Judy Woodruff and the “broken” journalism business model

Tonight (Thursday), we at THP had the opportunity to sponsor our second event in about a week at the  public radio and TV studios in Richmond.  It was the annual donor appreciation event and the guest speaker was Judy Woodruff, the legendary televison news journalist who currently reports for The News Hour on PBS. (Blogger note:  I know the picture stinks but I’m still getting the hang of my Bberry Storm, sorry.)

Ms. Woodruff was engaging both up close and in front of an audience. 

She had exciting things to say about the current atmosphere in the nation’s capital in days surrounding and after the inauguration of the new President.  She “reported” to the group assembled that politicians on both sides of the aisle are hopeful about President Obama and the new administration but they are also mindful of the the new President’s place in history and the hurdles he and the country must over come.

While her prepared remarks focused on Washington and its hopeful future, it was during the Q and A period that she offered sober thoughts about the future of “traditional” journalism.  Woodruff told the crowd that “she gets call every day” from friends and colleagues at newspapers and television stations who have lost their jobs or who have had their salary cut dramatically.

Before a crowd that included long-time national and local media leaders, more than once she described the current journalism business model as “broken” and called for a need of a new business model.  Woodruff said her fear was the impression given the public that since news is readily available on the internet it is “free” and costs nothing to produce.  She cited the recent Washington Post series of articles on Walter Reed and the quality of care (or lack thereof) being given soliders who were injured or wounded in Iraq.  Woodruff told the crowd the Post gave their reporters nine months to research that story.  He greatest fear is that the current business model will cease to support the type of in-depth journalism that allows reporters the time to “report” and bring light to these types of stories.

I must confess that although I have practiced (interesting word) public relations for almost 20 years, I’m still a journalist at heart.  I feel for folks that worked in TV newsrooms like I used to, amassed a great deal of experience and institutional knowledge, and have unfortunately been thrown aside because they “make too much money.”  I agree with Ms. Woodruff we all suffer when that happens.

And while Woodruff laughed when asked the question, “where do you see journalism five or ten years from now,” saying that if she knew that people would be paying her a lot more money than she’s making right now, she vowed that she and her colleagues were doing all they can to keep up and stay relevant.

But it is hard to stay relevant when funds are tight, the national attention span is tighter, and people would rather be entertained by ths screaming pundits than sit through a tough but thoughful interview on the stimulus package.  It is also tough to stay relevant when a certain percentage of people think that getting their “news” in 140 character segments is the wave of the future.

I know my fellow Twitterers are likely throwing darts at my profile right now after that crack.  But as an old TV guy, on this one I am firmly in Ms. Woodruff’s camp.  While you can get the first report of a plane crash in the Hudson on Twitter, it is impossible to get the depth of reporting that nine months on a story can deliver.

Good journalism does cost money and time.

To show how far apart the voices of social media and traditional journalism are I only have to point back to last week when Peter Shankman told a crowd in the same studio that the press release as we know it will be dead in 36 months.  That journalists will not have the time or attention span to get stories in a longer form.

Ms Woodruff’s take was different.  That lack of time and resources for reporters will mean all they WILL report will come from press releases because they won’t have the ability to get news the old fashioned way.

In some ways those two answers are representative of the bridge between the two that PR folks, journalists and social marketers still have to cross.