If you need to be convinced, just look at the british press. The sun has by far the largest distribution – it is most successful in terms of making money. But is this because it offers the most reliable and in depth coverage? No. It is full of shallow, celebrity based, popularist disinformation. It is purely sensationalist, focusing on shock stories and providing the public with completely unreliable dumbed down provocation in place of real reporting. This is what sells.

In depth articles taking a calm and moderate tone do not sell to large audiences. A well written and researched article costs more money and if the catchy headline has already got you an audience, why bother?

Pandering to public opinion sells. Catchy, sound bites taken out of context sell. Over reported shocking murders sell. Celebrity affairs and sex scandals sell. Lazy journalism cuts costs. Lazy journalism accepts official sources instead of undertaking time and money consuming independent research. Capitalism is not good for journalism.

Newspapers desperately need regulation. They can not and will not reliably self regulate. They have no reason to – unreliable journalism does not suffer consequences of lower sales levels.
If newspapers were forced to print retractions of unreliable or incorrect reporting ensuring they get the same amount of attention as the original statements then maybe we would make some progress. That is the first rule I would make if i could.

I would recommend anyone to read a book called the Brass Check by Upton Sinclair to find out about the faults of a capitalist media system. I also highly reccommend http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/journalismundercapitalism.html

I wonder how many journalists fall short of this standard…

A true “capitalist” (i.e. for-profit) company is about creating wealth for its investors. Every dollar that goes in is expected to come back with a premium. This is what investors “invest” in and what guides strategy — not the preservation of journalism, scrutiny of government or other social goods — not because of social irresponsibility but because of fiduciary duty. If you “invest” in the expectation not of more money but of some social outcome then what you have is a foundation, a trust, or some sort of charity.

That said, if you invest in a journalistic non-profit you may want the trustees to run their organization like a business, making as much money as possible (e.g. from advertising or even by getting into M&As with for-profit orgs) so that your money can go farther. It may all be very cut-throat and businesslike.

But capitalism it ain’t, because you aren’t getting a penny back. What you gave was – yes – a handout.

I agree.

And I run a nonprofit in the journalism world: http://spot.us

The reason I did spot.us as a nonprofit wasn’t because I thought it was “the way to go” or because I am an SF hippie (although I am). It was because I was inherently dealing with other people’s money (donations) and I wanted to get the idea tested as quick as possible and saw going nonprofit as a way to do that and skirt issues of taking small donations.

That said: Spot.Us is NOT meant to sustain an entire news organization. It is meant to be one of many revenue streams that a news organization (profit or nonprofit) can use.

In truth I think comparing nonprofit and for profit models are a bit of apples and oranges – just as the comment above pointed out. But I don’t see nonprofit as inherently flawed or graced. Neither with for profit.

In the end – I think it’s the way in which the journalism is presented to the public (engaging/not engaging) that matters.

The Internet has freed us from the shackles of journalism. It may yet free journalism itself from journalists.

Should journalism strive for quality reporting or should it strive mainly for profit?

To take a musical analogy. Very few symphony orchestras are financially viable. Does that mean that these should be reformed into rap music groups?

The media empire building of the 1980s and 1990s saw a lot of smaller independent newspapers and publications being bought out by corporates. They lost their independence and started to be squeezed to be more profitable.

The biggest problem with using advertising to fund online news is that the temptation is there to reduce the news from a critical analysis to sound bites that bring eyeballs and search hits towards the advertising revenue.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of making a fast buck.

I’m cherry picking here, but consider the difference between these wo Nature articles.
One from the 19th century: http://www.nature.com/nature/about/first/eclipse.html.
quite informative, but probably boring to non-target audience.

One from this year: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/full/457132b.html with the sensational opener that “US drinking water is drugged”. This is conspiracy theory fodder and is utter sensationalism if you compare it to the research it refers to.

Is the new business still journalism, or is it just copy-writing to tout for advertising eyeballs?

The whole online revolution was about journalism more than anything else, and journalists and journalistic institutions all got screwed out of everything and were left out to dry and die. This is crazy.

Journalism should have been on the forefront of the online revolution and journalists and newspapers should have created and owned every stick of furniture from Google to Craigslist. Instead they are living on a cardboard box on the street begging for handouts.

Pathetic!

Get aggressive. Being and business and making money are no crime. Just ask Ben Franklin – a very good journalist and a very good businessman. Journalism schools should require an MBA as part of the curriculum. Kudos to you and CUNY for your entrepreneurial course. More of that!!!

We can own the future if we have the courage to get aggressive.