tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/media-industry-24506/articlesMedia industry – The Conversation2024-02-13T13:23:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2226772024-02-13T13:23:41Z2024-02-13T13:23:41ZSaving the news media means moving beyond the benevolence of billionaires<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574711/original/file-20240209-18-vtb36b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C26%2C5973%2C3961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Billionaire media owners can't change inhospitable market dynamics.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-los-angeles-times-building-and-newsroom-along-imperial-news-photo/1211874817?adppopup=true">Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the journalism industry, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/01/26/media-layoffs-strikes-journalism-dying">2024 is off to a brutal start</a>. </p>
<p>Most spectacularly, the Los Angeles Times recently slashed <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-01-23/latimes-layoffs-115-newsroom-soon-shiong">more than 20% of its newsroom</a>.</p>
<p>Though trouble had long been brewing, the layoffs were particularly disheartening because many employees and readers hoped the Times’ billionaire owner, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/01/how-patrick-soon-shiong-made-his-fortune-before-buying-the-la-times">Patrick Soon-Shiong</a>, would stay the course in good times and bad – that he would be a steward less interested in turning a profit and more concerned with ensuring the storied publication could serve the public. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-01-23/latimes-layoffs-115-newsroom-soon-shiong#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CToday's%20decision%20is%20painful%20for,%2C%E2%80%9D%20Soon%2DShiong%20said.">According to the LA Times</a>, Soon-Shiong explained that the cuts were necessary because the paper “could no longer lose $30 million to $40 million a year.” </p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1749890710118301751">As one X user pointed out</a>, Soon-Shiong could weather US$40 million in annual losses for decades and still remain a billionaire. You could say the same of another billionaire owner, The Washington Post’s Jeff Bezos, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/washington-post-cut-jobs-voluntary-buyouts">who eliminated hundreds of jobs in 2023</a> after making a long stretch of steady investments. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1749890710118301751"}"></div></p>
<p>Of course, it helps if your owner has deep pockets and is satisfied with breaking even or earning modest profits – a far cry from the slash-and-burn, profit-harvesting of the two largest newspaper owners: the hedge fund <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/alden-global-capital-killing-americas-newspapers/620171/">Alden Global Capital</a> and <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/the-scale-of-local-news-destruction-in-gannetts-markets-is-astonishing/">the publicly traded Gannett</a>. </p>
<p>Yet, as we’ve previously argued, relying on the benevolence of billionaire owners isn’t a viable long-term solution to journalism’s crises. In what we call the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-slippery-slope-of-the-oligarchy-media-model-81931">oligarchy media model</a>,” it often creates distinct hazards for democracy. The recent layoffs simply reinforce these concerns. </p>
<h2>Systemic market failure</h2>
<p>This carnage is part of a longer story: <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2023/report/">Ongoing research on news deserts</a> shows that the U.S. has lost almost one-third of its newspapers and nearly two-thirds of its newspaper journalists since 2005.</p>
<p>It’s become clear that this downturn isn’t temporary. Rather, it’s a <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/">systemic market failure</a> with no signs of reversal.</p>
<p>As print advertising continues to decline, Meta’s and Google’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-and-metas-advertising-dominance-fades-as-tiktok-netflix-emerge-11672711107">dominance over digital advertising</a> has deprived news publishers of a major online revenue source. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/the-print-apocalypse-and-how-to-survive-it/506429/">The advertising-based news business model has collapsed</a> and, to the extent it ever did, won’t adequately support the public service journalism that democracy requires.</p>
<p>What about digital subscriptions as a revenue source? </p>
<p>For years, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.865967">paywalls have been hailed</a> as an alternative to advertising. While some news organizations have recently stopped requiring subscriptions <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/great-subscription-news-reversal">or have created a tiered pricing system</a>, how has this approach fared overall?</p>
<p>Well, it’s been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/business/media/new-york-times-q4-earnings.html">a fantastic financial success for The New York Times</a> and, actually, almost no one else – while denying millions of citizens access to essential news.</p>
<p>The paywall model has also worked reasonably well for The Wall Street Journal, with its assured audience of business professionals, though its management still felt compelled <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wall-street-journal-shakes-up-d-c-bureau-with-big-layoffs/ar-BB1hDv9V?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds">to make deep cuts</a> in its Washington, D.C., bureau on Feb. 1, 2024. And at The Washington Post, even 2.5 million digital subscriptions haven’t been enough for the publication to break even.</p>
<p>To be fair, the billionaire owners of <a href="https://twitter.com/aidanfitzryan/status/1748098450963460180">The Boston Globe</a> and <a href="https://startribunecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Click-here.pdf">the Minneapolis Star Tribune</a> have sown fertile ground; the papers seem to be turning modest profits, and there isn’t any news of looming layoffs.</p>
<p>But they’re outliers; in the end, billionaire owners can’t change these inhospitable market dynamics. Plus, because they made their money in other industries, the owners often create conflicts of interest that their news outlets’ journalists must continually navigate with care.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three female protestors shout, while one holds a sign reading 'Don't cut our future.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C5525%2C3755&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574235/original/file-20240207-28-42qqde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Los Angeles Times employees stage a walkout on Jan. 19, 2024, after learning about layoffs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/los-angeles-times-guild-members-rally-outside-city-hall-news-photo/1945953066?adppopup=true">Mario Tama/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The way forward</h2>
<p>While the market dynamics for news media are only getting worse, the civic need for quality, accessible public service journalism is greater than ever. </p>
<p>When quality journalism disappears, <a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1170919800">it intensifies a host of problems</a> – from rising corruption to decreasing civic engagement to greater polarization – that threaten the vitality of U.S. democracy.</p>
<p>That’s why we believe it’s urgently important to grow the number of outlets capable of independently resisting destructive market forces.</p>
<p>Billionaire owners willing to release their media properties could help facilitate this process. Some of them already have. </p>
<p>In 2016, the billionaire Gerry Lenfest donated his sole ownership of The Philadelphia Inquirer along with a $20 million endowment to an eponymously named <a href="https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/about/">nonprofit institute</a>, with bylaws preventing profit pressures from taking precedence over its civic mission. Its nonprofit ownership model has enabled the Inquirer to <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2023/brightspots/philadelphia-inquirer-jim-friedlich-q-and-a/">invest in news</a> at a time when so many others have cut to the bone.</p>
<p>In 2019, wealthy businessman Paul Huntsman ceded his ownership of The Salt Lake Tribune to a <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/11/04/historic-shift-salt-lake/">501(c)(3) nonprofit</a>, easing its tax burden and setting it up to receive philanthropic funding. After continuing as board chairman, in early February he announced that he was permanently <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2024/02/02/paul-huntsman-its-time-step-away/">stepping down</a>. </p>
<p>And in September 2023, the French newspaper <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2023/09/24/two-major-milestones-for-le-monde-s-independence_6139073_115.html">Le Monde</a>’s billionaire shareholders, led by tech entrepreneur Xavier Niel, officially confirmed a plan to move their capital into an endowment fund that’s effectively controlled by journalists and other employees of the Le Monde Group. </p>
<p>On a smaller and far more precarious scale, U.S. journalists have founded hundreds of <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/many-small-news-nonprofits-feel-overlooked-by-funders-a-new-coalition-is-giving-them-a-voice/">small nonprofits</a> across the country over the past decade to provide crucial public affairs coverage. However, most struggle mightily to generate enough revenues to even pay themselves and a few reporters a living wage. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Workers sit at a table in a large, open workspace." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574245/original/file-20240207-18-arb5jw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Philadelphia Inquirer moved to a new headquarters in May 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://meyerdesigninc.com/news/the-philadelphia-inquirers-hybrid-headquarters/">Jeffrey Totaro/Meyer Design, Inc.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Donors can still play a role</h2>
