Newspapers RIP?

[Reacher]

I notice that the rest of the world is beginning to write obituaries for the newspaper industry, such as http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_the_newspaper.html.

Is 2009 the end?

 

[Small Town Guy]

I notice that the rest of the world is beginning to write obituaries for the newspaper industry, such as http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_the_newspaper.html.

Is 2009 the end?

Reacher, was this you in the comments?

another part of the problem is that newspaper people have been so dead set against any change at all. many of them still do not take the Web seriously as a way to convey information. over on the sportsjournalists.com forum, several of the diehards are currently arguing that print-only (no content at all on the Web) is a way to save newspapers.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

That's Fredrick.

 

[mustangj17]

I notice that the rest of the world is beginning to write obituaries for the newspaper industry, such as http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_the_newspaper.html.

Is 2009 the end?

Reacher, was this you in the comments?

another part of the problem is that newspaper people have been so dead set against any change at all. many of them still do not take the Web seriously as a way to convey information. over on the sportsjournalists.com forum, several of the diehards are currently arguing that print-only (no content at all on the Web) is a way to save newspapers.

I don't think anyone has argued against a product. They've argued against giving it away for free. There is no doubt that the internet sites for newspapers are very successful. But success does not equal money. And unfortunately, newspaper websites don't equal money either. That's why "diehards" are against giving it away for free. It is self-defeating.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think it will be a long time before there is another "good year for newspapers"

 

[JayFarrar]

I think it will be a long time before there is another "good year for newspapers"

It was also widely decided, just a couple of months ago, that gas would never be under three dollars again. I paid $1.36 just a few minutes ago.
The problem with the argument that newspapers should have made the switch to the information business because railroads stuck to a dying biz model and didn't get into the transportation biz is a false one.
People quit riding the trains, so you no longer had a demand. The demand for news is higher now than it has ever been. Total readership has shot through the roof. The problem now is that the readers don't want to pay for the content.
Insisting, somehow, that the web should be free is killing the newspaper business. Just like Tivo is killing the TV business.
Some also keep insisting that the only real function of newspapers now is investigative work. That is false.
Newspapers perform a vital function in American democracy by serving as a check to those in power. Without newspapers, the American way of life as we currently know it, will end.
Right now, we live in a golden age. Newspapers have never been better. TV has never been better. That will all be coming to an end and sooner rather than later.
Media can't afford to give its content away for free, and the consumer doesn't want to pay for the things that support the media.
Something is going to have to give.

 

[shotglass]

I think it will be a long time before there is another "good year for newspapers"

It was also widely decided, just a couple of months ago, that gas would never be under three dollars again. I paid $1.36 just a few minutes ago.

Beat me to it.

But please, Mizzou, be sure you aren't hit by the falling sky.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think it will be a long time before there is another "good year for newspapers"

It was also widely decided, just a couple of months ago, that gas would never be under three dollars again. I paid $1.36 just a few minutes ago.

Beat me to it.

But please, Mizzou, be sure you aren't hit by the falling sky.

Well, the prices of newspapers are coming down dramatically. Not sure how that suggests any positive developments for our industry, but it does keep things parallel and all.

A news operation that sold for $1 billion 10 years ago, then just $500 million 12 months ago might be worth, oh, $150 million now.

Bet the price of gas increases a helluva lot more, going forward, than the price of a newspaper franchise.

 

[dixiehack]

They were excellent in The Client.

 

[EmbassyRow]

Heaven must have needed an industry.

 

[Mark2010]

The platforms may be changing, but the fundamental principles of journalism remain.

You research stuff, you observe events, you ask questions, you pass out information. Doesn't matter whether it's on a printed page, broadcast over TV or radio, some podcast or on the internet. The principles are still the same.

I remember early in my career the switch was made from a manual composing room to electronic pagination. At first, I hated it, because I was familiar and comfortable with the former means. But after I got some training and experience with it, I actually came to like the new methods better.

I suspect it is the same for journalism and the web. Now, I'm not a techo-savvy journalist --- hell, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet back when I was in school --- but I'm sure I could learn if given the opportunity. And good reporting and writing is still, well, good reporting and good writing.

 

[Joe Williams]

The platforms may be changing, but the fundamental principles of journalism remain.

You research stuff, you observe events, you ask questions, you pass out information. Doesn't matter whether it's on a printed page, broadcast over TV or radio, some podcast or on the internet. The principles are still the same.

I remember early in my career the switch was made from a manual composing room to electronic pagination. At first, I hated it, because I was familiar and comfortable with the former means. But after I got some training and experience with it, I actually came to like the new methods better.

I suspect it is the same for journalism and the web. Now, I'm not a techo-savvy journalist --- hell, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet back when I was in school --- but I'm sure I could learn if given the opportunity. And good reporting and writing is still, well, good reporting and good writing.

Except that now, you do not pass "Go!" and you do not collect $200. OK, maybe you collect $200 but that's about all you can collect, because the days of making a reasonable middle-class living are dwindling fast for present and future journalists.

Through previous technological changes, the business model still functioned because people still were willing to pay -- advertisers through the near-monopolistic ad rates, readers through modest but constant subscriptions -- for the product. Not anymore. Never mind the technogical changes, it's the cultural shift -- the public wanting news and info, but for FREE, and a willingness to settle for whatever quality of work can be procured for FREE -- that has toppled this business.

As for the train analogy offered on this thread, people's "buy" decision to stop riding trains didn't mean demand was gone. It meant demand had shifted to a quicker, easier form of transportation -- air travel. And if someone had offered to move people around the country for free, it would have shifted there.

