The high-quality information game revived by the veteran Buffett
‘That noise! What’s that racket?’ ‘That’s the press, baby, the press. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing.’ This is the final scene from the film ‘Deadline’, which has moved generations of audiences, especially young and old journalists, since the early 1950s.
The editor of the popular newspaper ‘The Day’, Ed Hutcheson, played by a serious Humphrey Bogart with a hint of irony in his eyes, brings the telephone handset closer to the large press loudly printing one copy after another. Ignoring the threats of the city boss, who has finally been exposed for his crimes, he responds with just a few words and a gesture. The threat and the deadline have no effect: the good guys, the journalists, win and the bad guys, the gangsters, lose. But it won’t always be like this. However, Hollywood has intelligently built a rhetoric around journalism that portrays it as one of America’s positive characteristics, ready to ‘defend the truth’. This has resulted in a valuable film library, ranging from ‘All the President’s Men’ and ‘The Fourth Power’ to ‘The Front Page’, ‘The Post’, ‘Spotlight’, ‘She Said’ and ‘Frost/Nixon’, as well as a myriad of noirs and action movies in which journalists are portrayed in a positive light.
Now, after years of crisis, is great American journalism back in the news? A possible turnaround is being signalled by a surprising move by Warren Buffett, a highly regarded and sage figure in American finance, who is 95 years old and a true legend on Wall Street. He has cut his investments in Amazon, Apple and Bank of America, deciding instead to invest 353 million dollars in buying 5.1 million shares in the New York Times.
Buffett has just relinquished operational leadership of his company, Berkshire Hathaway, but it is likely that he will continue to be a key figure in identifying new trends in finance and the business world.
But what do paper newspapers have to do with anything? The New York Times‘ accounts are positive, including sales of paper copies, digital subscriptions (especially for digital games and cooking recipes), and various editorial services in the greater New York area and across the US and several other regions worldwide.
Digitalisation has certainly opened up new possibilities in terms of content and extraordinary opportunities for editorial dissemination, and therefore for business, in areas that would otherwise be unreachable for a newspaper with a solid provincial distribution base, in both metropolises and small provincial cities that are very attached to their local newspaper.
However, it also raised a more general issue concerning American civil, cultural, and political society. In short, is a democracy without good-quality information still a solid, healthy democracy? Here it is again: the primacy of paper. Words written down that remain to be read, understood, reflected upon, digested and used to give birth to other words, a great public discourse, built on newspapers.
This brings to mind the old Thomas Jefferson joke: ‘I would rather live in a country without a government than in a country without newspapers’. Many sectors of American public opinion are growing increasingly concerned about the increasing concentration of information power in the hands of government bodies and major players in technology, finance and the economy. This is happening without an effective system of checks and balances to compensate for the fact that the vast majority are poorly and hastily informed by the Big Tech social media and television, and those who hold the world’s most sensitive economic, political and financial information.
Big Tech has extraordinary strength in terms of the speed with which information is disseminated and controlled, and the amount of news that is circulated, but there is little control over the reliability and truth of this information. The dissemination force of Big Tech does not guarantee the quality or veracity of the information at all, and therefore has little to do with real information or democracy.
In an age of ‘factoids’ that are more or less passed off as facts in good faith, post-truth (quite the opposite of an inclination towards truth), fake news, and artificial intelligence that creates facts and contributes to current wars with similar truth, affecting popular knowledge and the very principles of democracy, it is the quality of information, its reliability, and its autonomy that act as central factors in being able to speak of democracy, truth, and thoughtful judgement of the actions of public administrations, and the critical formation of ‘public discourse’ (so dear to Habermas as the foundation of civil and democratic life).
When Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, bought the Washington Post in 2013 and had the words ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ inscribed above the masthead, many readers felt reassured. Combating ‘darkness’ (the concealment of facts and misdeeds by those in power) means ensuring, at least in principle, the quality of information and therefore the transparency and accountability of the actions of the government.
But things don’t seem to be going as expected. Like other Big Tech companies, Amazon has proven itself increasingly sensitive to requests from the White House. And just a few days ago, The Washington Post cut 300 of its 800 editorial staff (almost a third), causing serious concern within the news industry. Does this mean fewer journalists, less information and lower quality and accuracy?