<p>The crucial next step is to ensure these civic, mission-driven forms of ownership have the necessary funding to survive and thrive. </p>
<p>One part of this approach can be philanthropic funding.</p>
<p><a href="https://mediaimpactfunders.org/philanthropys-growing-role-in-american-journalism-a-new-study-reveals-increased-funding-and-ethical-considerations/">A 2023 Media Impact Funders report</a> pointed out that foundation funders once primarily focused on providing a bridge to an ever-elusive new business model. The thinking went that they could provide seed money until the operation was up and running and then redirect their investments elsewhere. </p>
<p>However, journalists are increasingly calling for <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/patterns-in-philanthropy-leave-small-newsrooms-behind-can-that-change/">long-term sustaining support</a> as the extent of market failure has become clear. In a promising development, the <a href="https://www.pressforward.news/press-forward-will-award-more-than-500-million-to-revitalize-local-news/">Press Forward initiative</a> recently pledged $500 million over five years for local journalism, including for-profit as well as nonprofit and public newsrooms. </p>
<p>Charitable giving can also make news more accessible. If donations pay the bills – as they do at The Guardian – <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/10/rich-americans-more-likely-to-pay-for-news/">paywalls</a>, which limit content to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/01/11/media-startups-subscriptions-elite">subscribers who are disproportionately wealthy and white</a>, may become unnecessary. </p>
<h2>The limits of private capital</h2>
<p>Still, philanthropic support for journalism falls far short of what’s needed.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/">Total revenues for newspapers have fallen</a> from a historic high of $49.4 billion in 2005 to $9.8 billion in 2022.</p>
<p>Philanthropy could help fill a portion of this deficit but, even with the recent increase in donations, nowhere near all of it. Nor, in our view, should it. Too often, donations come with conditions and potential conflicts of interest. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man wearing blue hat sits on a bench reading a newspaper." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574248/original/file-20240207-27-cqnylz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Philanthropic giving hasn’t made up for the billions lost in advertising revenue over the past two decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-sitting-on-a-bench-reading-the-newspaper-news-photo/144075964?adppopup=true">Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same <a href="https://mediaimpactfunders.org/philanthropys-growing-role-in-american-journalism-a-new-study-reveals-increased-funding-and-ethical-considerations/">2023 Media Impact Funders survey</a> found that 57% of U.S. foundation funders of news organizations offered grants for reporting on issues for which they had policy stances. </p>
<p>In the end, philanthropy <a href="https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/a-qa-with-phil-napoli.php">can’t completely escape oligarchic influence</a>.</p>
<h2>Public funds for local journalism</h2>
<p>A strong, accessible media system that serves the public interest will ultimately require significant public funding. </p>
<p>Along with libraries, schools and research universities, journalism is an essential part of a democracy’s critical information infrastructure. Democracies in western and northern Europe earmark taxes or dedicated fees not only for legacy TV and radio but also for newspapers and digital media – and they make sure there’s always <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4779">an arm’s-length relationship</a> between the government and the news outlets so that their journalistic independence is assured. It’s worth noting that U.S. investment in public media is <a href="https://www.cjr.org/opinion/public-funding-media-democracy.php">a smaller percentage of GDP</a> than in virtually any other major democracy in the world.</p>
<p>State-level experiments in places such as <a href="https://njcivicinfo.org/about/">New Jersey</a>, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/10/20/local-news-vouchers-bill-dc">Washington, D.C.</a>, <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/09/the-state-of-california-will-fund-25-million-in-local-reporting-fellowships/">California</a> <a href="https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/free-press-action-applauds-groundbreaking-wisconsin-bills-addressing-local-journalism-crisis">and Wisconsin</a> suggest that public funding for newspapers and online-only outlets can also work in the U.S. Under these plans, news outlets prioritizing local journalism receive various kinds of public subsidies and grants. </p>
<p>The time has come to dramatically scale up these projects, from millions of dollars to billions, whether through “<a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2019/academics-craft-a-plan-to-infuse-billions-into-journalism-give-every-american-50-to-donate-to-news-orgs/">media vouchers</a>” that <a href="https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/the-local-journalism-initiative.php">allow voters</a> to allocate funds or other ambitious <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/17/local-news-crisis-plan-fix-perry-bacon/">proposals</a> for creating tens of thousands of new journalism jobs across the country.</p>
<p>Is it worth it?</p>
<p>In our view, a crisis that imperils American democracy demands no less than a bold and comprehensive civic response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can an industry experiencing systemic failure get back on its feet?Rodney Benson, Professor of Media, Culture and Communication, New York UniversityVictor Pickard, C. Edwin Baker Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2073812023-06-15T09:25:13Z2023-06-15T09:25:13ZSuccession is as much about technology as it is about money, power and family<p><em>Warning: the following article contains spoilers.</em></p>
<p>Technology is key to Succession’s tale of the Roy family media dynasty, with the drama playing out on screens within the show and in the homes of the viewers beyond it.</p>
<p>The final series is no exception. This is best illustrated in episode three, Connor’s Wedding. The siblings, Kendall (Jeremy Strong), Roman (Kieran Culkin) and Shiv (Sarah Snook) – Connor (Alan Ruck), as always, is left out – find out through a phone call with Shiv’s husband Tom (Matthew Macfadyen) that their father Logan (Brian Cox) has suffered a heart attack and that they must say their goodbyes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2XAxyeKDXsg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Through technology – Roman’s iPhone and Tom’s Samsung, propped against Logan’s ear – the children share their emotional farewells. This proves one of the more emotional interactions with technology in a series otherwise littered with sterile, often absurd uses of technology. </p>
<p>This includes Kendall pinching to zoom in on a photo of his father’s will, heightening the drama as he seeks to ascertain whether his name has been underlined or crossed out as his successor.</p>
<p>And there are so many memorable tech moments. Gerri’s threat to publicly expose Roman’s “dick pics”. Kendall’s keynote at the Living Plus conference after his father’s death, where doctored footage of Logan haunts his presentation. </p>
<p>Cousin Greg (Nicholas Braun) stepping in for Tom to lay off ATN employees via Zoom with a brutal lightheartedness. Or PR executive Hugo (Fisher Stevens) being caught out chuckling at the ATN test reel of Kerry (Logan’s mistress), from behind a laptop screen. </p>
<h2>Technology and communication</h2>
<p>In the finale, scenes featuring technology operate in concert with one another. In episode five, Kill List, when the Waystar entourage travel to Norway to finalise the deal with Matsson (Alexander Skarsgård), the Swedes mock them in their native tongue, leaving them humiliated but in the dark.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bx5YL6Gac4c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>However, in the last episode, the tables are turned. Matsson and his sidekick are discussing Tom’s potential to replace Shiv as their future American CEO, not knowing that Greg is eavesdropping using a translation app. The tension is ramped up as Greg stares at the dot, dot, dot of the app while it translates sentence by sentence.</p>
<p>In a series where people rarely say what they think and second-guess everybody else, viewers delighted in the real time voice-to-text translation happening as the Swedes conversed. The dramatic irony is exquisite as the previous conversation, in which Tom makes his “pain sponge” pitch to Matsson, plays itself out. </p>
<p>This information bleeds into the subsequent scene in the Caribbean, where Kendall and Shiv have travelled to see Roman, who has retreated to his mother’s villa following his disastrous attempted eulogy at Logan’s funeral. Kendall receives a call from Greg confirming the intel about Shiv’s exclusion.</p>
<p>After confronting her with the news, she immediately phones Matsson, who does not answer. We listen to the dial tone in anticipation – the interface between information being passed and received, between digital and analogue, between Shiv’s potential triumph and her failure to become CEO.</p>
