Steve Jobs Misses The Boat On Newspapers

The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital conference gave rise to a special section in the paper on Monday. Of course, a half-page was given to excerpts from Steve Jobs' comments, some of which I also saw on video on CNBC last week.

Of particular interest to me were Jobs' remarks concerning the iPad and newspapers.

The Journal quotes Jobs as saying,

"One of my beliefs very strongly is that any democracy depends on free, healthy press, and so when I think of the most important journalistic endeavors in this country, I think of things like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and publications like that, and we all know what's happened to the economics of those businesses. I don't want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers. Anything that we can do to help the news-gathering organizations find new ways of expression so that they can afford to keep their news-gathering and editorial operations intact, I'm all for."

Is this the same brilliant, societally-aware Steve Jobs who marketed the early Apple computer, built the company, built Next and Pixar, then returned and reinvented Apple?

Is so, how could he possibly miss the dynamics of modern media and the naturally-shrinking place of published printed text as news?

Let's take his quote apart and expose Jobs' logical and factual errors and biases piece by piece.

First, "a free, healthy press" in today's world means video content, and, most importantly, cable news.

For Christ's sake, Steve, have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years? CNN's coverage of the first Gulf War catapulted 24-hour cable news to the forefront of media, didn't it?

Nobody with a brain thinks text-only "press" is where it's at anymore.

The "economics of those businesses" are in trouble because, as Schumpeter would probably observe, they have been eclipsed by better business models.

One only need mention Rupert Murdoch's successful acquisition of Dow Jones from its family owners to understand how the model has changed. Murdoch saved the Journal's news-gathering operation by pouring it into a much wider, real-time, accessible distribution system.

Steve, were you even aware that Murdoch bought the Journal? It sure doesn't seem so, from your remarks.

Then there's Jobs' constant penchant for ultimate, tight-fisted control, evidenced by his disdain that the US could "descend into a nation of bloggers."

Doesn't this contradict Jobs' opening contention that "any democracy depends on a free, healthy press?"

"Free press" doesn't mean only newspapers. Isn't blogging the ultimate "healthy, free press?" The ultimate individuation of free speech broadcast to all who would read and listen to it?

What's unhealthy about a nation of individuals using free blogging tools to express their opinions? And perhaps even report news?

However, I think we see, in this element of Jobs' remarks, his ongoing distrust of anything he can't control. The need for closed systems which can be bought or muzzled. Jobs is notorious for designing closed-ended devices. And often, they are sufficiently superior in performance and design to take large market shares at premium prices. Good for him.

But that's business, not democracy.

The last line of Jobs' quote, involving "anything that we can do to help the news-gathering organizations find new ways of expression...." was demonstrated by Murdoch when he bought Dow Jones.

Again, Jobs appears to be a simpleton with his ignorance of this phenomenon.

Pinning his hopes on a print edition of the New York Times shows how out of touch Jobs is on this matter.

Very sad to see.