Mary Kissel. AAP/Alan Porritt
In the following interview Andrea Carson, a research fellow in journalism at the University of Melbourne, talks with Mary Kissel, who is a Wall Street Journal editorial board member and a guest at the Public Knowledge Forum in Sydney next week.
Andrea Carson: What are you intending to say at the Public Knowledge Forum at Sydney’s Opera House next week?
Mary Kissel: I think there is a lot of concern about the decline, or the death, of good quality investigative journalism and I think the media business is undergoing a difficult time. There is no doubt about that, it is a wrenching transition, and we are seeing that, not just in the United States, but everywhere around the world.
Companies are trying to figure out how to provide news that people want to pay for because ultimately media is a public service. It is protected in the United States’ Constitution. It is the only industry that is. But it also has to be viable. And the internet, I don’t think there is any question, that the internet has fundamentally transformed the delivery of media, the immediacy of it, and the availability of it. There is a lot of choice now.
Part of what we are going to speak about, I hope, at this conference is what are successful ways that news is getting delivered, how is the quality improving – because I believe it is improving – and how might it change.
Andrea Carson: Do you not subscribe to some of the more negative commentary that quality journalism is in crisis?
Mary Kissel: No, I don’t. I think that the business model is in crisis, for sure. You can’t have your advertising base fall away and not have some sort of crisis. It is very difficult I think now to make money, however, I think that competition should be welcomed in the media business just as it is welcomed in every other industry that we cover and that we write about.
I always found it odd that there is this idea that you need a state to back your media in order to have quality media. I have never subscribed to that. I think competition is an excellent thing. I think in the age of the internet when you think about media there is a tendency to think about media’s traditional means like newspapers, magazines this kind of thing.
But we have infinite choices now and I think that is good for consumers and it is good for information. In some respects it might even benefit brands like ours at the Wall Street Journal because we have already developed a brand that is trusted, that people can turn to. They know when they read our news or editorials that they are reported and that they are trustworthy. I think that competition, even for us, is an excellent thing.
Andrea Carson: Looking at the revenue model of the Wall Street Journal, it was one of the first, if not the first newspaper to set up a hard paywall back in 1997. From my research it seems to be a successful model with over 800,000 digital subscribers and a reach of about 2.4 million combining with print. Why are readers prepared to pay for your content online? Is it because of the specialised nature of some of your business reporting, or is it more than that?
Mary Kissel: That is a great question. A couple of responses to that. The first is people are willing to pay for quality of any product. They are willing to pay, for example, for our editorial page which provides them with a point of view that they can’t really get anywhere else. It is reasoned reporting, reported editorials and commentary from news makers about leadership. People are always willing to pay for that. If, of course, you are writing on topics that are meaningful for them.
I don’t think that anybody would pay for editorials on my local hometown of Jupiter, Florida, except people living in Jupiter, Florida. But that is not what we are editorialising about. Secondly, in terms of the kind of content, we have actually become a more generalised publication in the last couple of years.
That doesn’t mean that we have abandoned the business/finance focus. That is always the heart of a newspaper, but I think the idea was, and if you talk to Gerry Baker, our editor-in-chief, he would probably say that what we have done is apply the rigorous kind of journalism that we do on the business and finance topics to other topics: to general news, to local New York news to leisure and arts and these kinds of things, and we have found that that has been very successful.
We have also had to innovate. We were not only the first to have a paywall, we were also the first out with a quality news product on the iPad. That launched very quickly after the iPad came on the market, and that has also been very successful in a large part because it gives you a range of choices. You are not just taking the print edition and throwing it on the iPad, you can get our Asia edition or our European edition with video content now.
I host one of our online shows called Opinion Journal that airs every weekday that gives you a more personal look at the people writing the editorials and newsmakers by getting them on for short segments. But we have also been forced to innovate despite the paywall being quite successful.
Andrea Carson: There is some criticism of hard paywalls, less so of metered paywalls – and I note that the US now has over 400 daily newspapers with paywalls and most are metered paywall of some sort – and yet the Wall Street Journal seems to be a great example of where the hard paywall works. Why is that?
Mary Kissel: I don’t think there is any one business model that is the business model. A metered paywall might work for a smaller publication, or a niche publication that is trying to attract more readership that wants to give a bit more access. For us, particularly at the editorial page – that is what I am familiar with because that is where I work – we attract more provocative thought leaders than many other publications do. I think people are willing to pay for that. There is demand for what we do.
We also have a very different point of view. We are the only really consistently pro-free market, classical liberal editorial page in the country. So if you want to know that point of view there is really nowhere else to go but to us. That has been an advantage of ours for decades. We have had that point of view for a very long time.