Newspapers hurt themselves by a) alienating large segments of readers with overt political agendas, to the point that their coverage wasn't valued as something professional and high-quality, and b) by making it available on the Web for no cost to the consumer. The you-get-what-you-pay-for association was inevitable: This coverage, already lacking certain standards that would bespeak quality, now is worth as much as the free shopper that hits my steps once a week.

Putting that toothpaste back into the tube might be impossible now. We degraded the product at the same time we started to give it away, so that ravenous audience for news and information doesn't drool specifically for our best and most important work anymore. All the other stuff that people valued newspapers for -- classified ads, coupons, movie times, weather -- are readily available elsewhere.

If the money was coming in, we could adapt to any technology changes. But the business convulsion means only some of us will be left standing to even try.

As for that "good reporting and writing still is good reporting and writing," I submit: Somewhere, someone still makes fine buggy whips, outstanding kerosene lamps and men's fedoras to die for. No one sells nearly as many of them anymore, though, or makes the same sort of living doing so.

 

[buckweaver]

As for that "good reporting and writing still is good reporting and writing," I submit: Somewhere, someone still makes fine buggy whips, outstanding kerosene lamps and men's fedoras to die for. No one sells nearly as many of them anymore, though, or makes the same sort of living doing so.

The world isn't ending, so take off your sandwich board. :

Plenty of us still make a decent living reporting, writing, editing and designing. Maybe not for newspapers, and maybe not in this specific economic downturn, but even despite those factors, what you say isn't necessarily true for everybody.

I'm really sick of these generalities being accepted as gospel. Journalism is not going away. Newspapers might be. There is a difference.

 

[shotglass]

I think that's what isn't being understood here. It may be happening to some people. It's NOT happening to other people.

 

[BYH]

Shottie, the ratio tilts heavier and heavier towards "some people" every single day.

I'm glad you personally haven't been hammered yet, but you can't blame other people for steeling themselves for what feels inevitable.

 

[hockeybeat]

I think that's what isn't being understood here. It may be happening to some people. It's NOT happening to other people.

Mike Vaccaro wrote the following in his December 14 column in the New York Post

If you happened to be keeping score at this week's Winter Meetings, you already know that Sherman of The Post had an even more impressive stay in Vegas than Manny Pacquiao did, and caused even more bloodshed while he was there.

The work that Vaccaro praised is the kind of work that guarantees that while our industry morphs from the printed product to the 'net, there will be a need for professional writers, editors, photographers and layout people.

 

[buckweaver]

Steeling yourself is one thing, Beej. Ranting about buggy whips and fedoras is quite another.

Of course, I do hope those of us still making a decent living (in newspapers or otherwise) realize the possibility of being out on our asses in the near-future and have some sort of backup plan, if the need arises. That is a reality no one can deny. It's hit too close to home too many times recently. I know that.

But the world is not ending. The world is changing. If that makes some people miserable, so be it. Some of us aren't so pessimistic.

 

[BYH]

Steeling yourself is one thing, Beej. Ranting about buggy whips and fedoras is quite another.

Of course, I do hope those of us still making a decent living (in newspapers or otherwise) realize the possibility of being out on our asses in the near-future and have some sort of backup plan, if the need arises. That is a reality no one can deny. It's hit too close to home too many times recently. I know that.

But the world is not ending. The world is changing. If that makes some people miserable, so be it. Some of us aren't so pessimistic.

You can't blame people, though, if they're feeling apoclyptic (sp).

I don't doubt there will ALWAYS be a need for people who can gather the news, write it, edit it, design it, distribute it, etc. I have SERIOUS doubts that the bastards that run big media give a **** about doing it the right way [/Larry Brown] and will continue to look to do it on the cheap until they realize that they can get just as many eyeballs to the site with "citizen journalism" as the real thing.

You know as well as I do how much the powers that be love "comments." They'll get more people to the site with an anything goes, Wild Wild West vibe in which everyone comments on the news (or what they think is the news) but nobody actually reports on it.

I often fear it's not pessimism but realism to harbor such worries.

 

[Reacher]

If you can stay positive, buckweaver, good for you.

I am trying hard to see--or even imagine--the light at the end of the tunnel. Really, I am.

Maybe it is there ...

 

[Joe Williams]

As for that "good reporting and writing still is good reporting and writing," I submit: Somewhere, someone still makes fine buggy whips, outstanding kerosene lamps and men's fedoras to die for. No one sells nearly as many of them anymore, though, or makes the same sort of living doing so.

The world isn't ending, so take off your sandwich board. :

Plenty of us still make a decent living reporting, writing, editing and designing. Maybe not for newspapers, and maybe not in this specific economic downturn, but even despite those factors, what you say isn't necessarily true for everybody.

I'm really sick of these generalities being accepted as gospel. Journalism is not going away. Newspapers might be. There is a difference.

First of all, Buck, I wasn't ranting. That's your word, and you're not being honest if you characterize my offering that way.

Second of all, what's this guy ...

... doing dissing my discussion of fedoras?

Third, I'll frame my point this way: I wasn't talking about the glacier-like evolution of this business and where our particular careers are headed. You make a nice living in journalism now? Swell. You might even be able to hang onto your job until you retire. But I'm suggesting we jump ahead 25 years and think about what the business will look like then.

Will there be fewer places paying people like us to practice journalism? Will they be paying fewer of us? Will they be paying those people less money to do so?

I maintain that the answers to all three questions are "yes." Resoundingly and significantly so.

Quibble about my pessimism if you like, but I don't see any direction other than down. To a pie that is shrinking, capable of feeding fewer journalists and providing much less sustenance. Not making any "absolute" claims here, in terms of no one hanging onto a job or feeling professional satisfaction. But I think the odds are getting longer and longer against that, and the atmosphere that permeates newsrooms and the business now is dousing a lot of flames even before the people are dumped.