Both Google and Facebook promised to give out US$1 billion to subsidize media. Would this US$2 billion give the global media a chance of survival? “No.” Asserted Holman Jenkins, a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. He believes not only would it not turn the situation around, but it would push the media a step towards becoming a tool of the politicians. The only hope for the media to become independent is getting donations from the people. Why being so pessimistic?

Technology is unforgiving. It evolves so fast that the new soon becomes old and will be replaced. The decline of print media started a long time ago. The invention of television led to the die-out of the evening newspaper. When everyone watches television with their dinner, who else would buy the evening paper? The traditional media then followed the fate of evening paper when the internet came to the world. Imagine those exclusive news stories that have been discovered after months of in-depth investigations and are immediately spread all over the internet as soon as they are published, which makes the news no longer exclusive. So who would buy the newspaper to read through them apart from the super enthusiasts who would not miss any single detail?

In addition to story-telling and news publishing, other functions of the media are to conduct analyses for the readers, speak up for them, stimulate them, resonate with them and form public opinion. These functions have gradually been replaced by social media such as Facebook and Twitter in the internet era. Apart from being fast and convenient, digital media also comes with visuals and audio. News stories supported by photos and sound are much more interesting than traditional media. Can a mere US$2 billion from Google and Facebook turn this trend around? If not, why did these two tech giants splash out?

Because it is a “protection racket.” The decline of traditional media is caused by technology-driven people who made their choice. But they use social media such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, which got mega-rich with the opportunity, as the scapegoat and accuse them of robbing the advertisements of the traditional media for their own gain, that they should split the profits to “pay for their sin.” The politicians of Europe, Australia, and even Canada gave into the people’s sentiment and, ignoring right and wrong, decided to force the tech giants to give traditional media a helping hand.

In other words, that US$2 billion from Google and Facebook is to shut politicians up and give them some political achievement to show their voters. It is not a small amount of money but cannot provide long-term assistance. Besides, they cannot just pay up whenever they have been asked. So who will benefit from the money? How much would they get? These will all be determined by the politicians directly or indirectly (such as via government-appointed organizations). Whether the chosen media has a market or is popular is another matter. Google declared it would support quality journalism. But if the quality does not have a market, would that be really “quality”? Would quality media be able to develop and become free and independent without the support of the market?

Whether it is traditional or digital media, their main income is from advertising. Although many traditional media have added a digital version, their readers and target audience for the advertisements are still limited to a specific small group. On the contrary, the market of Google and Facebook has no boundary. Comparing to their income, the production costs of the traditional media’s news and advertising are high. As there is not much of that for digital media to forward and reproduce news stories, its income becomes nearly pure profit. With these major setbacks – being slow, immobile, and has low benefits, the traditional media cannot win against digital media. Is there no other way for the traditional media to survive?

Jenkins believes there are two options: either join a party and become its mouthpiece or rely on wealthy people. In the U.S., historians believe “party newspapers” have dominated half of the century between 1783 and 1833. Back then, the fight over national security law divided the society, and many newspapers controlled by political parties sprung up in the market. The total number of newspapers has increased from 35 to 1200. The main content of these newspapers is political propaganda without any advertisement. The 6 cents cost per copy was the main income of the papers. Then the Penny Press, which advertised itself as independent from any political party and costed much less, came onto the market in 1833, and helped the newspaper industry to flourish and take over the “party newspapers.” During the 60s and 70s, the political left- and right-wing in Hong Kong fought fiercely, and there were 70-80 newspapers. It was the peak time of the publishing industry. Now there is only one political side, and the newspapers are dwindling.

How about not depending on political parties? Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has a net worth of US$184.6 billion and was once the wealthiest person in the world. He fears “democracy dies in darkness,” so he paid US$250 million in 2013 to buy the Washington Post. Two years later, Alibaba, with a market worth of nearly US$700 billion, bought the South China Morning Post from Robert Kuok for US$260 million. Joseph Tsai, Executive Vice Chairman of Alibaba, claimed that they want to “objectively” tell the story of China’s rise as an economic power to the world via this English-language platform. Whether it is to defend democracy or whitewash China’s image on the international stage, neither Bezos nor Joseph Tsai aims to earn big with the newspapers. Can the traditional media withstand the invasion of technology and not extinct if it has a rich backing?

Probably not. Shortly after taking over SCMP, Joseph Tsai boosted Alibaba is rich and can afford to lose. It also has the technology to attract new customers. Suddenly, it opened the website for free to try and widen its customer circle and increase income. Five years on, Alibaba’s wealth and technology did not seem to work. So SCMP started to charge subscription fees again in July last year. It shows how hard it is to earn money in the media field. But subscription fees will put off customers and reduce the effectiveness of advertisements. In the world of the internet, advertising can only work if there are enough views. If the subscription fee cannot improve the situation, then what?

Then do charity works through operating the media, like The Guardian in the UK. It set up a foundation for the long battle; its website is free at all times, and there is a message asking the readers to donate at the bottom of each article. How many readers, who go onto the website to read the news and commentaries, would care to donate? Even if the Guardian can hang on for a while with a foundation, it would just be an individual, stand-alone case and cannot become the norm for the media development. In that case, would democracy really die in the darkness of information blockage, as Bezos said?

Digital media survives by hanging onto traditional media like parasites. If traditional media ceases to exist, digital media will have nothing to attract views. That is why Google and Facebook have to keep traditional media alive. But they cannot feed everyone from this large sector. It is survival of the fittest. The traditional media needs to accommodate the technology development if it wants to survive. It needs to improve its cost-effectiveness and, at the same time, search for new ways among subscription, donation, and subsidies to increase income. Hopefully, the traditional media can get through the dark days. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Amen.

Filler:

The U.S. Congress debated on its national security law with the sunset provision in 1798. Its clauses included deporting foreigners endangering national security. Those who were for and those against had argued fiercely and even resorted to physical fights. The law had passed, but Jefferson, who was against it, had refused to enforce it when he entered the White House and never deported anyone. The law then ended “at sunset.”

Over two centuries later, national security law without a sunset provision landed in the cosmopolitan city of Asia. There was no debate, never mind scuffles. History has not progressed at all.

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play