Paying for journalism, but whose?

Here is an opinion piece by the Toronto Star's Heather Mallick, taking time out from her usual rants about how awful men are to urge everyone to subscribe to newspapers before they go extinct.

I already subscribe to the Star's print edition, and what exactly do I get for my money?  Well, I get lectured by Ms Mallick and the Star's seemingly endless roster of angry female columnists seven days a week, so there's that.  And my wife likes the sudoku.  But aside from that?  Not so much.

The paper's print deadline, at least for the edition that I get here in Niagara, is now so early that sports results and reports from the previous evening are almost never available.  But that's a minor quibble compared to the bigger issue, which is that less and less of the content of the paper is actually Toronto Star journalism.  Just a couple of weeks ago the Star basically sub-contracted its entire business section to the Wall Street Journal, which has resulted in a huge improvement in that section of the paper.  However, that whirring sound you're hearing is the Star's founder, the left-leaning Joseph Anderson, spinning in his grave at the thought of his organ going into partnership with Rupert Murdoch.

Look through the rest of the paper and you see bylines from everywhere -- Bloomberg, AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, LA Times and on and on.  The Star's newsroom has been decimated, so for reports on anything much beyond the boundaries of Toronto, the content has to be bought in. The paper's esteemed theatre critic has been replaced by freelancers; the architecture columnist is likewise off the payroll and now appears only occasionally as a freelancer.  The paper is a shadow of what it was even five years ago -- heck, they even made the actual pages smaller a few months back, just to save on newsprint costs.

This may seem to the bigwigs at the Star to be a good way to keep the ship afloat, but there's a downside.  One thing that becomes very obvious as you read the paper these days is that the bought-in content is of a far higher quality that the stuff the Star itself produces.  As I noted above, the WSJ-authored business section is far superior to the Star's, and on weekends, the New York Times section that is delivered to subscribers is so much better than anything the Star produces that you'd think the folks at Torstar would be downright embarrassed.

So, Heather Mallick, be careful what you wish for.  If paying for the Star is only going to get your readers journalism from a stable of far superior newspapers, a lot of people may just decide to direct their subscription money directly to the original sources.