I think it would be a mistake to say, and I don’t think this is what you are saying, that gosh the Journal should adopt the New York Times approach or vice versa. I think it is a transitional time and these companies are trying to figure out what works for them.
Andrea Carson: Because the Wall Street Journal adapted to the paywall so early you have vast amounts of information about your subscribers…
Mary Kissel: Right.
Andrea Carson: And a repository that other publications perhaps envy, does that allow for more strategic advertising because you understand your subscriber base so well?
Mary Kissel: You know that is probably a question for the business side. I don’t see those statistics. I do think that the ability to understand your subscriber base and either sell advertising that reflects that or if you look at – and I put this in an article I did for the American Review – a place like Rappler in the Philippines, they have basically started a separate consulting arm and are using anonymous information about their subscriber base.
They are not obviously selling personal information, but they can sell social media type information that Google Analytics might sell to big companies and corporates, and they are making money that way. I think there is a lot of value there either from getting your readers to talk to each other, like Huff Post Live does, and getting readers to form a community. Or what Rappler does to understand who their readers are and to cull that information.
I think there are a tonne of models out there and it is really, really early in the game. We are all still trying to figure it out. One last thought, you have radio hosts in America that are now doing TV, literally watching them sitting behind the mic… we have tried that on the John Batchelor Show just in a short podcast and video clips, which have become quite popular.
Again, it gives consumers wonderful amounts of choices. We are more informed and connected in the United States today than we were even five years ago. I am not persuaded by the idea that we are less informed or not as well informed. I would argue just the opposite.
I think journalism is the only business where there is increasing demand for it, almost infinite demand for what we do and this is why I have such scepticism of state broadcasting in democracies. Nothing against them, I think there are plenty of very fine journalists. I have friends at the ABC and the BBC and they do great work, but I am inherently suspicious of state funding. I think it introduces a tendency for bias or for political influence that as a reporter I am quite suspicious of.
Andrea Carson: Would you venture as far to say that Australia should be without it’s publicly funded ABC?
Mary Kissel: No. I think if a democracy decides that a majority wants to pay to start some sort of broadcaster, well good on them. If you want a public broadcasting model like PBS in the US, largely supported by philanthropic donations, well good on you. I think, though, it is interesting that the most competitive media market is in a place that does not have that kind of influence.
If you look at the media landscape in Britain, as opposed to the US, again there are differences in size and population and all of those things, but I think if you look at the vibrancy of the innovation and the competition, it is far more competitive in the United States in the absence of state influence.
Andrea Carson: Some journalism, of course, is being funded through philanthropy, particularly in the US. This month we saw eBay founder Pierre Omidyar committing US$250 million to a new journalism venture and working with seasoned investigative reporters such as Glenn Greenwald, do you see that as part of the future of investigative journalism? That, as a society we will need to rely on philanthropy for quality investigative journalism? That funding has moved beyond a market model?
Mary Kissel: No. I don’t think you need philanthropy to have successful investigative journalism. I think this idea that you have to be separate from a point of view and somehow a ‘Switzerland’ to do good investigative journalism, I would strongly disagree with that.
That is not to say that there is not a place for ProPublica, which is a similar kind of model, that’s a non-profit, they are based in New York, that they won’t do very good work.
But let’s be honest, every kind of journalist comes to their story with their own personal bias. There is no such thing as a neutral point of view. In fact, I argue in the [American Review] piece that in some respects trying not to have a view in some ways promotes very lazy journalism because you will get “he says this” and “she says that” and then “here are five caveats” and that is our story. It prevents searching for the answer that we try to do.
Look, I think there is a place for outfits like the eBay founders’ company, and a place for CEOs like [Amazon’s] Jeff Bezos who want to buy a paper and try and preserve it – although I think it will be difficult for him. But I think there is no reason that investigative journalism cannot also be a financially vibrant enterprise.
Andrea Carson: So, rather than clinging to the ideal notion of objectivity in journalism, is it better to have transparency with a viewpoint? For readers to know what they are getting?
Mary Kissel: Well transparent, and reliable, and energetic of its questioning of what is going on. I think the greatest threat to journalism is lazy journalism. Meaning, that you accept the point of view that you are given whether it be from a company or a government or a non-for-profit and that the idea of ‘balance’ gives you this easy formula at which to adhere that prevents you from really digging and doing the real work of investigative journalism.
