Tell me again ... why do newspapers need paper, exactly?

...and the Mayan Calendar ends in 1,182 days.

 

The last (as in <i>final</i>) paper I worked for was owned by someone who had 2 papers in the region, owned a local TV station and a handful of radio stations. Each had its own independent Web site and sharing info/stories with the sister properties was strictly verbotten. I talked to the GM of our paper and said that we had a chance to get a jump on the future of the news media -- that a combined effort, put together as a "full service news delivery system" that included the written word, audio and video and presented as a unified product online -- was at our fingertips. All we had to do was combine our resources and the company could pretty much own the media market in a growing region.

The response? "That's not going to happen."

Why not? In the end, won't everyone wind up with some personal information device (like an iPhone) that can provide stories, audio and video? Isn't that why the mobile services (like an iPhone or Kindle) are being floated out there? doesn't it make sense?

It does to me, at least. In the end, journalism won't die; the use of paper will. The world is pushing toward electronic/technological connectivity. Instead of fighting it, why not embrace it?

Because that is change, which means risk (and a monetary investment), and the industry is still too shaken by the economic downturn to take the chance.

Sad really. The future is here. The product and technology and demand is here. The audience has proven willing to pay for the service.

All that's missing is the willingness -- and <i>cojones</i> -- to leap.

 

Journalism, as we know it, will die unless the gathering of news is monetized.

I work for one of the big corporations. We share. We share everyday. We share video, stories, blogs. We meet continuously so we don't overlap coverage.
My newsroom is 40% the size it was six years ago. 40%!
So, the notion that a little convergence is going to save the business... Or a little flip-cam video is going to save the business ... Or a podcast... or a Tweet... is off target. Those technologies and strategies are all useful. Useful as a delivery method or useful in a survival sense.
But...
They do not drive enough revenue. DO NOT. It's that simple.

 

It doesn't take a lack of cojones to know that it's silly to throw money down a hole just so you can stay on the cutting edge.

There's just no money in online delivery of news.

 

Video, stories blogs ... oh my.
Video, stories, blogs. Oh my.

Cutting edge crap; show me the money, Internet. Show me the money. Somebody convinced newspapers to stop doing what they do best; write compelling stories and cover their communities so well that people must get a newspaper and advertise in one.
Hilarious.

 

Know you're playing it for laughs . . . but where are the Mayans now? Just asking.

 

Is it just me or is there another soul out there who can't stand staring at screens for 23 hours/day?

Also, the proliferation of tiny screens have made me (literally) and society (metaphorically) myopic.

At the very least, broadsheet newspapers remind us that the world and today's issues are far bigger than what fits into our grubby little mitts.

 

You haven't been to central and southern Mexico, or Central America? Just asking.
Tough to define a culture which knew no countries or borders.