<p>United behind Kendall in their mission to sabotage the merger, the siblings join Connor at Logan’s apartment to claim his remaining possessions. They adjourn to a private room to review a video recording of their late father attending a dinner.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/77PsqaWzwG0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>A few minutes in, CFO Karl (David Rasche) sings Robert Burns’ Scottish folk melody <a href="http://www.robertburns.plus.com/greengrow.htm">Green Grow The Rashes O</a> – an aural symbol of Logan’s heritage, featured prominently in episode six of season two, Dundee. It is somewhat ironic, given Burns’ song’s message is that men who live only to pursue money and status do not live happy lives.</p>
<p>“You’re butchering it”, barks Logan across the table, as the camera pans to him and then back to Karl, capturing the Scotman’s emotional response in handheld camera work reminiscent of the footage of the opening credit sequence.</p>
<p>Teary-eyed, his children watch on. It’s an interface with the past, with the deceased, through a screen in a moment of nostalgia, reflection, commemoration and memory – for the characters and audiences alike.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/succession-and-scotland-logan-roy-and-the-art-of-nation-branding-204962">Succession and Scotland: Logan Roy and the art of 'nation branding'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Succession’s digital culture</h2>
<p>Every episode of Succssion has moments depicting characters interacting with technology such as these. And while technology is, from the start, both the narrative subject and a means of communication, it also plays a key role in forging and involving an online community of fans.</p>
<p>Succession’s digital culture is rife, evidenced by the 89,000 followers of <a href="https://instagram.com/kendallroylookingsad?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==">@kendallroylookingsad</a> on Instagram, viral fan theories on TikTok (such as @gigiontherun’s 2021 <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/succession-characters-tom-use-samsung-iphone-android-fan-theories-finale-2023-5?r=US&IR=T#:%7E:text=Some%20%22Succession%22%20viewers%20on%20Reddit,in%20the%20show%27s%20final%20season.">iPhone theory</a>), the analysis of the <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/SuccessionTV/comments/12i5rut/season_4_poster_significance/">season four promotional poster</a> on Reddit and the <a href="https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/458361243/Kendall-Roy-sad-mic">existence</a> of “sad Kendall” meme generators.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs09uTGNRjr/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>As I watched the series finale, I was constantly wondering which scenes would become memes, or inspire fan theories and new readings. More cynically, perhaps, I couldn’t help but ponder if the finale baited this very culture, whether through Matsson’s laidback “<a href="https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/succession-season-4-episode-5-lukas-matsson-alexander-skarsgard-style#:%7E:text=His%20uniform%20is%20one%20of,less%20Theranos%2C%20more%20Loch%20Ness.">gorpcore</a>” fashion or Tom placing a red-circle sticker on Greg’s forehead as a signal of ownership. </p>
<p>Checking Instagram on my phone the morning after the finale, there was one memorable standout from Instagram’s @kendallroylookingsad account, showing the defeated son looking out over New York harbour accompanied by the caption: “Sad because Kendall has looked sad for the last time.”</p>
<p>The post says it all – a singular example of technology being used to express feelings on a show which is about technology as much as it is about money, power and dysfunctional family. Succession’s spin-off digital culture is ultimately very meta, revealing how technology was not just a central theme of the show, but a means for fans to interact with it, even after its run has ended.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207381/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Samuel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How technology is central to the show’s most dramatic and pivotal moments – and how it might define its legacy.Michael Samuel, Lecturer in Digital Film & Television, Department of Film and Television, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2057272023-05-31T17:29:25Z2023-05-31T17:29:25ZMr. Associated Press: How 20th-century journalism titan Kent Cooper transformed the news industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528660/original/file-20230526-27-yc2h9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3988&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kent Cooper worked for the Associated Press for over four decades, changing the news media landscape in the process.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On the day of Kent Cooper’s funeral in February 1965, the flow of news through the international Associated Press network — the institution he spent a 40-year career building — came to a complete stop. </p>
<p>In scores of AP bureaus and thousands of newsrooms around the world, the printers that hammered out the news fell silent. </p>
<p>This tribute to a man who changed the kind of news millions of readers and listeners relied on, and opened the way for its global spread, lasted only a minute before the torrent of news resumed.</p>
<p>But it was AP’s highest honour, a vivid testimony to the institutional importance of the man widely known to journalists in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa as K.C.</p>
<p>Almost a century after Cooper became AP’s general manager, what can we learn from his career and the development of the institution he led? And what does it tell us about how journalism — including the international news system — evolved during the mid-20th century?</p>
<p>And what light might his career shed on today’s troubled news landscape, where organizations like Fox News systematically spread falsehoods that <a href="https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/fox-insiders-admit-even-fox-viewers-dont-trust-fox_partner/">even its own employees do not believe</a>? </p>
<h2>Human-interest news</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A book cover with a middle-aged white man in a suit on the cover and a black-and-white photograph of a newsroom in the background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529184/original/file-20230530-25-ddsjqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Book cover for ‘Mr. Associated Press: Kent Cooper and the Twentieth-Century World of News.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(University of Illinois Press)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During Cooper’s long tenure as a senior executive, general manager and executive director — as documented in <em><a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p087233">Mr. Associated Press</a></em>, my newly published biography of him — he changed AP, and the news that its readers and listeners depended on, in three major ways. </p>
<p>First, driven by competition with the United Press, AP’s great rival, Cooper loosened the strictures that made AP news colourless and dull (even if widely recognized for its accuracy and impartiality).</p>
<p>Editors of AP member newspapers were turning to the livelier and breezier (and, according to some AP supporters, less accurate) stories provided by UP. That could not be allowed to continue. </p>
<p>Cooper responded by embracing human-interest stories, entertainment, sports and other less traditionally newsworthy subjects. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black-and-white photo of a baseball player finishing a swing after hitting a pitch" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528669/original/file-20230526-21-zoasdt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New York Yankees’ Joe DiMaggio hits a solo home run in Game 5 of the World Series at the Polo Grounds in New York in October 1937. Cooper embraced less traditionally newsworthy subjects, like sports, during his tenure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“If one man fails to file a story of a millionairess marrying a poor factory hand because that man understands such a story is not properly A.P. stuff,” Cooper wrote in 1922, “such an error of news judgment ought to be generally made known to other employees.” </p>
<p>Journalism had to succeed in the market by offering readers what they wanted to read, rather than what journalists <em>thought</em> they ought to read.</p>
<h2>Moving beyond North America</h2>
<p>The second major change — one that Cooper spent more than 15 years fighting for — was loosening restrictions that prevented AP from distributing news outside North America. These restrictions were a product of AP’s earlier reliance on the British agency Reuters and its allies for almost all its international news. </p>
<p>While many AP directors considered the Reuters connection an essential foundation of AP’s dominance of the U.S. newspaper market, Cooper insisted AP could succeed on its own. By doing so, AP could also change its relationships with European news agencies that were often controlled or heavily subsidized by their respective governments. </p>
<p>By 1945, his campaign had succeeded: AP was poised to sell North American-style news everywhere in the world with virtually no restrictions. This development gave readers in other countries access to a different kind of journalism than they were familiar with. It also raised questions about American influence beyond its borders that remain relevant today. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black-and-white photo of journalists working in a newsroom" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528668/original/file-20230526-17-6lc99m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Staffers work on election night at the Washington bureau of the Associated Press on Nov. 3, 1964.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In his relentless pursuit of expansion, Cooper sometimes conveniently set aside his public opposition to government-subsidized or government-controlled news. For instance, he maintained close connections with the Nazi-controlled German news agency Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro after 1934, and consistently played down limits on <a href="https://www.ap.org/about/history/ap-in-germany-1933-1945">the work of international correspondents in Germany</a>. </p>
