Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent, thinks The Guardian is wrong to publish stories first on the web. He told yesterday's Press Gazette Breakfast With The Editor event:
"If you have an exclusive story at five o'clock to go in the following day's newspaper, the idea that you would put it on the website for nothing strikes me as complete madness. Our relationship with our own website is one where the paper is first and foremost, and the website comes second. Until there is a model for making money out of a newspaper website, we're not going to plough millions of pounds into it. It's fair enough for The Guardian, because they don't have shareholders to answer to."
Now this is an interesting criticism because it is dealing with news dissemination in purely commercial terms. If I follow Kelner's logic, which is clearly based on the capitalist notion (and reality) that news is a commodity, then people must pay for their news. However, the logic (and reality) of the internet is that the dissemination of news is, and should be, free. Here's more from Kelner:
"There is absolutely no model for a newspaper website to make money, and conversely what it can do is hit the value and currency of the printed product. At the moment, if we have funds to invest, we would prioritise our newspaper. I am willing to be called a flat earther, but for an organisation such as ours, I think it is the right approach."
There was a deal of sense in his viewpoint and it's undeniable that, to an extent, there still is. Let's deal first with flaws in his argument. News is widely available on the net the instant it happens. Within minutes, comment and analysis of that news is also available. As the minutes pass, the commentaries become yet more sophisticated. At the same time, the conversation between reporters and analysts is already going on. None of us, not even the most dedicated print-lover, not even an admitted flat-earther, can stop this process. It is happening. Newspapers stood aside for a while but many of them - most notably in Britain, The Guardian - have realised that they must take part. They must use their brand's authority and credibility to build an audience for their websites. If they do not, then they cannot guarantee a future of any kind for any format. It's not necessarily a case of wanting to say "net first", it's a case of having to say it.
Now, on the economics, I certainly share Kelner's fears. The production of news does cost money. We can obtain eyewitness reports from inside Beirut and Haifa from bloggers for free. But we also want competing teams of paid professional journalists to be up on the front line, back at military headquarters, inside the various political administrations, and co-ordinating conflicting reports. And this does require resources. It's true that, at present, no newspaper website's revenue could come close to paying for the staff of that newspaper. But my vision of the future - which, I freely admit, may be optimistic - is that the combination of a print version selling relatively small numbers plus a web version (with all its bells and whistles, such as podcasting, vodcasting and a host of platforms yet to be invented) will produce enough income to support a small, highly professional staff of journalists performing tasks not too dissimilar from today.
But we cannot possibly hope to reach that point if we go on believing that our print versions with their ever-declining sales should take prime place in the dissemination of news. Simon, look at your own circulation. Does it not tell you a story? And look also at the very limited use of your paper's website, due to two obvious factors - a giant pay wall and a continuing belief in maintaining a print-first policy for news. I love print. I love newspapers. But I'm also a realist. It is my firm belief that the way to save newspapers, to ensure that a title lasts into the future, is to embrace the net. That's a paradox. It is also good sense.
