Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Next week, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society (CIS) is hosting a conference titled The Future of Journalism: Unpacking the Rhetoric. The event is free and open to the public, and we have more than 150 people signed up to attend.

The conference opens with a talk by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 29th. Goodman will be signing copies of her books following the event.

On Friday, April 30th, there will be four panel debates. Each panel is designed to challenge a particular tenet of conventional wisdom about the future of news. Registration is required for this portion of the conference.

The entire event will be broadcast in a live webcast on the conference web site. Please visit http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/futureofnews/ for more information.

We hope you will join us!

It’s nothing new for media organizations to employ lofty rhetoric about the role of the press in democracy to advocate special legal privileges. Likewise, it’s nothing new for content creators to try to limit the speech rights of others in order to garner more profit. What is fairly new, however, is for the press to use language about the importance of the First Amendment to argue for a copyright policy that would explicitly limit free speech. In other words, in order to save the First Amendment, we have to limit the First Amendment. Irony is dead.

This week, Rupert Murdoch wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that exemplified this clever strategy. Aptly titled “Journalism and Freedom,” the article belittles the fair use doctrine and demands compensation for news content online, while going on to wax eloquent about the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the First Amendment. The problem is that the right he claims to value above all else, the freedom of speech, is precisely what prevents media companies like News Corp. from claiming ownership in the news. Facts cannot be owned, so while News Corp. can certainly prevent third parties from reproducing stories in full, it has no right to control the facts within those stories. This is not a peculiarity of copyright law; it is a protection of the First Amendment and an effort to create the informed citizenry Murdoch claims to cherish.

The proposed federal shield law for journalists has recently had a surge in momentum, and nearly every news organization and First Amendment advocacy group is applauding. But I’m not. As a strong believer in the importance of investigative reporting, I am naturally sympathetic to the idea of a federal shield law for journalists. Anything that helps people hold the government and others in power accountable for their actions is a good thing in my book. So what is the problem?

The problem with giving legal privileges based on someone’s “status” as a journalist is that it simply doesn’t make sense in light of the communications environment we live in today. Thanks to the Internet, there is no rational way to differentiate journalists from non-journalists. And further, there is no good reason to try to do it.

Sometimes changes are so basic and world-changing that they can be difficult to recognize. Having just finished Losing the News by Alex S. Jones, I was reminded again just how difficult it seems to be for people in the news business to acknowledge the simple truth: the Internet has eliminated the need for mass media. Yes, professional journalism may still benefit society, but we no longer live in a world where citizens must necessarily depend on a select group of gatekeepers to funnel them information and news. This is the paradigm shift, and as long as it continues to go unrecognized, visions for the future of journalism will be fundamentally flawed.

Therefore, in the spirit of catharsis, in the simplest and most straightforward terms possible, I set forth four truths about the communications ecosystem created by the Internet.

No one likes lawyers. My dad likes to joke that it’s a shame how 99 percent of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name. Not only am I lawyer, but I am also trained as a journalist, which arguably ranks even lower on the list of ill-reputed professions in the U.S. So what happens when these two maligned professions go head to head?

In May, Free Press released a report titled Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy. The 48-page document is the most intelligent and comprehensive proposed solution to the crisis in journalism that I have seen, and I urge everyone to read it. The report begins by setting forth its highest priorities in devising a national journalism strategy, including protecting the First Amendment, promoting government accountability, producing quality news coverage, and encouraging innovation. With those principles in mind, the report outlines and critiques a host of proposed solutions, covering everything from micro-payments to a wholesale government bailout. Ultimately, Free Press proposes a multi-faceted approach to addressing the crisis, which blends expansive government funding for public media with legal and tax incentives to promote new ownership and alternative models.

I believe “The Wire” was one of the best television series’ ever made, so I was greatly disappointed to learn the substance of David Simon’s recent testimony to the Senate about the future of journalism. Not only did he self-righteously mock citizen journalists and deem bloggers and news aggregators “parasites,” he ended his presentation with the suggestion that Congress relax antitrust rules to allow newspapers to create an industry-wide, subscriber database. Sigh.

You know an industry is struggling when its establishment players start accusing everyone of stealing. It’s a familiar tale. Technology forces an industry to change, but rather than innovating and adapting, the powers that be lash out to protect the status quo at all costs. It’s a sign of desperation for a doomed business model, so it’s only fitting that Big Media embrace it now. And embrace it they have, threatening to sue everyone and anyone who “steals” their news, and advocating massive industry-wide collusion to ensure that their new “no free content” regime can survive.