<p>Despite Cooper’s failure to denounce Nazi press restrictions, AP wasn’t actively involved in spreading German propaganda. Its alliance with Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro ended after Germany declared war on the United States in December 1941.</p>
<p>Cooper also established an alliance with the Japanese news agency Rengo, despite knowing it was heavily subsidized by Japan’s militaristic and imperialist government.</p>
<p>The trade-off between access and acceptance of limits by authoritarian regimes on what can be reported remains a major problem for journalists today, as is the case with <a href="https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/china-foreign-journalists-face-travel-restrictions-harassment">Western news organizations in China</a>.</p>
<h2>Embracing technology</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A black-and-white photo of a man operating a wire service machine" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528667/original/file-20230526-21-fbg6z6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">AP Wirephoto operator Harold King demonstrates transmission equipment at Associated Press headquarters in New York, circa 1950.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Corporate Archives)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cooper was a visionary when it came to adopting new technologies. </p>
<p>Although many AP members feared radio in the 1920s and 1930s as a dangerous competitor for advertising revenue, Cooper understood from the start that radio could not, and should not, be resisted — a conclusion that has clear resonance in the age of digital journalism.</p>
<p>He also pioneered the development of same-day news photography by wire, permanently changing daily journalism’s repertoire of storytelling methods.</p>
<p>Before the advent of AP’s Wirephoto, photographs were delivered by mail, train or airplane, often taking days to reach their destination. Wirephoto revolutionized the process by allowing images to be transmitted in minutes.</p>
<h2>Commitment to facts and accuracy</h2>
<p>One thing that Cooper did not change was AP’s commitment to factual accuracy and political neutrality — a rejection of the <a href="https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/">virulent partisanship that dominated U.S. journalism for most of the 19th century, and that is now returning</a>.</p>
<p>On the factual side, few things caused him, and AP, more grief than high-profile errors. In one memorable case in 1935, AP falsely reported that the murderer of Charles Lindbergh’s baby had been sentenced to life in prison, rather than receiving the death penalty.</p>
<p>Such errors led to immediate investigations of what had gone wrong, embarrassed and apologetic corrections, and severe consequences including firing of those responsible. </p>
<p>In these cases, competition between AP and UP focused on which agency’s news was faster and more reliable, a marked contrast to the dissemination of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/08/unique-role-fox-news-misinformation-universe/">ideologically driven falsehoods</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/technology/misinformation-integrity-institute-report.html">social media misinformation</a> that we see today. </p>
<p>Cooper was not perfect, and neither was AP during the years that he led it, but its basic journalistic values stand out sharply against the backdrop of our current fractured news landscape.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gene Allen has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from Indiana University (Everett Helm Fellowship).</span></em></p>During Cooper’s long tenure as a senior executive, general manager and executive director, he changed the Associated Press and the news its readers and listeners depended on, in major ways.Gene Allen, Adjunct Professor, Journalism/Communication and Culture, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1086642019-01-10T11:51:26Z2019-01-10T11:51:26ZWith foreign bureaus slashed, freelancers are filling the void – at their own risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253108/original/file-20190109-32151-cqjtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Documentary filmmaker Janet Jarman works on her film about midwives in Mexico.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matt Cipollone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Time magazine <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/times-person-of-the-year-honors-jamal-khashoggi-and-the-guardians-of-the-truth">named journalists</a> who faced persecution, arrest or murder as their 2018 Person of the Year, it described them as “The Guardians” in the “War on Truth.”</p>
<p>It was a forceful rebuke to those who demean journalists as peddlers of “fake news” and the “enemy of the people.” But for freelancers who risk their lives in conflict zones, recognition does little to change the fact that they lack steady paychecks and security. </p>
<p>For decades, most leading media outlets have shuttered news bureaus abroad and cut the number of foreign correspondents on staff.</p>
<p>Since then, freelancers have increasingly filled the void. These include both Western journalists working in conflict zones around the world, as well as local journalists working in their own non-Western countries.</p>
<h2>Foreign staffers the first to go</h2>
<p>I became a freelance foreign correspondent when I moved to Mexico City in 1977. Two years later, I was a staff correspondent for United Press International. </p>
<p>At the time, Mexico was home to scores of staff and freelance journalists covering not just Mexico but also Central America and the Caribbean. But the number of both staff and freelance journalists based there has since declined, partly because the outlets for their work have downsized or disappeared, according to my interviews with colleagues who remain at their posts in the Mexican capital.</p>
<p>The change in Mexico wasn’t an isolated one. Beginning the late 1980s, the number of full-time staff journalists posted in foreign cities to cover stories of global importance started to drop. Studies showed this trend accelerated in the 2000s.</p>
<p>As journalist Sherry Ricchiardi noted in a 2008 article published by the <a href="http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4429">American Journalism Review</a>, “Foreign bureaus continue to fall like dominoes. The Boston Globe closed the last of its three international offices in Berlin, Bogotá and Jerusalem earlier this year. The Baltimore Sun plans to shut down South Africa and Russia by the end of 2007 and already has left China.” </p>
<p>In a groundbreaking 2004 report, “<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236123123_Redefining_Foreign_Correspondence">Redefining Foreign Correspondence</a>,” authors John Maxwell Hamilton and Eric Jenner wrote that economic pressures, globalization and technological advances have all led to the “chronic decline” of the full-time foreign correspondent.</p>
<p>Hamilton and Jenner noted that newspapers were budgeting over $250,000 a year to support a foreign correspondent, with networks paying up to twice that amount for a television correspondent and their production team.</p>
<p>These estimates were from 2004. Today – especially in conflict zones – the cost of insurance and security measures could push the price for a staff correspondent or a TV crew much higher.</p>
<h2>Survival of the fittest</h2>
<p>Freelancers – much cheaper to employ – have largely taken the place of salaried correspondents.</p>
<p>Journalists that value flexibility and the chance to pursue stories that inspire them might now have more opportunities to get bylines in mainstream outlets.</p>
<p>But freelancing is tough work, and freelancers lack the support, preparation and security typically granted to staffers.</p>
<p>As photojournalist Dominic Bracco told me during a recent interview for my “<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-freelance-reporters-risk-their-lives-on-the-front-line?fbclid=IwAR00blPyMkkWzVGvEOHDgsMhl0X_CXVdY6tCSbIZwr7I5s7i8OE6j6NY2gg&source=facebook&via=desktop">Freelancers</a>” documentary series on foreign correspondents, “It’s difficult. There’s a lot of competition. There’s a lot of great people. You have to be better and smarter to survive. To make it in this career you have to work your ass off.”</p>
<p>Like many other freelancers, Dominic and his wife, Meghan Dhaliwal, also a photojournalist, spend much of their time pitching stories to a wide range of outlets, applying for grants, entering contests and forging personal relationships with editors.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252950/original/file-20190108-32151-ngindh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘You have to work your ass off,’ freelancer Dominic Bracco says.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matt Cipollone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like most relationships, a freelancer’s connection with editors is founded on trust that’s built by producing outstanding work on deadline. </p>
<p>But freelancers, too often, are victims of a level of exploitation that most staffers don’t experience.</p>
<p>In a blistering <a href="https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/vice_freelancers.php">Columbia Journalism Review article</a> about Vice News’ treatment of freelancers, Yardena Schwartz wrote that “in an era of journalism in which freelancers have grown accustomed to being treated like disposable cogs of news production, Vice appears to be in a league of its own.”</p>
