Kang-HMF & Picard

There is an interesting myth that the demand for lipstick or miniskirts tends to increase when the economy is going through a slump. Although it might not be based on a theoretical assumption, it would represent one index that may explain the economic circumstances we are facing today. But what about media economics? Do we have any indexes that explain or predict what the media industry is going through or how it would be? For example, by applying the economic myth above, can we say that if the economy is falling, readers would quit subscribing to newspapers, as Asian consumers are not willing to purchase Disney’s home videos? I do not think so. Media goods, especially, journalistic products, are not explained as simply as the law of demand and supply relative to physical goods. I believe this is because journalistic products permit a value judgment. Even if households have been struggling with decreased income, stopping their newspaper subscriptions might not be the first solution they use to reduce their expenditures (although people may reduce the number of subscriptions they have). As a journalism student, I believe that people are willing to be exposed to media messages and search by themselves for the information they need and want. In a sense, the media industry is less sensitive to common (elastic) market law that is influenced by price and other diverse external factors, such as income and taste.

However, new technology has challenged the stability of the media industry, especially the newspaper industry. The new platform asserts that newspapers are more accessible to audiences and offer more unique content as adopting the new media technology. To avoid the demise of the news business it seems be must; however, I do not agree that newspapers would perish because of their failure to adopt a new technology as Picard argued. He does not seem to give much credit to the professionalism of journalists; rather, he is concerned that their main role is to give people access to information more easily and effectively, and give them unique and attractive content. That is a real value for consumers and Picard himself. Of course, the challenge posed by new technology would be a good chance for journalists to go out away from mannerism; however, it cannot be said that it is a “real” valuable work of journalism for consumers and society overall. As the Internet developed, other less-than-mainstream media, such as blogs, Twitter, and even mobile phones have played roles as news platforms. Also, this new area permits citizens to produce and deliver news products; thus, the deep-seated notion of the difference between journalists and audiences (citizens) has faded. However, I believe that we should not ignore journalists’ professionalism. Can we say that more accessible and unique information is indeed valuable for consumers? Do they only guarantee the value of journalism or journalists? I argue that the newsroom is still regarded as a credible platform that produces and delivers information, despite the fact that people have been attracted to popular bloggers.

I believe that the news business and new technology would produce an excellent complementary relationship; however, it would be better if we considered the relationship between the two entities by mere adopting or die. Instead, we should answer why the new technology adoption is important for saving journalism, and how the failure to adopt it is harmful to the news business. That is, media economics needs normative economics perspectives rather a positive one.