If this is the direction indicated by Buffett, then welcome back to paper and the good old newspapers. Information machines have become increasingly complex, and the issue cannot be reduced to paper alone. We must return to considering the quality of information, regardless of the devices used, in order to support publishing companies (which the Meloni government is opposed to), and to ensure that citizens have access to reliable information and genuine opportunities for intellectual exchange. This could involve newspapers being supplemented with specialised weekly newsletters, in-depth analyses, columns, audio and video content, services and data. In this realm, two qualities stand out: authority and autonomy. Even games and cooking recipes have their own unique qualities, which are precisely the hallmarks of a newspaper’s brand.
On the other hand, Alessandra Gallori, editor-in-chief of the British news agency Reuters, one of the first in the world, recently told Il Sole 24 Ore: ‘We want to tell the story without renouncing morality’ (28 January). This refers to the morality of the story, the veracity of the news and the reliability of the facts.
Despite everything, good information can still be produced, even in Italy, where publishing and financial groups focus on quality information. Examples include la Nem in Veneto, the Del Vecchio group for Il Resto del Carlino, Il Giornale and Il Sole 24 Ore, and the international publishing group of Greek origin Kyriakou, which is interested in la Repubblica. All of these groups are speaking, each in their own way, about the quality of information, services for citizens and the careful use of new technologies. This is a situation that is in the midst of change and should be watched with great interest and attention.
Some years ago, in 2007, the excellent journalist and information expert Vittorio Sabadin published a book entitled ‘The Last Issue of the New York Times: The Future of Newspapers’ (Donzelli, 2007). Building on the work of media scholar Philip Meyer in ‘The Vanishing Newspaper’, the book predicted that the last copy of The New York Times would be sold at the last New York newsstand in the first quarter of 2043. If we look at the actions of our 95-year-old financial guru today, it seems increasingly unlikely that it will happen. It is more likely that my granddaughter Iolanda will be able to start her Sunday morning by sitting on the couch under a blanket, flicking through her copy of the New York Times. This makes me feel much calmer for her, her friends and a little for us too.
(photo Getty Images)
‘That noise! What’s that racket?’ ‘That’s the press, baby, the press. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing.’ This is the final scene from the film ‘Deadline’, which has moved generations of audiences, especially young and old journalists, since the early 1950s.
The editor of the popular newspaper ‘The Day’, Ed Hutcheson, played by a serious Humphrey Bogart with a hint of irony in his eyes, brings the telephone handset closer to the large press loudly printing one copy after another. Ignoring the threats of the city boss, who has finally been exposed for his crimes, he responds with just a few words and a gesture. The threat and the deadline have no effect: the good guys, the journalists, win and the bad guys, the gangsters, lose. But it won’t always be like this. However, Hollywood has intelligently built a rhetoric around journalism that portrays it as one of America’s positive characteristics, ready to ‘defend the truth’. This has resulted in a valuable film library, ranging from ‘All the President’s Men’ and ‘The Fourth Power’ to ‘The Front Page’, ‘The Post’, ‘Spotlight’, ‘She Said’ and ‘Frost/Nixon’, as well as a myriad of noirs and action movies in which journalists are portrayed in a positive light.
Now, after years of crisis, is great American journalism back in the news? A possible turnaround is being signalled by a surprising move by Warren Buffett, a highly regarded and sage figure in American finance, who is 95 years old and a true legend on Wall Street. He has cut his investments in Amazon, Apple and Bank of America, deciding instead to invest 353 million dollars in buying 5.1 million shares in the New York Times.
Buffett has just relinquished operational leadership of his company, Berkshire Hathaway, but it is likely that he will continue to be a key figure in identifying new trends in finance and the business world.
But what do paper newspapers have to do with anything? The New York Times‘ accounts are positive, including sales of paper copies, digital subscriptions (especially for digital games and cooking recipes), and various editorial services in the greater New York area and across the US and several other regions worldwide.
Digitalisation has certainly opened up new possibilities in terms of content and extraordinary opportunities for editorial dissemination, and therefore for business, in areas that would otherwise be unreachable for a newspaper with a solid provincial distribution base, in both metropolises and small provincial cities that are very attached to their local newspaper.
