Question: Can newspapers charge for news content?

Answer: Not as long as they continue self flagellation over the journalistic “purity” of their product.

The N&O Sunday engaged in a small amount of  hand wringing over its affiliation with a new health issues newsletter in Raleigh written by health care lobbyist Harrison Kaplan. Subscribers pay $399 a year for the newsletter, which is published by The Insider, a subsidiary of the N&O that supplies legislative and state government news by subscription.

News organizations have a tough time charging for their general news content. There’s just too much informaton on the web. Most news outlets discovered that fact and made their web sites free. Specialized information is another issue, however. When you need information to do your job, you are likely to pay for it, sometimes a lot if the information is good.

The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) provides fast, accurate and credible information in a variety of policy issue areas for a good price. It not only has been a financial success, it provides journalism that is far and away better than most coverage of the issues. “Real” journalists turn up their noses at BNA. I’ve never understood why, except that it is published in a newsletter format.

Newsletters have flourished in recent years as newspapers have declined, especially newsletters published by professional and other groups. Work a short while in government and you quickly discover that most citizens get their government news from their professional, religious or issue-group newsletters.

Newspapers have dipped their toes timidly in that water. Given their pending demise, they no longer can ignore the news and financial benefits of publishing specialized news.

But they have to get over the guilt. N&O editor John Drescher pointed out his newsroom has no affiliation with the health newsletter and said information in it would not end up in the N&O, according to the paper’s public editor, Ted Vaden.

But why should information from the newsletter be excluded from N&O stories? Oh yes, journalistic purity. We teach students to check, verify and attribute sources. Why should the health newsletter be any different? The fact is, information in the newsletter probably is much better than a general assignment N&O reporter can provide. That’s exactly why people are willing to pay $399 a year for it.

If newspapers were really interested in preserving their futures, they would scramble to duplicate the newsletter model in other areas. They should be willing to hire reporters for the job, but they also must be willing to benefit from the expertise of experts like Kaplan.

In doing so, newspapers should pay little attention to the objections of NC Policy Watch, which raised the health newsletter issue. While the group often is referred to as a public interest group, it is in fact a lobby organization itself and probably does not want the new competition.

Journalists simply have to stop thinking about news and start thinking about news and information. With its Insider and health newsletter efforts, the N&O is headed in the right direction. No apologies needed. Posted by Leroy Towns

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.