Media Redux

There seems little doubt that the advent of tablets, the ultimate media consumption device, had a positive impact on the news business. But until the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, in collaboration with The Economist Group, released a study in October, the exact impact was mere speculation.

Guess what's back in vogue: that lovely old chestnut, the paywall. In September, The Boston Globe announced it was putting up a paywall for its new http://bostonglobe.com website, leaving the very popular http://boston.com intact but apparently with less free content.It's part of a trend we are seeing in the newspaper world. Desperate to find new sources of revenue, traditional media is trying the tried-and-true paywall. The New York Times--which owns The Boston Globe by the way--made the transition last spring, but this was a paywall with a twist. It wasn't so much a wall as maybe a hedge.

It seems baffling to me that in 2011 there are media companies that are still so clueless about the realities of digital publishing. In fact, many act surprised, as though it's something new that just dropped into their laps rather than a transition that's been happening over the past decade.

For many years it seems, AOL has been a brand in search of a business model. For a time it appeared to be stockpiling journalists and properties in order to become a go-to destination for online journalism. But when the "AOL Way" memo leaked in February, it showed a far different picture.

Last December, WikiLeaks stirred up debate when it, once again, released sensitive government documents to the world. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief, quickly became a public enemy, and the story brought up a wide range of issues about the role of journalists, governments, and the freedom of the press. The leak, however, also raised the question of just what a publication is in the eyes of the government and if press freedom should extend to web-only publications, especially when they may not be based in the U.S. (or anywhere else, in this case).

As we head into the homestretch of 2010, we've seen a lot of activity in the journalism world—many experiments and attempts to find a working, profitable content creation and delivery model. Maybe we've finally gotten past the blame game and gotten to the point where we are actually looking for answers. The problem, however, remains a stubborn adherence to the idea of maintaining control over the content. With few exceptions, publishers seemed focused on finding new ways to lock down content.

By the time the media industry caught up with the profound changes brought on by the World Wide Web, it was late in the game and they were forced to play catch-up with lean web-native startups that understand the delivery channel much better than they do. The main issue was (and remains) that traditional media companies viewed the web as a separate channel.

Rupert Murdoch threw his annual anti-Google hissy fit this past April, when he screamed to anyone who would listen that Google is stealing his content. As usual, it was timed to coincide with the annual meeting of the American Society of News Editors (ASNE). Excuse me while I yawn.

Think about the last time you ran into a registration wall. How did you react? If you're like me, chances are you gave up and left. Yet newspapers and magazines are deluding themselves into thinking that pay walls will suddenly, magically be the solution to their revenue crisis this year. To put it mildly, I'm dubious about this scheme.

What would happen to content providers such as News Corp. if Google went away tomorrow? Would they be better off, or would they be back where they started?

Let's not pull any punches: It's been a horrible year for newspapers. We've watched as one newspaper after another has closed down or gone to a limited online-only model. Newspapers are suddenly frantic to find a way to make money online, as though the commercial web is something that came along last month instead of 15 years ago.