Newsbroken: What will become of Newsbreak?

NOTE: This discussion rages on at this blog. No need to duplicate it on both sites.

There once was a little magazine here in the Philippines called Newsbreak. Now, it's a little Web site. I wrote a couple stories for the magazine, but I don't think I'll bother now that it's Web-only. I know someone who interns there. Here's what she wrote in her blog about the move from print to online:

"Six years after publishing its first issue, Newsbreak has radically reformed, becoming a web-based operation and ceasing its fortnightly publication. The major factors driving this transformation were Newsbreak’s financial constraints, and its desire for independent ownership. Thus, when Newsbreak’s primary backer opted to cease funding the magazines, the editors and writers at Newsbreak decided the magazine should make the jump to independent ownership. By doing so, they could ensure continued full editorial independence – a rarity here in the Philippines because it is businessmen who have the means to own publications, and the same businessmen always have their hands in at least half a dozen other businesses as well. No certainty exists that someone would have opted to buy Newsbreak, thus providing it the necessary funds to continue its fortnightly publication, but by making the decision to be independently insured, Newsbreak all but ensured the realization of its lingering financial troubles. It is a testament to the necessary sacrifices made in the name of independent journalism."

The once proud pages of Newsbreak.

And then: "Surprisingly, at least for me, everybody appears in relatively high spirits. Newsbreak has existed with financial difficulties for the last six years, and so the fact the it finally closed its print publication did not surprise anyone. One photographer told me that he anticipated the publication’s closure two years prior.

In terms of losses, the photographers and in-house artist were let go with Newsbreak’s move to the Internet. Everybody else stayed, and none of the writers appear to consider moving to another publication given the magazine's bi-monthly closure. That fact alone strikes me as symbolic of the familial atmosphere and relations within Newsbreak. Newsbreak employs only four full-time writers, and all of the writers are as dedicated to Newsbreak as the editors. Many of the reporters and editors have known and worked together for more than a decade, specifically at a newspaper called the Manila Times. That paper also underwent major upheaval, the result being that reporters and editors quit in mass. Thus, as one Newsbreak reporter told me, what they are facing now is “nothing new.”

With that said, however, I think the transition from a print medium to the Internet (alone) required great flexibility on the part of the Newsbreak staff. In particular, the editors grew up in a world without Internet and where they valued seeing their material in hard copy. But everybody ultimately accepted that Newsbreak did not have the financial means to publish bi-monthly, and so it needed to find a new medium and format if it was going to continue to exist. Everybody at the office is very excited about Newsbreak’s new website, and dedicated to ensuring that Newsbreak maintains its journalistic output. Moreover, Newsbreak considers itself a multi-faceted center - part of its new identity - opposed to just an on-line publication. As such, it will produce long reports on different aspects of the government and hold academic forums on a variety of topics. Ultimately, I am not sure how the center will evolve, and I don’t think the folks at Newsbreak know either. But they have an idea, they are dedicated to the Newsbreak and its associated, newly minted center, and perhaps most important for the future, they have a better business sense that when they started six years ago."

Here's what I have to say:

"If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor."

Aww, damn. Here comes the Grinch. I doubt this will do much to improve my public image in the Fulbright community, but, to quote Harvey Keitel's character, The Wolf, from Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet."

What I mean to say is that Newsbreak's switch to a Web-only format should not be viewed as a positive development. In the publishing business, when a magazine's pages get thinner, the margins smaller and the paper of poorer quality, the end is near. I noticed this happening with Newsbreak sometime in early 2006, and by moving online they are taking a step closer to becoming irrelevant.

Journalism may be a noble endeavor and a vital part of a working democracy, but it is not primarily those things. It's a business. For the most part, it's been that way since Gutenberg. For news to matter, it has to reach an audience. For it to really matter, it needs to reach a wide audience. And because publications contain important news and reach wide audiences, they can make money through advertising.

From what I've heard, Newsbreak's funding came in a novel manner -- mostly grants, not much advertising. This insulated the magazine from meddlesome, agenda-toting owners, but it also insulated Newsbreak from the bottom-line realities of the media business and it probably insulated them from readers as well. Because Newsbreak didn't rely on circulation-driven advertising for funding, it was free to print what its editors wanted, not what readers wanted. Ideally, the two would intersect; unfortunately, they often don't. In fact, it seems that there's an almost inverse relationship between what a media professor might call good or important journalism and what people want to read. The reporting inside Newsbreak probably benefited from the private-funding model, as did whoever Newsbreak's readers were. But a publication that isn't beholden to an audience is antithetical to its main function -- reaching the public.

For all their flaws, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippine Star, the Cebu Sun-Star, Tagalog tabloids and news programs like 24 Oras, Saksi and TV Patrol are more vital organs of Philippine journalism than Newsbreak because they inform the masses. With its increasingly limited audience, Newsbreak is becoming journalism's answer to the tree in the old Zen koan: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Until Newsbreak went online, this argument was purely academic. When the magazine was still on newsstands, it may not have had a wide readership, but its limited audience mattered. The move to the Internet could mean the end of Newsbreak as an important publication in the Philippines. Newsbreak's audience, already small, will surely shrink on the Web. While the college-educated professionals and public policy types who probably made up most of Newsbreak's print readership certainly have access to the Internet, what will draw them to Newsbreak's Web site? There isn't much evidence out there to indicate that the Philippine audience consumes much news online, and many of those who do probably visit foreign news sources that are hard to find here -- the BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian. The Internet media landscape is a lot closer to a Walter Lippman-esque pluralism than television or print, and in a sea of so many voices, what will draw the online audience to Newsbreak?

Usually, when a publication rolls out a new product, like a Web site, it spends nearly as much money promoting it as it does developing the site. I haven't seen any attempt by Newsbreak to market its new format, unless you count an editorial that announced the change in the magazine's final print issue. That's not enough, and if they're counting on word of mouth to draw people to the site, they are insane. Again, it seems like the journalists at Newsbreak don't care about reaching an audience; they only care about their work, which is very, very good, but journalism doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum.

While I believe Newsbreak's overall impact will suffer from moving to the Web, I can see it remaining relevant as a provider of stories for mainstream news organizations. As long as the journalists at Newsbreak continue turning out good work, and there's no reason to think that they won't, reporters for bigger newspapers and television shows will visit the site to find investigative stories and angles that their organizations may have missed. Then, the mainstream journalists will rework the stories, the public will get the information they need and hopefully Newsbreak will get some of the credit. But since nothing Newsbreak does seems to indicate that its staff even cares about having readers, let alone receiving credit for their reporting, perhaps serving as background catalysts for breaking important news will be enough satisfy them.

I am sad to say so, but no matter how you spin it, no matter how high you keep your spirits, the move to the Web seems like a death knell for Newsbreak as an important Philippine news source.