It would be very easy for a believer in the wonders of government to believe a press release from the department of justice. Rather than actually ask “Well is this a worthwhile prosecution, a good use of tax-payers’ money?” I found that in the reporting that I have done on the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau – I was the only person to question, do we need this agency? Are they actually helping regulate markets? Do they have special interests that are involved? And, I was attacked very strongly by the institution itself for doing that kind of work. Why aren’t more publications asking these kinds of questions? They should be.
Andrea Carson: You suggested it might be difficult for the Washington Post to have a sustainable future under its new leadership – why?
Mary Kissel: Well, Jeff Bezos has said that he is going to stay in Seattle, and that he bought the institution to experiment with it, and I hope that he does, but I think that might be difficult to do from the West Coast when the Post is an East Coast institution. It is a long way away. I think it is unclear what leadership he is going to put in, what direction it is going to take, what he is going to do with it digitally, he might experiment with different ways of delivering the Post – given his expertise with the Kindle and other devices. We will see. But again, if he injects more competition and new ideas into the market that can only be a good thing.
Andrea Carson: On the issue of “public interest”, what is your view about individuals such as Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald? Are they serving the public interest by allowing citizens an insight in to how their governments behave in their name by detailing the extent of the NSA’s tracking of private citizens phone calls? Is that journalism, or something else?
Mary Kissel: We have editorialised a lot about Snowden and Greenwald, so to give you a concise summary of that, I think where we came down on Snowden was to say that there is a lot that the US does that doesn’t need to be secret. Why do a million people have top-secret clearance in the US? That seems rather silly.
On the other hand, if the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal of the Washington Post – and we are all competitors – part of our job is to weigh the public interest versus, really, national security issues. And there are some wonderful examples of this through history. We don’t data dump everything that we get because there are lives at stake. My personal concern with Snowden is that he has put US national security at risk by a lot of what he has done. I don’t support that. I don’t see it as journalism.
I see it as highly irresponsible, and in some respects kind of naïve. He has provoked a debate, and maybe we should have a debate over these kinds of things such as who is cleared for top-secret clearance and who isn’t. It is striking to see Dianne Feinstein in California, who is a very left-leaning Democrat, come out very strongly and defend the NSA and what it is doing. I think that speaks volumes.
Andrea Carson: Do you foresee a time when the Wall Street Journal might be a digital-only publication?
Mary Kissel: I don’t know. Clearly we are migrating towards digital, but will print every completely disappear? Well, I think that depends on the price that people are willing to pay for it. It is like any other product in the market place. Maybe print becomes a very niche product, and it is double or triple or quadruple or ten times the price that it is now. We may get to that point. But clearly the digital transition is well under way.
Andrea Carson: Newspapers like The New York Times, which also have enormous reach and quality journalism, and a paywall, remain economically vulnerable and have experienced cost cutting and job cuts. The Wall Street Journal also exists in the same advertising market, which has been down in recent times, how would you describe the balance sheet of the WSJ? Does it make a profit?
Mary Kissel: I don’t work on the business side so that is something you probably have to ask Mr Murdoch. I would point out that we are not exactly equivalent: the Times and the Journal. We are equivalent in terms of being major newspapers, but I would argue that the quality and the content that we provide in terms of the thought leadership, the editorials, the breaking stories, the breadth of what we provide, is not exactly equivalent.
We are different products. We are very lucky that we got through the [GFC] downturn with News Corporation. We were able to invest. If you look at WSJ today compared to what it was in 2008, we have three more pages of international coverage, an extra editorial page, a weekend edition, a local edition – meaning a New York section – we have an online video channel WSJ Live, we have really experimented, and we have grown. We grew through the downturn. That was a great advantage for us.
Andrea Carson: Anything you would like to add?
Mary Kissel: No one really has a sense of where it is going. I think there is a lot of experimentation that is going on right now. Will Twitter converge with what we do? Will the Wall Street Journal become something like Facebook where we have our own digital community that is maybe a paid community? Will our online show, Opinion Journal, be syndicated and sold and be something you might click on when you get on an aeroplane? Who knows.
It is just nice to be in a company that has the resources and energy to experiment. Some of it will fail and fade, but hopefully more will succeed than fail. It is exciting. I believe very strongly in what we do. We are essential to democracy and the more competition that we have, the better.
If we allowed for more competition, for cross-ownership of media organisations, or made the barriers to media lower, it would benefit a lot of people. I know that I say that in a country that has a strong tradition of state broadcasting, so I am not sure that people here would agree with me. But I make the argument, nonetheless.
Mary Kissel is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and is in Australia as a guest of the US Studies Centre to speak at the Public Knowledge Forum at the Sydney Opera House on November 4. The Public Knowledge Forum is an international seminar examining the nexus between today’s rapidly changing media landscape and democracy.
Andrea Carson does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.