This article is terribly confused. The declining state of media organizations has nothing to do with journalists and everything to do with the manner in which the businesses have been run over the past 20 years.
Really? What business practices would enable journalism to "survive" a transition to a world in which their product has no value? Perhaps their business decisions are all just whistling in the dark? If there are no paths forward for them, blaming them is counterproductive. I don't think "blame" can accrue where there were no good decisions to be made, even in theory.
(By "survive", most people mean that while it may shrink a bit or grow a bit, it's the same fundamental business doing the same fundamental things.)
This sort of analysis is critical. Frankly, I could sum up the article even faster: Journalism supply has shot through the roof. What do expect to happen to the price, given that demand can't shoot through the roof at anywhere near the same speed? What does that say about the probability of journalism "surviving"?
First of all, the article speaks of journalists as a homogenous group which is ridiculous since they are neither created equal nor do they act as a single group. It then describes only one aspect of journalism and devalues all roles journalists play based on that incomplete description. For example, there is no mention of the value of investigative journalism or the historical value of well-written, unbiased content.
From the article: Today, ordinary adults can observe and report news, gather expert knowledge, determine significance, add audio, photography, and video components, and publish this content far and wide (or at least to their social network) with ease. And much of this is done for no pay.
This is a generally correct assessment of the current situation. Where it goes wrong is with the conclusion it draws: "Until journalists can redefine the value of their labor above this level, they deserve low pay."
As long as there are businesses willing to pay for this type of content, there will be people willing to fill those positions. It's not the responsibility of journalists to correct this situation.
> First of all, the article speaks of journalists as a homogenous group which is ridiculous since they are neither created equal nor do they act as a single group.
This is not ridiculous. I think it's perfectly valid to consider the question: "Why do journalists (in general) have low salaries?" -- More down below.
> "Until journalists can redefine the value of their labor above this level, they deserve low pay."
> there will be people willing to fill those positions. It's not the responsibility of journalists to correct this situation.
I think the article is actually quite sympathetic to journalists -- the low pay is seen as a bad thing, and it raises the question of what journalists can do to be better-compensated.
> For example, there is no mention of the value of investigative journalism or the historical value of well-written, unbiased content.
I'm not sure what you mean by historical value, but the article was quite clear that deeply-researched, well-written, 'hard' journalism is rewarded -- because it has special value above and beyond the noise floor of the 'average' journalist.
I think that your position and the article's are actually quite close. There is a lot of 'average' journalism out there, and it does not provide much value in today's world. The exceptional journalists with an understanding of value _are_ being rewarded -- the investigative journalists you mention come to mind.
Below I have pasted what I believe to be the thesis of the article -- I don't think you truly disagree:
If value is to be created, journalists cannot continue to report merely in the traditional ways or merely re-report the news that has appeared elsewhere. They must add something novel that creates value. They will have to start providing information and knowledge that is not readily available elsewhere, in forms that are not available elsewhere, or in forms that are more useable by and relevant to their audiences.
I agree to the extent that the article argues that a higher quality product deserves a higher value.
I think the article is actually quite sympathetic to journalists
One of the reasons I said the article was confused is that it's not clear who the target audience is. If it was sympathetic to journalists, then why the accusatory title and overall tone?
