In a blatant display of economic ignorance, MoveOn.org is trying to save 20th century journalism. Consider:

MoveOn.org has launched a petition drive to protest job reductions at the Los Angeles Times and three other Tribune Co. newspapers — cutbacks that the liberal activist group says threaten the papers' ability to deliver "strong watchdog journalism."

MoveOn organizers said Friday, a little more than 24 hours into their Internet campaign, that they had collected 17,125 signatures to protest cuts that this week reduced The Times' newsroom staff by 8%, or 85 positions. The group reported that it had obtained a total of 10,360 signatures objecting to cuts at the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun and Orlando Sentinel.
...

Adam Green, civic communications director for MoveOn.org Civic Action, said it might be difficult to reverse recent cuts, but said the petitions would warn Tribune Co., based in Chicago, against further reductions.

"The key for us is to get people to recognize that the Tribune's business model is at fundamental odds with a good journalism model," he said. "We want to bring more public attention on these cuts and slow the trend, to bring them more in line with a good journalism model."

Mr. Green has it wrong. The old journalism model is at fundamental odds with the current business model. Of course there's still a need for good journalism but the Times is a business above all else. This where economic illiterates get themselves into trouble. Capitalism isn't bad. It's the most effective system for satisfying needs in the world. Whether that need is Cowboy Cookies or hemp pants or good journalism or whatever else humans value, capitalism is the best system ever created. We create Useful Stuff™ under capitalism. If we still need good journalism, we'll get it.

Specifically, how does MoveOn.org supporters get their news? I'd bet that at least one person who signed those petitions uses the Internets to get news. Did he pay for it by dropping coins into a machine or offering them to a merchant? No? That's the new delivery system for news content. Dead trees are a dying business model. Don't protest the Times for its layoffs because it's taking action to save the remaining 92% of newsroom staff. And if you don't know how its publishers should do that, guess what? Neither do they. Consider:

"I think it's terrific that people care enough about the paper to do whatever they can to make sure that it has the ability to keep doing great stuff," said Times Editor Dean Baquet.

"I think it means that — at a time when people are putting papers down and questioning how relevant we are — a bunch of people are saying, 'We think you are very relevant, and keep doing what you are doing,' " he said.

That's the very touchy-feely way of saying "We still don't know how to make money in 2005 and beyond." News is a product. It always has been, but in the past, publishers were the gatekeepers with a one-dimensional delivery method. Television changed that. The Internets destroyed that. The product is still in the marketplace. The demand still exists.

For proof, look at me. I'm linking to an article in the Los Angeles Times and offering commentary. Did I do the original reporting? Would I be writing about this if I hadn't read this article that the Times staff created? I could do the research on my own, of course, but I choose to spend my time in ways more valuable to me than original reporting. I rely on news sources for information, like most everyone. Demand still exists. But newspapers are organized around a business model that expects me to pay for a printed version. I want only lengthy reading material in printed form. News, however important, is now disposable and selective. Like most, the price I'm willing to pay for that is going down. The Times and Tribune Co. and every other publisher are figuring that out. A little late, but they're figuring it out.

Why can't MoveOn.org figure it out?

Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis