Charles M. Aulino

The future of journalism is difficult to predict and there is no reason to believe that traditional outlets for the dissemination of news will survive. Some people still enjoy the tactile sensation of the daily newspaper and the routine of retrieving it from the front porch or a favorite newsstand on the way to work. Online versions, however, offer simplicity of navigation, freedom to view multiple publications in minutes and no cost. How do you compete with that?

The proliferation of blogs and the evolution of such social networking facilities as Twitter has transformed competition for the attention of information consumers and created an enormous volume of material. Dozens, even thousands can learn about events as they unfold. There is virtually no opportunity to check “facts” contained in tweets; by the time a reporter can do so, the news is old and cold. Imagine reporters resorting to Twitter as a primary source, potentially debasing journalism to the level of local TV news, a repetitive onslaught of weather, traffic and the latest petty crime story, all delivered by TV star wannabes.

In the search for the future of journalism, it might be useful to recall one of the great success stories of the 20th Century: The Washington Post. Eugene Meyer, a former Fed chairman, bought the business in the depths of The Great Depression, devoting enormous capital and effort to support the enterprise for the years it took to return it to profitability. His son-in-law and designated successor, Phil Graham, helped turn the tide, describing the field as the “inescapably impossible task of providing every week a first rough draft of a history.” When Phil’s bi-polar disorder led to suicide, Meyer’s daughter Katharine Graham threw herself into the task of managing a growing journalistic empire. Her decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, in the face of commands to desist from the government, might have landed her in prison. She supported the determined efforts of her staff throughout Watergate, a journalistic crusade that led to the only resignation of a U.S. President in history. Then a tag line from the paper’s classifieds was used to mock his successor, when T-shirts appeared with the phrase “I got my job through the Washington Post” printed below Gerald Ford’s picture.

The only thing we know for sure about the future of journalism is that we cannot survive as a civilized society without it. The evolution of information technology that has presented such great challenges, also provides new journalistic tools. Imagine what might have happened if Bernstein and Woodward had Twitter at their disposal? Remember, too, the grumbling of H.L. Mencken: “most people who write letters to the editor are idiots.” Will Twitter prove to be a forum for idiots or a means of gathering myriad facts and viewpoints? Will journalists learn how to tap, sort and presents the best products of the oceans of data that now float freely throughout cyberspace? Will management encourage them or block their efforts to do so?

The best hope for the future of journalism lies in reinvention. News may or may not be presented on paper in the future, but news organizations must and will learn how to get paid for delivering information products of the highest quality. Something tells me that Eugene Meyer and his daughter would have regarded what is happening as an enjoyable challenge.