Reporting lives even if newspapers don't

Rick, there are plenty of people trying new things, new business models, new payment methods, new ways of doing the news.

Pro Publica is new. Local news startups like Minn Post, St. Louis Beacon, Voice of San Diego are new. The startup I'm involved with began publishing in January, and it is looking at a mix of funding sources. The other startup I'm trying to launch is trying a different funding method altogether.

There's not going to be a one-size-fits-all way of doing this. None of these entities are guaranteed to make it. Joel Kramer of Minn Post just said that last week. I don't know if what I'm doing will make it. The people involved in these projects are realists, and they know it's an uphill battle, but they're not willing to assume that nothing else can be done or tried.

That's what entrepreneurs do. The only failure is not to try.

 

I don't see how simply being optimistic somehow trumps being pessimistic, assuming both sides are devoid of ideas that can or someday might produce significant revenue.

Anyone optimistic about the current online delivery systems for revenue-producing content, even those on the supposed cutting edge, either has a billion-dollar secret or is fooling themselves.

We can all talk about Facebook and Twitter and pretend like we have a clue for the future, but anyone talking about Facebook/Twitter currently was probably saying the same things about Myspace in 2007 and Friendster before that. Don't mistake smoke and mirrors angling for VC cash and a big Google/Murdoch buyout with actual sustainability.

Now is a time for manipulation and opportunism. Such a tsunami is not yet a time for building from the bedrock.

 

Newbie "looser"? Oh, lord, please tell me this person isn't getting paid to edit or write copy. Five more stitches to the face.

 

More people. Publishers fucked the industry into the ground chasing increased margin in the '80s and early '90s.

 

Look, asshole, you've made three lame posts in your day and a half here, all on this thread, without adding anything to the conversation. It's the only conclusion I can make until you demonstrate a scintilla of original thought or intelligence. Keep trying.

 

FWIW, "looser" is correct SportsJournalists.com style.

Also FWIW: The Yahoo story on UConn was mentioned earlier. I spent part of yesterday morning listening to Woj talk about the research they did for that. They flew to Idaho -- Idaho! -- for a 13-minute interview, and Yahoo didn't have a problem with footing the bill.

And that story doesn't get done by any newspaper in Connecticut.

 

And good for Yahoo. They can employ, what, a couple dozen sports reporters. Where are all the rest needed for reporting as we know it going to go?

 

Yahoo's the only online newsgatherer out there? Crap. I must have missed that memo.

 

Start adding them up. If you get within an order of magnitude of the 60k professional journalists employed in this country in 2006, you win a cookie.

 

Hey, I fully understand how some people doing mind-numbing work for crummy little chains like Scripps in crummy little markets like Boulder, Colo., are a little fearful these days. They should be. Nobody said there's going to be work for the people on the lowest rungs of the ladder. Talented people, however, will find work.

 

When will the criteria for employment become talent? It's not now, how do you foresee it changing? Or did I imagine a couple of Pulitzers going to layoffees?

 

Terrific. Like I want to hear your woe-is-me story about talented reporters being let go. Yes, newspaper publishers suck. We can stipulate to that. As I mentioned before, they fucked the industry into the ground with their greed and they're obviously not done yet.

You'll notice, however, that the most talented are finding work even after their former newspapers let them go.