The prohibitive nature of ‘free’ media

Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be another “we need to save newspapers!” editorial from someone with a vested interest in the industry.

We’re all aware that the printed word has been forced to quickly adapt. Some newspapers have pulled it off, others (sadly) haven’t. It’s a critical time for this industry as it looks to carve out its niche in the information age.

Instead, let’s talk about a serious issue that has developed out of this culture change — one that few seem to acknowledge.

Simply put, everyone expects their media (whether it’s news/commentary in a written, audio or visual medium) to be immediate, entertaining and free.

Yes, free — as in, no cost to the consumer.

This summer, author Chris Anderson released his nonfiction book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price.” He argues that in today’s digital age, the most effective price is “no price at all.”

“Those below 30 won’t pay for information, knowing it will be available somewhere for free,” wrote Publisher’s Weekly in its review. “In China, piracy accounts for about 95 percent of music consumption.”

In addition, some form of TiVo or DVR exists in many households, meaning that commercial-driven television is also feeling the pinch.

Today’s generation has more information and entertainment available to them than at any point in the world’s history, but few people see any reason why they should have to pay for it — or even watch the few minutes of advertising that sustains most public broadcasts.

There is a problem here. It might not seem like it now, but eventually, these consumers will end up losing in the end.

The quality of most major news sources has already started to slip. These entities are facing the same budgetary concerns and the same harsh economic climate, so we’ve seen a massive explosion of cheap, easy-to-cover stories (i.e. these hundreds of vapid reality television “stars,” the over-the-top coverage of the sordid details that emerged after Michael Jackson’s death) because these stories draw the most attention. More eyeballs means more ad sales — the Internet’s business model.

Meanwhile, the funding simply isn’t there for most genuine, in-depth coverage.

Imagine if Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were attempting to break the Watergate story in today’s media climate. Not only would they be stretched far too thin (The Washington Post would ask Woodward to contribute 3-5 blog posts per day, while Bernstein would likely have to help out on the copy-editing desk), but their employer wouldn’t have the money to allow two of their best reporters to chase this story for as long as they did.

Part of the reason why nobody can make heads or tails of President Barack Obama’s ambitious health care plan is because few news entities have the necessary resources to break it down. Instead, public opinion tends to devolve into boring, predictable partisan rhetoric.

If the price of all media eventually dwindles down to zero (Anderson argues it’s an inevitability), the quality of the information we consume will obviously suffer.

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

Nick Prevenas