<p>While freelancers are accustomed to late payment for their work, Vice seems to have simply stiffed many of its freelancers. </p>
<p>“Journalists who have worked for Vice tell CJR that the company published their work without paying them for it, promised them assignments which were later rescinded, and asked reporters for their help with documentaries that covered issues they had written about without any plans to pay them for their work,” Schwartz reported. </p>
<p>During <a href="https://opcofamerica.org/Eventposts/video-panel-following-freelancers-screening-with-bill-gentile/?fbclid=IwAR28jtohf9PgrXYRwVrQ_dZdtsRrKFsPUCxM6j-aqK58LbqQ6BznY7xxpzk#.W-7YZU3iIOc.facebook">a recent panel discussion</a> on freelancing at the Overseas Press Club in New York City, one foreign-based freelancer said he was visiting New York partly to pressure outlets that collectively owed him a total of $60,000 in late payments.</p>
<p>Staff correspondents rarely have to deal with issues like those cited in the Columbia Journalism Review article or at the Overseas Press Club. Most get monthly paychecks, medical insurance and regular hours. Before being sent overseas to a conflict zone, most now get safety and security courses, plus emergency medical training. If they ever are hurt or abducted, they and their families can count on their company’s support. </p>
<p>For example, in 1989, members of Peru’s Shining Path Maoist guerrilla group abducted Newsweek magazine staff correspondent Joe Contreras and me in that country’s cocaine-producing Upper Huallaga Valley. The magazine did all it could to rescue us before the guerrillas set us free two days after we were captured.</p>
<h2>Venturing into the dark</h2>
<p>Despite these obstacles, foreign-based freelancers continue to venture into some of the most complex and dangerous regions of the world. </p>
<p>Many report on crucial stories. </p>
<p>In 2013, freelancer Jason Motlagh spent nearly three months in Bangladesh reporting on the collapse of the <a href="https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/asia-bangledash-garment-industy-rana-plaza-building-collapse-fast-fashion-factory-foreign-owners-negligence-disaster">Rana Plaza</a> building, the worst accident in the history of the garment industry and one that cost more than 1,200 lives. </p>
<p>In 2018, <a href="https://www.nytco.com/press/christina-goldbaum-joins-metro/">Christina Goldbaum joined The New York Times</a> after having worked four years as a freelance foreign correspondent in East Africa, where she spent a year in Somalia reporting on U.S. national security issues. While in Mogadishu she reported on <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/strong-evidence-that-us-special-operations-forces-massacred-civilians-in-somalia">the role of the U.S. military in the massacre of 10 civilians</a>, the buildup of a <a href="https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw7nw3/somalia-is-looking-like-another-full-blown-us-war">secretive U.S. military outpost</a> 70 miles outside of the city, and details surrounding the <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-inside-the-secret-mission-that-got-a-navy-seal-killed-in-africa?ref=author">first two U.S. combat deaths</a> in Somalia since Black Hawk Down. </p>
<p>Few staffers have the latitude to work on stories like these for such extended periods of time. If it weren’t for these two freelancers, the public would understand much less about the tragic human cost of fashion clothing produced in Bangladesh, or about the expansion of U.S. military activity in Africa.</p>
<p>Yet freelancers around the world often find themselves in harm’s way. In its annual report, the <a href="https://cpj.org/data/imprisoned/2018/?status=Imprisoned&employedAs%5B%5D=Freelance&start_year=2018&end_year=2018&group_by=location">Committee to Protect Journalists</a> found that, as of Dec. 1, 2018, 251 journalists had been jailed for their work; of that total, 75 were freelancers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252949/original/file-20190108-32154-c8r4e5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Freelancer Ioan Grillo points to a hole in a drainage tunnel underneath the city of Nogales, at the U.S.-Mexico border. Drug traffickers often cut through the tunnel wall to get into the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matt Cipollone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps in recognition of the more prominent role freelancers play in global news coverage, we’ve seen, in recent years, the emergence of organizations dedicated to supporting freelancers.</p>
<p>One of the most wide-reaching of groups offering support is the <a href="https://www.acosalliance.org/?fbclid=IwAR2esUrpVrm8a8RXAMPyH2hYZaotNmlqnnbkKVVe2rYADWYJgFIfObMGx5c">ACOS Alliance</a>, a London-based coalition whose mission specifically is designed “to embed a culture of safety across newsrooms and among freelance and local journalists worldwide.”</p>
<p>Other groups offering assistance to freelancers are the <a href="https://pulitzercenter.org/">Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting</a> and Sebastian Junger’s <a href="http://www.sebastianjunger.com/risc/">Reporters Instructed in Saving Colleagues</a>.</p>
<p>As mainstream media increasingly turn their gaze from places far away toward internal issues, it is freelancers who take up the mantle of “guardians” of the truth.</p>
<p>Without them, our view of the world dims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108664/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Gentile does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gone are the support, preparation and security typically granted to staff correspondents.Bill Gentile, Journalist in Residence, American University School of CommunicationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1012922018-08-10T10:41:35Z2018-08-10T10:41:35ZProfit, not free speech, governs media companies’ decisions on controversy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231184/original/file-20180808-191013-13uar8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What causes a media business to bar the door?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blocked-door-abandoned-house-background-597346598">yanin kongurai/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, U.S. media companies have limited the content they’ve offered based on what’s good for business. The decisions by <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17655516/infowars-ban-apple-youtube-facebook-spotify">Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/audiences-love-the-anger-alex-jones-or-someone-like-him-will-be-back-101168">remove content from commentator Alex Jones and his InfoWars platform</a> follow this same pattern.</p>
<p>My <a href="https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/understanding-media-industries-9780190215323?cc=us&lang=en&">research on media industries</a> makes clear that government rules and regulations do little to limit what television shows, films, music albums, video games and social media content are available to the public. Business concerns about profitability are much stronger restrictions. Movies are given ratings based on their content not by government officials but by the <a href="https://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/">Motion Picture Association of America</a>, an industry group. Television companies, for their part, often have departments handling what are called “<a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/standardsand.htm">standards and practices</a>” – reviewing content and suggesting or demanding changes to avoid offending audiences or advertisers.</p>
<p>The self-policing by movie studios and TV networks is very similar to YouTube’s and Facebook’s actions: Distributing extremely controversial content is bad for business. Offended viewers will turn away from the program and may choose to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/target-prime-time-9780195063202?cc=us&lang=en&">boycott the network or service</a> – reducing the size of audiences that can be sold to advertisers. Some alarmed viewers may even urge boycotts of the advertisers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/media/sexual-harassment-bill-oreilly-fox.html">whose messages air during controversial programming</a>. </p>
<p>Over the decades, television networks have internalized feedback from advertisers and unintended controversies to try to steer clear of negative attention. <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/facebook-and-apple-moved-the-goal-posts-to-ban-alex-jones-thats-encouraging.html">Social media companies</a> <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/youtube-bans-alex-jones-following-facebook-and-apples-lead/">are just beginning</a> to understand <a href="https://apnews.com/6d0a9467a997409cafd70a86d01e7093">these forces are at work</a> in their own industries as well. </p>
<h2>Self-regulation to avoid government intrusion</h2>
<p>The practices of media industries to police themselves arose over many years, as companies tried to appease public concern without triggering formal government supervision. This pleased all sides: Elected and appointed officials avoided having to do much of anything that might look like squashing free speech, companies avoided formal restrictions that might be quite severe, and concerned citizens had their objections heard and acted upon.</p>
<p>When concerns about the amount of sex and violence on broadcast television developed in the 1970s, the networks agreed – with strong encouragement from the federal government – to establish a “<a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/familyviewin.htm">Family Hour</a>” during the first hour of prime-time programming that was monitored by the National Association of Broadcasters. Music labels agreed to place “Parental Advisory” labels on <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2010/10/29/130905176/you-ask-we-answer-parental-advisory---why-when-how">albums with explicit lyrics</a>. Inspired by moviemakers, video game developers adopted ratings based on evaluations by an industry group, the <a href="https://www.esrb.org/about/">Entertainment Software Ratings Board</a>.</p>
<p>There is, though, a key difference between those industries and the situation of YouTube and Facebook. Movie studios, record labels and TV companies are responsible for making their content as well as distributing it – and are legally liable for any problems that might arise. </p>
<p>Online media companies, though, typically don’t create most of what appears on their platforms, and are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-law-that-made-facebook-what-it-is-today-93931">expressly protected from legal responsibility</a> for the content of the messages others post. But hosting information publicly viewed as hateful can damage a business, even if it doesn’t run afoul of government rules.</p>
<h2>Challenges of social media content regulation</h2>
<p>Social media companies have achieved their <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/25/facebook-2-5-billion-people/">ubiquity</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/technology/sun-may-be-setting-on-social-media-stocks-14676996">high profits</a> because they do not have to pay for creating the content that attracts attention to their services. They reap the financial rewards of a technological advantage in which billions of users can create, share and look at different messages and pieces of content every day.</p>
<p>They are just beginning to understand the downside to that technological advantage, which is that the public – even if not the law – considers them at least somewhat responsible for what is said on their sites. And it’s <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/facebook-privacy-scandal-has-a-plus-thousands-of-new-jobs-ai-cant-do.html">extremely difficult to sort through</a>, classify and police all those billions of posts – much less to figure out how to <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-facebook-use-ai-to-fight-online-abuse-95203">automate some of those tasks</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alex Jones, banned from many social media platforms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Jones_Portrait.jpg">Michael Zimmermann</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, social media sites have avoided limiting content except in the most extreme cases, because it is difficult to draw lines of acceptability that don’t produce more controversy themselves. Their decision likely included weighing the effects of the objections that would erupt if they did ban Jones against what might happen to their brands <a href="https://apnews.com/6d0a9467a997409cafd70a86d01e7093">if they didn’t</a>. </p>
<p>In the past, self-regulation often allowed media companies to evade governmental action. It is unclear whether these latest moves by social media companies are the start of lasting self-regulation or a one-off effort to quell current concern. Either way, their decisions are all about what is good for business. </p>
<p>Their response to outcry may be craven, but it might suggest these companies are recognizing the cultural power of their products. Ultimately, social media companies – like other media companies – are showing that they will respond to pressure from their audiences and the marketplace. In the absence of regulation, consumers will encourage companies to change policies by opting out of social media that enable cesspools of trolling and hate.</p>
<p>Users who want changes made should take note of how audiences have pressured other media industries to make changes in the past. Consumers who want greater privacy controls, environments free of hate speech, and different kinds of algorithms could demand them by leaving flawed services or boycotting the advertisers that support them. As demand for alternatives becomes clearer, services will change or a competitor will arise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While they may talk about ‘free speech,’ businesses make decisions about their content based on a very different set of principles.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768432017-05-02T02:34:58Z2017-05-02T02:34:58ZPolitics don’t explain ESPN’s subscriber decline<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167380/original/file-20170501-17307-1kzkkju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Connecticut.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/ESPN/eadc494ceaef4d98a559840ee5a2f7bf/34/0">AP Photo/Jessica Hill</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent months, ESPN has come under fire from liberals and conservatives. Some progressives are urging fans <a href="https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/boycott-the-n-f-l/">to boycott</a> the network’s NFL broadcasts due to the league’s tolerance of off-field violence and its hesitancy to deal with brain injuries. Meanwhile, conservatives have been claiming that viewers are turning away from the channel due to its coverage of social issues and its “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/sports/espn-layoffs-sports-politics-bias.html">liberal bias</a>.” Most recently, ESPN host Jemele Hill’s controversial comments about President Trump <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2017/09/15/trump-demands-apology-from-espn-following-white-supremacist-comment/">sparked a conservative backlash</a>.</p>
<p>ESPN’s subscribers and revenue are, in fact, <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it">in decline</a>. But this trend started <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/being-espn-means-never-having-to-say-sorry">six years ago</a>, well before any of the incidents those who blame politics cite. </p>
<p>Instead, there’s plenty of evidence that ESPN’s subscriber drops are part of a broader readjustment taking place in the U.S. television industry. </p>
<p>My recent book, “<a href="http://www.amandalotz.com/portals-a-treatise-on-internetdistributed-television/">Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television</a>,” explores how new ways to access television are disrupting the television industry. ESPN’s loss of viewers has drawn so much attention because many thought the network was invincible. But internet competition has challenged many sectors of the industry – ESPN included – while providing unexpected opportunities for others. </p>
<h2>What happened?</h2>
<p>It’s worth noting that ESPN is unique among cable channels. </p>
<p>Most cable channels earn revenue from both subscriber fees and advertising. But ESPN receives far more from fees than most. </p>
<p>Every month, cable and satellite providers pay ESPN between US$6 and $7 per household to offer the channel – a cost that’s part of the monthly bills subscribers pay. As a comparison, most channels receive less than 50 cents per household; many get less than a quarter. <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">According to analysis by Variety</a>, the second highest subscriber fee after ESPN is for TNT at $1.58 per household.</p>
<p>ESPN is able to negotiate such a high fee from cable providers because it has purchased exclusive licenses to many major sports events. </p>
<p>Live sports draw the largest U.S. television audiences: Sports programs delivered <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/tops-of-2016-tv.html">nine of the top 10</a> U.S. television audiences in 2016. Even in an era of DVRs and video on demand, live sporting events remain “must-see” viewing. Realizing the importance of ESPN’s programming to many viewers, cable and satellite providers paid steady increases to maintain ESPN. The thinking goes that if they can’t offer ESPN, they’ll lose subscribers to competitors that do. </p>
<p>ESPN also earns considerable revenue from advertising, with opportunities for in-game sponsorships, in addition to the usual commercial breaks. </p>
<p>So over the past decade, while much of the rest of the television industry has grappled with losing viewers, advertisers, and revenue to disruptive new ways to watch shows on demand, ESPN seemed immune to the changes. </p>
<p>ESPN had 94.4 million subscribers in 2015 who paid an estimated average of <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">$6.61 per month</a>. Multiplied by 12 months, that produced yearly subscriber revenue of more than $7.48 billion. ESPN banked on that revenue when it established multi-year licenses with professional sports leagues, including a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html">$15.2 billion deal</a> for rights to NFL games through 2021, an eight-year, <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/37476712//">$5.6 billion</a> agreement with the MLB and a <a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/10/06/Media/NBA-media.aspx">$12.6 billion</a> deal for NBA games that runs through 2025. </p>
<p>ESPN made these deals thinking that subscriber revenue would never decrease. But it has.</p>
<h2>Television’s evolution</h2>
<p>The television industry has been undergoing considerable changes for over a decade, but the pace and scale of these changes have <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-2015-was-the-year-that-changed-tv-forever-52422">escalated since 2015</a>. </p>
<p>Cable channels are feeling the pain of this change in two ways. First, internet-distributed portals such as Netflix and YouTube now offer programming and new ways to watch TV. They’ve <a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/features/broadcast-nets-move-closer-to-developing-ratings-that-consider-auds-delayed-viewing-habits-1201430321/">siphoned viewers</a> (and advertising revenue) from cable and broadcast networks.</p>
<p>Second, cable channels now reach fewer homes. Some homes have canceled their cable service entirely. Others have moved to more affordable, somewhat more customizable packages – “<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-hulu-and-google-upend-the-tv-industry-in-2017-70248">skinny bundles</a>” that offer fewer channels but more choice. As one of the most widely available – and most expensive – channels, ESPN was particularly vulnerable. It reached <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/">7.4 percent fewer homes in 2017</a> than in 2015, resulting in a massive loss of subscriber revenue.</p>
