One Person's View on How to Fix Newspapers

You're right that ownership needs to change the model, but that doesn't necessarily means they'll buy into the consortium. If newspaper owners want to get together and all charge for web content, they can do so without the creation of a consortium that oversees all the other aspects of the business as well. Heck, the way things are going, most papers will soon be owned by one of only three or four chains anyway, and those chains can easily agree to all start charging for web content. (Besides, people can easily get around paid web content by sharing a log-in.) To owners, the other functions that you have proposed for the consortium would just get in the way. Corporate ownership isn't going to latch on to an organization that condemns it as the cause of the industry's woes, and it certainly won't like being told by this organization who they should or should not hire, the kind of people they should put in charge, etc.

The consortium is a noble idea, but I think its failing is that it basically pits journalists against the business people and its solution for the industry's problems seems to be taking the control from the business side and giving it to a group journalists and academics (your plan for the consortium doesn't include any industry business people). Unfortunately, for the consortium to have a chance of even coming into existence, it needs to win over the business people because they are the ones who have the real control over the papers now. If they decide to ignore such a consortium, then it doesn't matter if the lowly peons putting out the product buy into it or not. And if your consortium's basic mission paints the business side as the villain, then the business side has no real incentive to relinquish its control to such a group.

If the roles were reversed and journalists were the ones with real power in an industry that's struggling financially, do you think they would give up that power to a consortium of business people whose aim is to find new ways to generate revenue, especially if that consortium sees journalists' emphasis for "quality journalism" over fiscal matters as the cause for the industry's financial problems?

 

The last thing journalism needs is some consortium of journalism professors and Poynter experts. These are the people who set the industry on its death spiral.

 

Probably should add to my post above that I didn't mean to snidely shoot down concernedjournalist's exhaustive approach on this. I appreciate that effort and the call for ideas. Just skeptical of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

 

I agree the corporate community should have been included in my original post on the Fourth Estate.

I think it would serve the business interests of corporations to work to re-establish the role of newspapers in a democracy. Newspapers have lost their credibility with many readers. Joining a consortium that is focused on upholding the best ideals of journalism is good business.

I see that my post has generated more than 500 views. Thank you to all who took the time to read it. As I said, if it sparks one idea in one person who can make a difference, it was worth the effort.

 

Is it possible that there is little we can do to alter the current climate? That forces beyond our control are at the heart of our circulation freefall?

It's just not that easy to make money off of news and information any more, because it's so plentiful.

Sometimes we beat ourselves up way too much.

 

It's probably not unlike what happened to transatlantic ocean liners when airplanes became the predominant mode of transportation for that route. It's not that the ocean liners were any crappier than they used to be, it's just that airplanes could do what ships couldn't, and that completely changed the game. No matter how many upgrades were made to ocean liners, the bulk of the population just wasn't going to go back to that mode of transportation. But of course, there are still shipping routes, they just serve as cargo carriers rather than tourist transportation -- in other words, ships found a new niche and survived. Those who worked on ocean liners were certainly SOL, but did the quality of transportation got worse because of the shift to air travel?

 

Exactly. We have to recognize the environment changed, and then re-position ourselves to maintain our relevance.

The self-flagellation is what just kills me.

This is a difficult transition, and we all need to pretty much move on from the idea that we must flog ourselves every time we discuss the business.

 

The fact that the word "hyperlocal" originated from journalists is an embarrassment. We were "local" before. Now we're "hyperlocal." Reminds me of the skit Eddie Murphy did in Raw, when he's telling about a man getting caught cheating on his wife. "OK! I f*cked her. We f*cked. ... I make love to you."

Hyperlocal is a buzzword and an insult to readers. If we're hyperlocal now, what are we gonna be in five years? Superhyper local? Hyper-to-the-second-power local? I think we should spend less time defining our direction and more time plotting it.

Can you imagine if we were a restaurant? We'd tell the public that our menu is limited, our service staff smaller, our seating area reduced. Then we'd charge the same price for our food, maybe even raise it ... and act surprised when people didn't flock through the doors.

I applaud Concernedjournalist for actually thinking about this instead of pointing out our industry's mistakes, as I have just done. I firmly believe there is a way to save newspapers, and threads like this are part of finding the solution.