Is Rupert Murdoch the Steve Jobs of Journalism?

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, new walls are being erected that challenge the fundamental right of the public to free news and information. However, free today no longer means free from bias or state control, but instead not paying for content. News Corp.'s announcement that it would introduce pay walls has set off a firestorm of response -- the majority of whom say it will not work. The minority see Murdoch as the potential savior of professional journalism, an ironic twist for the man behind The New York Post and other tabloids. Others focus on the proposed model and respond that it could work, if News Corp. can apply the lessons it has learned from pay television and the music industry, which evolved its model in response to illegal downloading.

Case in point: The Economist reported last week that music piracy is down and suggested other industries "offer a diverse range of attractive, legal alternatives" such as advertiser-supported free sites or pay sites. In some countries, legal downloads (free or pay) have been coupled with graduated response laws to illegal file sharing, with consequences up to cutting off or limiting internet access.

While most may expect Murdoch to fail, the piracy results and legal trend lines suggest his view is on-trend if unpopular; he is potentially doing for news what Steve Jobs did for music.  We must ask, then, why Mr. Murdoch is vilified for his plans while Mr. Jobs is glorified for solving a similar "impossible" problem for another part of the media industry.

One may argue that the music industry example is not quite on point, as there are no legal remedies to fall back-on if users refuse to pay for news. Not to forget that Mr. Murdoch has also posited that linking to an article is a copyright violation and is not "fair use." Whether Mr. Murdoch missed the memo on News Corp.'s transgressions in this regard (or whether it is simply positioning for another battle with Google) is unclear.  Given the need for copyright reform to address the internet, it is possible a court could decide to weigh certain factors under the "fair use" test more heavily and agree with Murdoch.

That said, in the attempt to find a model that works, I summon up the "old media model" and suggest a system not unlike that of retransmission of royalties for rebroadcast of television programs.  Although I know others would debate that reform needs to keep the internet free, I return to the original definition of "free news" and shudder at James A. Pitaro's statement concerning advertisers "wanting to partner with online sites and be brought in early in the creative process."  That kind of "news" is worth what you pay for it.

So what is the lesson Murdoch already knows from both his experience in old-model pay television and with the WSJ? In the quarterly earnings call with Mr. Murdoch, as reported in the Guardian, he said the Journal was "barely" profitable and that circulation was up.  When asked to elaborate, he responded: "We produced a better newspaper...it's as simple as that."

The key, of course, is the audience.  Murdoch and the Journal produced a "better newspaper" for a very particular population that needs a very particular type of information.  Even Google's CEO Eric Schmidt believes paid news may work for "niche or specialist markets." And Jason Wilson thinks Murdoch cannot charge for all of his content, but may succeed in charging for that which is not available elsewhere.

In these views, content is not king; quality, specialized content is king. We should not lose sight of the fact that in advancing such a strategy, Murdoch is applying an "old media business" model -- the right content to the right audience through the right channel.  This is programming 101 brought to a newspaper. 

At the base of it all is the quality of the talent and reporting: there must be something of value for the audience to want.  In this sense, Murdoch's move is indeed very much like Mr. Jobs': he knew that consumer demand for direct, affordable access to the intellectual work of talent mattered more than new methods of distribution.  But "news" or opinion is easier to produce and distribute than music, so Murdoch has a bigger problem. In the confusion of Internet searches, we can see Murdoch's challenge: so much false fact and self-promoting expertise, the consumer does not know who or what to trust.  Paying for professional, quality journalism seems more reasonable, then, especially when one considers the importance of accurate information to our markets and politics.

I suspect a lot of journalists are secretly rooting for News Corp.'s success.  If Murdoch prevails, he will not just establish a pay method for news, but will re-establish the value of journalism itself.