However, it also raised a more general issue concerning American civil, cultural, and political society. In short, is a democracy without good-quality information still a solid, healthy democracy? Here it is again: the primacy of paper. Words written down that remain to be read, understood, reflected upon, digested and used to give birth to other words, a great public discourse, built on newspapers.
This brings to mind the old Thomas Jefferson joke: ‘I would rather live in a country without a government than in a country without newspapers’. Many sectors of American public opinion are growing increasingly concerned about the increasing concentration of information power in the hands of government bodies and major players in technology, finance and the economy. This is happening without an effective system of checks and balances to compensate for the fact that the vast majority are poorly and hastily informed by the Big Tech social media and television, and those who hold the world’s most sensitive economic, political and financial information.
Big Tech has extraordinary strength in terms of the speed with which information is disseminated and controlled, and the amount of news that is circulated, but there is little control over the reliability and truth of this information. The dissemination force of Big Tech does not guarantee the quality or veracity of the information at all, and therefore has little to do with real information or democracy.
In an age of ‘factoids’ that are more or less passed off as facts in good faith, post-truth (quite the opposite of an inclination towards truth), fake news, and artificial intelligence that creates facts and contributes to current wars with similar truth, affecting popular knowledge and the very principles of democracy, it is the quality of information, its reliability, and its autonomy that act as central factors in being able to speak of democracy, truth, and thoughtful judgement of the actions of public administrations, and the critical formation of ‘public discourse’ (so dear to Habermas as the foundation of civil and democratic life).
When Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, bought the Washington Post in 2013 and had the words ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ inscribed above the masthead, many readers felt reassured. Combating ‘darkness’ (the concealment of facts and misdeeds by those in power) means ensuring, at least in principle, the quality of information and therefore the transparency and accountability of the actions of the government.
But things don’t seem to be going as expected. Like other Big Tech companies, Amazon has proven itself increasingly sensitive to requests from the White House. And just a few days ago, The Washington Post cut 300 of its 800 editorial staff (almost a third), causing serious concern within the news industry. Does this mean fewer journalists, less information and lower quality and accuracy?
If this is the direction indicated by Buffett, then welcome back to paper and the good old newspapers. Information machines have become increasingly complex, and the issue cannot be reduced to paper alone. We must return to considering the quality of information, regardless of the devices used, in order to support publishing companies (which the Meloni government is opposed to), and to ensure that citizens have access to reliable information and genuine opportunities for intellectual exchange. This could involve newspapers being supplemented with specialised weekly newsletters, in-depth analyses, columns, audio and video content, services and data. In this realm, two qualities stand out: authority and autonomy. Even games and cooking recipes have their own unique qualities, which are precisely the hallmarks of a newspaper’s brand.
On the other hand, Alessandra Gallori, editor-in-chief of the British news agency Reuters, one of the first in the world, recently told Il Sole 24 Ore: ‘We want to tell the story without renouncing morality’ (28 January). This refers to the morality of the story, the veracity of the news and the reliability of the facts.
Despite everything, good information can still be produced, even in Italy, where publishing and financial groups focus on quality information. Examples include la Nem in Veneto, the Del Vecchio group for Il Resto del Carlino, Il Giornale and Il Sole 24 Ore, and the international publishing group of Greek origin Kyriakou, which is interested in la Repubblica. All of these groups are speaking, each in their own way, about the quality of information, services for citizens and the careful use of new technologies. This is a situation that is in the midst of change and should be watched with great interest and attention.
Some years ago, in 2007, the excellent journalist and information expert Vittorio Sabadin published a book entitled ‘The Last Issue of the New York Times: The Future of Newspapers’ (Donzelli, 2007). Building on the work of media scholar Philip Meyer in ‘The Vanishing Newspaper’, the book predicted that the last copy of The New York Times would be sold at the last New York newsstand in the first quarter of 2043. If we look at the actions of our 95-year-old financial guru today, it seems increasingly unlikely that it will happen. It is more likely that my granddaughter Iolanda will be able to start her Sunday morning by sitting on the couch under a blanket, flicking through her copy of the New York Times. This makes me feel much calmer for her, her friends and a little for us too.
(photo Getty Images)