<p>Other channels, from A&E to USA, also confront these struggles. But these channels aren’t committed to multi-year, billion-dollar deals with professional sports leagues. Until the deals can be renegotiated, ESPN is slashing costs where it can: its personnel.</p>
<h2>Will sports broadcasting see a huge disruption?</h2>
<p>The crisis at ESPN developed because of the lack of competition. ESPN’s monthly fee grew so high because cable providers had no choice but to pay it; there was no alternative channel that also provided these games. Subscribers had no way to vent frustration because ESPN prevented cable systems from offering the channel on a separate “sports tier.” Subscribing to cable required receiving ESPN and the substantial monthly cost it added. This has been the case for some time, but the disruption introduced by streaming services has created competition and at last triggered an adjustment. </p>
<p>Flush with subscriber revenue, ESPN allowed the escalation of what could be called the “sports-industrial complex,” enabling <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nfl-made-13-billion-last-season-see-how-it-stacks-up-against-other-leagues-2016-07-01">rich profits for sports leagues</a> and teams and escalating player and coach salaries. The profitability of sports depends on these television deals. </p>
<p>Just as the rest of the television industry struggles with new competitors and new norms, there is no way for ESPN to go back to its previous position of demanding high subscriber fees and forcing all cable subscribers to subsidize its programming. </p>
<p>Some sports leagues are using internet distribution to cut out broadcast and cable middlemen entirely and now sell directly to their viewers. <a href="http://www.cablefax.com/programming/wwe-network-approaches-2-million-subs">WWE wrestling</a> switched to this model in 2014. The major sports leagues currently benefit from channels’ willingness to pay high license fees and bear the risk of a changing market. When those fees diminish, they may follow WWE and sell access to their games directly to fans. </p>
<p>Once the leagues identify that there is more revenue in selling directly to fans and selling advertising themselves, sports television could experience a seismic disruption. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on May 1, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In sports media – as in sports – no one is invincible.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/581192016-05-02T10:07:46Z2016-05-02T10:07:46ZPoised to make its next big move, Netflix isn’t in the business you think it’s in<p>Netflix has been in the headlines a lot recently, and not in a good way. </p>
<p>There’s news about competitor <a href="http://variety.com/2016/digital/opinion/netflix-need-not-fear-new-amazon-prime-spinoff-service-1201755646/">Amazon launching a monthly video service</a>, <a href="http://ktla.com/2016/04/19/netflix-prices-are-going-up-heres-when-youll-have-to-pay-more/">subscription fees</a> going up, its <a href="http://time.com/4272360/the-number-of-movies-on-netflix-is-dropping-fast/">library of content</a> shrinking and <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/18/netflix-lowers-its-forecast-for-global-subscriber-growth/wbEyEykPfqhCPapouvmWlO/story.html">lower global subscriber gains</a> than the company had anticipated.</p>
<p>But since its launch in 1997, Netflix has always been in the headlines.<br>
Its forays into new territory are often met with suspicion and negative forecasts because of the way it diverges from traditional business models, doing things others have deemed impossible. </p>
<p>As a professor of media studies who researches and <a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9781479865253/">writes</a> about TV’s changing business and technological landscape, I’ve been watching Netflix’s growth and evolution with great curiosity. The company, which arguably invented the U.S. subscription streaming business, continues to change how we view television. </p>
<p>Now, as Netflix braces itself to disrupt the model of global television distribution, the company appears poised to remain influential – though, again, in unexpected ways.</p>
<h2>It started with a red envelope</h2>
<p>For a brief refresher: Netflix began as a video rental by mail service. It then pioneered broadband video distribution, forcing the television and film industries to evolve or be left behind. Next it proved a broadband-distributed service could produce its own films and series.</p>
<p>The latest round of headlines comes as the company pivots toward its next endeavor: becoming a global television and film network.</p>
<p>Like many companies seeking to enter established industries, Netflix built itself on a barely sustainable business model. Companies that require changes in consumer behavior – like Amazon, with its vast online marketplace – will endure low profit margins for a period of time to encourage people to try their service, whether it’s renting DVDs by mail or buying toothpaste from what you thought was a bookseller.</p>
<p>In Netflix’s case, in order to prove itself as a source of top-rate programming, the company has spent lavishly on licensing content from studios and on developing its own series and movies. All the while, it maintained a low monthly fee of US$8 – about half that of HBO Now.</p>
<p>But now that many millions of U.S. subscribers have come to appreciate the experience of ad-free television and films on demand, long-term sustainability requires increasing profitability. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://redef.com/original/the-state-and-future-of-netflix-v-hbo-in-2015">2015 report</a> by industry analyst Matthew Ball noted that Netflix earned only a monthly profit of $.28 per subscriber (compared with $3.65 for HBO) as a result of its high programming costs, low subscription price and global expansion. Though profitable – which is more than many new media economy businesses can claim – such margins aren’t feasible in the long term.</p>
<p>Now, the company is simply adjusting prices to increase profits. </p>
<p>Notably, even with the planned rate increase, few entertainment sources offer comparable value. A January 2016 <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/average-daily-netflix-usage-according-to-btig-research-2015-4">analysis by BTIG Research</a> found the average Netflix subscriber streams two hours a day. That average subscriber will pay just 17 cents per hour of content after the increase to $10 per month.</p>
<h2>Going global by cutting out the middleman</h2>
<p>For U.S. subscribers, it is important to note the company’s next aspirations are more about the global market and becoming a global television network than growing its U.S. audience. Netflix’s ability to create original programs and simultaneously self-distribute them internationally marks a new stage of competition in media distribution. </p>
<p>This has enormous implications for the business of television. Admittedly, they’re the parts of the business that most viewers know nothing about, but they’re parts that are nonetheless critical to sustaining media companies.</p>
<p>Netflix’s next strategy bets on <a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/vertical-integration.html">vertical integration</a> – that is, on owning its content and using its distribution system to deliver that content to its subscribers. Owning rights and distributing direct to viewers allows Netflix to keep all revenues, rather than sharing with distributors. For example, a distributor such as iTunes keeps roughly 30 percent of the revenue from the albums, tracks or films it sells.</p>
<p>Reliance on vertical integration is becoming more common throughout television. Ten years ago, AMC contracted with Lionsgate Television to produce “Mad Men.” As was the norm, <a href="https://theouttake.net/mad-men-and-cable-s-prestige-loss-leader-economics-964046dc9876#.m4sg4vqmy">Lionsgate later sold</a> the series to various channels around the world to earn back the costs of production and even secured a lucrative licensing deal with Netflix. Now AMC has its own AMC Studios to produce “The Walking Dead” and has purchased channels around the globe so that it can self-distribute its hits to a wider audience.</p>
<p>While this new stage of Netflix may be best thought of as a global “network,” the fact that it offers a library of content for a fee, rather than a schedule that limits viewers to watching programs at certain times, makes it part of a wholly new phenomenon. </p>
<p>And new things are often tricky to evaluate.</p>
<p>Music streaming services Pandora and Spotify have tried a similar model, but continue to struggle with converting users from advertiser-supported versions into more lucrative subscription versions. Oddly, the closest precursor for Netflix’s business model may be the circulating libraries of the 1700s. </p>
<p>These libraries existed before public libraries, when books were too expensive for most to afford. Like Netflix, subscribers paid a periodic fee for unlimited access to a library of content. For Netflix, the big difference from these libraries – and from music streaming services – is that they are owning more and more of the content that they’re distributing.</p>
<h2>It’s not TV, it’s Netflix</h2>
<p>The measures long used to evaluate television – ratings, demographics, time slot – don’t matter to Netflix. </p>
<p>Instead, the value of an original series like “Narcos” comes when the company owns the series in perpetuity and can distribute it on a global scale. When a distributor owns a show, its value cannot be measured by how many watch it in the first week, month or even year. Netflix is building a library, not a schedule.</p>
