An iTunes for news? Dumb, dumb, dumb

by Mathew on January 12, 2009 · 19 comments

David Carr, the New York Times media columnist, muses in a recent column about how it would be great if the newspaper industry could somehow come up with an “iTunes for news.” After all, record labels were on a long slide into oblivion just like newspapers, right? And then Steve Jobs came along with iTunes and saved everyone’s bacon, and now the record industry is just as profitable and healthy as it used to be, right? Wait — you mean the music business isn’t as profitable and healthy as it used to be? Hmmm. Maybe there’s a flaw in Dave’s analogy somewhere.

In fact, there are a number of flaws, as my friend Jay Rosen and media industry attack dog Jeff Jarvis have both pointed out. One of them is the old “people say that bloggers can replace journalists” straw man — this time leveled at Michael Hirschorn and his recent Atlantic article. As Jay notes time and again, this is something that virtually no one, including Michael Hirschorn, has ever actually said. Jeff’s argument is a good one as well, and it is this: “the real fallacy in Carr’s delusion is that a news story or an opinion, like a song, is unique — that you can’t get it somewhere else.” The simple fact is that music is unique in ways that news can never hope to be, no matter how many times newspaper writers and editors say it is.

Music is unlike the news in another crucial way as well: People like to listen to the same song over and over and over, and are happy to pay money for the privilege of carrying it around with them so that they can do so. Does the vast majority of what appears in a newspaper fall into that category? Hardly. I would like to think that some of my columns were so well written that they will stand the test of time throughout the centuries — but even I wouldn’t be silly enough to argue that someone (other than the truly insane) might pay to read them over and over whenever they want to.

Steve Jobs decided to sell music for one reason, and one reason only: to drive the market for iPods. I happen to think that he also wanted to grab the record labels by a sensitive body part and force them to bow to his will, but I have no way of proving that. In any case, there is no corollary for newspapers in this model. It’s possible that if Amazon wants to sell more Kindles, it might try to bundle news, and that might help drive people to pay for subscriptions (Jack Schafer at Slate thinks it could, but I think he is wrong). In any case, it is never going to amount to the same kind of windfall that iTunes has become.

In a way, Carr’s column is a sign of just how desperate things have become at even major papers like the Times: it’s gotten to the point where journalists are dreaming about becoming enslaved to an Apple-like hardware maker because they can’t think of any other way to get back to the glory days when they owned both the news and the package it came in.

  • http://rexblog.com Rex Hammock

    If Apple comes out with a larger format iPod Touch, iTunes will be the iPod of news — except, like with podcasting, the vast majority of the content will continue to be free. I doubt 'vending machine' news will ever catch on.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    I can see using a larger format iPod as a newsreader, Rex — but what the heck do we need iTunes for?

  • dusenyao

    I think Amazon with Kindle is a start, as they have developed something with color and larger screen(flexible screen as seen in CES), and perhaps a nicer look and a lower price. We'll see this happen.

  • Pingback: An iTunes for News? Duh! | Gauravonomics Blog

  • http://rexblog.com Rex Hammock

    I guess I should have been clearer — The iTunes STORE is what I meant.The iTunes Store can distribute PDF and .mobi files already — in other words, it is already set up to be another channel for eBook distribution that could easily compete w/ Amazon. After a year of using a Kindle, despite my hatred of the hardware, I like having dozens of books w/ me at all times. I'd rather have an iPod Touch the size of a Kindle. Yes, I could read most blogs and web content via that device's web browser, but long-form books I'd like to read via a mobipocket file reader “App” — i.e., Stanza — that would be on that device.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Ah, I see. As an e-book distribution mechanism, I can see it — but not as anything to do with news, no matter what Jack Schafer thinks about people paying for digital versions of the NYT.

  • Pingback: Notes from a Teacher - Monday squibs (updated)

  • scmurley

    Not just news, but how many people even read books over and over? unless it's hilarious.

  • Pingback: iTunes For News? How About A Better iPhone App » Webomatica - Technology and Entertainment Digest

  • http://tedshelton.blogspot.com tshelton

    The frighteningly obvious problem for newspapers is that print advertising is not working as well as other option open to advertisers and so they are going elsewhere with their dollars at the same time that print distribution isn't working as well as other options for readers and so they too are going elsewhere… But why save newspapers? If the only constituents left who want to save the newspaper are journalists, than I think you have put your finger squarely on the problem (and solution). Its time for journalists to start getting very entrepreneurial and think outside the advertising box as the revenue source for supporting in-depth reporting, investigative journalism, and foreign news desks. As I wrote in my response to David Byrne on this topic — http://tedshelton.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-new… — I believe that we are quickly moving into a world of MORE news — and higher quality news as well.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Thanks for the comment, Ted — I hope you are right :-)

  • Pingback: Kvetch of the Week: Money for nothing, journalism for free « Ink-Drained Kvetch

  • http://tedshelton.blogspot.com tshelton

    The frighteningly obvious problem for newspapers is that print advertising is not working as well as other option open to advertisers and so they are going elsewhere with their dollars at the same time that print distribution isn't working as well as other options for readers and so they too are going elsewhere… But why save newspapers? If the only constituents left who want to save the newspaper are journalists, than I think you have put your finger squarely on the problem (and solution). Its time for journalists to start getting very entrepreneurial and think outside the advertising box as the revenue source for supporting in-depth reporting, investigative journalism, and foreign news desks. As I wrote in my response to David Byrne on this topic — http://tedshelton.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-new… — I believe that we are quickly moving into a world of MORE news — and higher quality news as well.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Thanks for the comment, Ted — I hope you are right :-)

  • Pingback: NewspaperProject: a wobbly kickoff » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Pingback: Printed Matters » Paywall madness: Dec. 2008 - Feb. 2009

  • Pingback: An iTunes for news Dumb dumb dumb | Hammock Stand

Older post:

Newer post: