformative time for local journalism — or so two of its longtime antagonists would have you believe it.
Last week, Google announced Bulletin, a tool designed to “let anyone post local news stories and events.” Facebook, not to be outdone as a supposed champion of local journalists, followed suit by announcing that they’ll be prioritizing more local news in users’ feeds (this on the heels of its announcement earlier this month that the company is recommitting itself to highlighting more trustworthy stories).
While the efforts of both companies to bolster local journalism — a vital pillar of any free, democratic society — are admirable in theory, one can be forgiven for seeing this as a thinly-veiled marketing ploy at best. Lost in both companies’ announcements is the massive role each have played in getting us to our present, negative state — and how neither company’s latest, local journalism-focused overture will introduce any fundamental changes to local news business models, which are currently facing an existential threat, other than potentially making them even more reliant on both companies’ search algorithms, and their respective propensities to change them on a whim.
The ad-driven revenue models that sustained print journalism for centuries has simply not translated to digital mediums. When the model shifts from tracking raw circulation numbers to a more granular look at who’s clicking on what story, a different incentive model emerges. Advertisers’ goals are to maximize their product’s exposure to the largest, most relevant audience, wherever they may live. Whether or not that’s on a traditional news outlet or not is irrelevant to them — and crippling to the bottom lines of print publications that sustained themselves on this model for so long.
Numbers Don’t Lie
Together, Facebook and Google form a duopoly that commands between 60 and 70 percent of ad market share in the U.S. alone. This is even more alarming when you consider that the five most popular social media sites for gathering news are: Google, Facebook, Youtube (owned by Google), Twitter (a major Google partner) and Instagram (owned by Facebook). Unless (and even if) they’re relying on subscriptions, it’s nearly impossible for a modern journalism outlet to sustain itself without actively catering to Google and Facebook, and the immense audiences they command. Editorial priorities are often forced to shift from “produce original, quality content — report the story for as long as it needs to be reported” to “come up with a steady stream of sensationalist headlines that we can promote on Facebook and Google — bonus points if you can somehow work in a Kardashian reference.”
The relationship between “traditional journalism” and “pageview journalism” is far from mutually inclusive. This isn’t to insinuate it’s journalists’ fault — far from it. The issue here is that this model gives disproportionate control of the editorial process to publishers, and the advertisers that keep them solvent — not journalists, and what they believe their readers should know about.
Local journalism has arguably suffered more than any other form of media as a result of the industry’s shift from print to digital over the past two decades. In 1900, there were 500 U.S. cities with two or more daily newspapers. Now, there are less than 10. Think about that for a second. Similarly, news deserts — towns or counties without a daily, or in some cases, weekly, local newspaper — are a growing phenomenon that deserves more attention. The Columbia Journalism Review is leading a valiant effort to track and spread awareness of this growing phenomenon, and its inherent risks. Citizens are increasingly relying on syndicated, national news outlets — often written by journalists who may have never even traveled to the area they’re covering, let alone maintain a network of reliable sources there — as a primary source of education for local issues.
It’s not surprising that local journalism is struggling so mightily in an increasingly digital economy. People flocked to the first platforms to truly adopt digital-first models once they took off — think eBay and Amazon — precisely because they were more convenient, and centralized. Being able to buy books, toilet paper and bid on an obscure Phish vinyl in the same location — and do so without even leaving your own living room — was wildly efficient. Who wouldn’t prefer that level of convenience?
Once confirming that the digital revolution was indeed here to stay, many in and around the journalism industry made similar bets. While there are certainly success stories to point to — both of legacy publications realizing significant growth through digital channels and new, digital-native publications finding their audience and flourishing — they’re the exception to the rule, especially as it relates to local journalism. Print journalism jobs have steadily declined since 2005, while digital journalism jobs — still a small fraction of their print counterparts at their peak — have also flatlined in recent years. For a more qualitative perspective, ask a friend in the journalism industry how the job outlook is today compared to when they first broke into the field.
What about these recent announcements changes any of these underlying factors? With their respective announcements, Google and Facebook are pushing to make beleaguered local journalists even more reliant on models that keep them both firmly at the epicenter of the media ecosystem — all while they still shrug off any responsibility as stewards for good journalism.
Looking Ahead
Local journalists can be forgiven if they’re not joyously shouting from the rooftops as a reaction to these announcements (for some reason, this classic scene from Modern Times comes to mind as the more appropriate reaction). Google and Facebook have established a stranglehold on the digital advertising market. The ability to cater content to the specifics of Facebook and Google — and stay on top of their ever-changing search and ranking formulas — is an existential dread for many. That both organizations have decided that local journalism needs saving, and it’s their civic duty to do so, is beyond laughable. They, more than any other parties, have accelerated the demise of local journalism on digital mediums, as it’s nearly impossible to attract the traffic needed to garner sustainable ad revenues.
Looking for a silver lining to this news? It’s shining a light on the brutal plight of local journalism in the digital age — and can spur a larger conversation about potential solutions, blockchain-based journalism among them. Blockchain’s decentralized nature is one of the first truly viable manners by which Google and Facebook can be taken out of the journalism equation since the advent of the digital age. Publications large and small — Wired being the latest notable addition — are gravitating back to the subscription-based models as ad-driven revenue models prove increasingly less sustainable. In this climate, it’s reasonable to imagine a potential renaissance for local journalism.
We’re certainly hoping to play a part in this broader script. When we say that Civil’s mission is journalism — and that supporting local journalism is at the core of it — we mean it. We’re never going to shy from the massive responsibility that comes with being a marketplace for journalism. We want to be the mechanism that allows readers and journalists to recapture a more direct relationship. We have no interest in talking out both sides of our mouths, cheering journalists on from the sidelines on the one hand, while we act as glorified toll collectors — and plead ignorance as a tech company that doesn’t have any direct responsibility as a shepherd for journalism even though we’re a large marketplace for connecting readers and journalists.
Keep an eye on this space next week — we’ve got a pretty exciting announcement about helping to revive local journalism coming. And if you feel as passionately as we do about promoting more opportunity for local journalists, we’d like to hear from you.