<p>Interestingly, HBO is its closest competitor. Like Netflix, HBO produces a portion of its content, has a business model based on subscriber fees and is working toward a global broadband-distributed service. </p>
<p>Both will try to find the right balance of subscriber fees and spending on exclusive, original content to maintain subscribers. As broadband-distributed services, they also are able to gather data about <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflixs-grand-maybe-crazy-plan-conquer-world/">what subscribers watch</a> to learn much more about viewing patterns and the value of each piece of content. And they’ve kept that knowledge to themselves, creating an unprecedented advantage. </p>
<p>In some ways, broadband-distributed portals such as Netflix and HBO Now are merely the <a href="http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/bc-beat/guest-blog-how-ott-hides-television-s-revolution/154442">next stage of television</a>. </p>
<p>Just as Netflix revolutionized the experience of watching television for U.S. audiences, it’s now on the verge of rewriting the model of global television distribution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Because Netflix continually upends established business models, evaluating the company can difficult.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537802016-02-04T11:07:42Z2016-02-04T11:07:42ZHow much screen time is good for kids?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110217/original/image-20160203-5865-1ludk9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The amount of time kids are spending on mobile devices is increasing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/evilpeacock/7995093526/in/photolist-dbuWL7-8mH899-xYYgVR-b9wwoM-kcD3Ay-kcHAzM-AfPQQq-8NXk47-kcDg8Y-85HENX-gxwLuQ-an5EvZ-b9wqCB-b9w8wT-9tFtKQ-cY3VHm-e9EQpy-b9wbdx-b9wQJa-b9wVFR-b9wUnD-b9w8HX-b9wbY4-b9wcde-vGsUaD-dn2xBJ-b9wYue-dp5QNH-hbpmJK-9q6SKX-b9wXft-pjWaWj-b9wG9T-cTmSxE-b9wCbn-b9wr6x-b9wPk2-b9wFPk-b9wsuz-b9wCoc-h9J4Wk-h9GR9S-b9wYQi-b9wcpp-b9wYDz-b9weMv-b9wF1K-cTmK6W-cTmNEu-9u2AAS">Eric Peacock</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2011, the <a href="https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/pages/media-and-children.aspx">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> (AAP) released a bold recommendation: children under the age of two should not watch any television, and slightly older children should be limited to two hours of screen time per day. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/zero-to-eight-2013.pdf">recent report</a> shows that children’s screen time continues to increase: in 2013, 38 percent of kids under two were found to have used a mobile device for media, compared to 10 percent in 2011. The number of children using mobile devices on a daily basis has more than doubled during this period – from 8 percent to 17 percent. </p>
<p>The AAP has <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/pediatricians-rethink-screen-time-policy-for-children-1444671636">announced</a> that it will be revising its screen time policies this fall to reflect current trends in technology use among U.S. families.</p>
<p>This fast-growing media industry – and more specifically the growing market for children’s media – poses the inevitable questions for parents: whether screen time is bad for children and whether children can learn during screen time.</p>
<h2>What children learn from screens</h2>
<p>There is substantial evidence that preschool children can learn from educational media. </p>
<p>For example, a 2001 <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654391?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">study</a> showed that watching educational programs at ages two and three could improve academic skills, including reading, vocabulary and math. These kids performed better on standardized tests and general school readiness assessments, when tested some years later. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110218/original/image-20160203-5834-w59p62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Educational programs such as ‘Sesame Street’ can improve academic skills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/reneeanddolan/6867488077/in/photolist-bsREWR-bsRED8-5G5zqr-t8TM29-tbdACx-sep1fk-tbg1xZ-7Rn8TW-sep7vB-shDP4F-8KDkHy-swQaFq-5ZXQRP-5NVZZ9-iNP4J-62QG6R-6132Sh-7iNHjr-7iNHkF-7iN9Ne-7iRay9-7iRaxL-7iNHkn-7iN9Pz-7iN9P6-7iRaxG-7iRaxo-7iRaxW-7iN9NK-7iN9Pr-8mK9hi-2yqnvB-8215HP-8TqmXg-6mmF7-8Xdkmz-613211-5ZXQdv-iNPaS-iNP87-5ZXPf6-7fMr1F-7fNxUB-7fMgni-7fMqvx-7fNifH-7fSuRo-7fSzJA-7fNCRX-7fNhGx">Dolan Halbrook</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A more recent <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21229">study</a> that examined the long-term effects of watching “Sesame Street” from the time the show first aired in 1969 found that kids who watched the program showed better academic skills.</p>
<p>The researchers reported that children who lived in areas that had access to the show were about 14 percent less likely to fall behind in school than children who did not have access. This effect was especially pronounced for children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.</p>
<p>Similar learning benefits have been reported for other educational programs as well. For example, one <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/96/2/297/">study</a> reported that kindergarteners who viewed “Between the Lions” (a PBS show designed to promote reading) scored higher on standardized tests of reading skill than those who did not watch the show.</p>
<h2>Here’s a cautionary note about infants</h2>
<p>However, this does not mean that all children can learn from educational media, that every show is educational and that there aren’t better ways to learn. </p>
<p>Children do not necessarily learn from every television show they watch. The same 2001 <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654391?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">study</a> that reported that children who watch educational programs score better on standardized tests also reported that preschool children who watched noneducational, general audience programs showed <em>poorer</em> performance on standardized tests of vocabulary and math than those who did not. </p>
<p>Furthermore, there is little evidence that infants under the age of two can learn from educational media at all, including television and touchscreens. </p>
<p>In fact, it is unclear whether infants under two can even understand the content of what they see on television and whether they can <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdep.12041/abstract">transfer</a> information that they see in a two-dimensional format to the real world.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110219/original/image-20160203-5865-106bb6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There is little evidence that infants gain from educational media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kjrokos/4744111003/in/photolist-8edNVi-daMq6L-eQGdNf-JtLC6-qiYeF-qiYdY-qiYcT-qiYbx-qiYai-byzwtZ-apuzUZ-pbE7bn-sdgEgj-8w3ARY-9hxsRA-aboX87-4xE3tw-6mRCMD-4AUNRB-EfLfU-4WjHpH-6r88uo-HmEri-6vyNHd-5YcKLt-5RstbC-6uoXJG-6uoY35-6nJRi2-oq6VuU-6uoXtU-oEytmw-oq6xzy-34bnjV-6ujMDn-qCSkfz-7PcpF4-7MJBQZ-9DJ3w2-yo5YZa-yVUtew-bAkEX3-bPftY8-61zTNa-7MJBkT-7MNAww-7MJArK-7vKzhE-nHaKug-bAkFbU">Kyle Rokos</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/27/0956797610384145.abstract">Researchers</a> who examined a popular educational DVD designed to teach 12- to 18-month-old infants new words found that not only did they show no gains in vocabulary, but also that the best improvement in vocabulary came when parents taught them new words. </p>
<h2>Being wise about screen time</h2>
<p>So, how should parents think about their kids’ screen time? </p>
<p>First, age matters. As mentioned above, preschoolers can learn from age-appropriate educational media. But, there is no evidence that infants can learn from screens. So parents should have very few expectations about what children under the age of two can gain from watching television. </p>
<p>Second, content matters. With the abundance of educational programming available for children these days, there is no reason to expose them to content aimed at a general audience, especially since watching adult-centered TV has been shown to lower academic skills in preschool children. Moreover, programs aimed at adults that have violence or aggressive behavior <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/39/2/201/">can</a> encourage children to behave similarly. </p>
<p>Third, time matters. Having the television on all the time in the background has been <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01180.x/abstract">shown</a> to distract children so much that it lowers the quality of their play. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347607004477">Researchers</a> have suggested that if screen time replaces time spent engaging in activities like talking to parents and peers or playing outside, it can be detrimental to various aspects of development. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most important <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885850/">finding</a> to keep in mind about screen time is that children learn better from people than they do from screens until they are at least three years old. </p>
<p>So in the end, a little bit of screen time might be okay, but learning the traditional way – from parents or from peers – might always be the most effective medium for infants and young children.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53780/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa LoBue does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Kids who watch educational programs such as ‘Sesame Street’ show better academic skills. But this does not mean all children can learn from educational media.Vanessa LoBue, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Rutgers University - NewarkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.