NewspapersThe real problem with newspapers isn't some change in morals, quality or even commercialization of news (newspapers have always been businesses.) It's just that other media came along and made their business model obsolete. You hinted at that in your piece when you talk about Google and Craigslist eating their revenue stream. The "reporting" on the front page was the major cost for the newspapers, and for TV news. The actual revenue was in the sports pages, comics, classifieds (esp. job wanted and real estate), and perhaps the stock reports. The rise of the internet has killed off all those profitable special categories, leaving only news to support most newspapers. So they've resorted to dumbing that down and running those dopey "lifestyle" features. The stupid part of this is that the internet is also better at covering health, food and celebrity gossip (see The Superficial.com) This tactic is not going to save them. The internet is just the last nail in the coffin though. Even thirty years ago, when I first started reading newspapers, the local paper was mostly crime and fire, plus articles recycled from the AP and major newspapers. Newspapers have been stagnant, and have had stagnant subscription levels, for generations. TV news started it, by eating away at demand for printed news. People just don't consume as much news as the elite think they should. A few sentences on the problems in the Middle East is more than most people really want to know, and has been for decades. We can moan all we like about the lack of quality reporting, but that's not going to change if there's no market for it. But so what? It's not as if you can't get good reporting if you want it -- you've managed to inform yourself on a wide variety of subjects, so clearly it's possible. And the internet is even starting to produce some original reporting, for example, Michael Yon and Michael Totten in the Middle East. Not to mention all the first-hand accounts by residents of other countries found in blogs all over the world. And of course for editorial material (like your blog), this is a golden age. I've never been all that impressed by most reporting anyway. If you throw away the stuff that's just a summary of a press conference with some government figure, or a company press release, you have very little "research"-style reporting. And even in that rare situation, the results generally stink. I think it was Michael Crichton in one of his speeches who said we all have a weird amnesia when we read a newspaper. When we hit an article about something we know about (because it relates to our work or own life experience), we see that it's riddled with errors and omissions. Then we turn the page and read about the Middle East and assume that's accurate! This isn't because reporters are all sloppy or stupid, it's because they are not experts in any field. Even a specialist, like a financial reporter, doesn't generally have a degree in economics or a previous job at a brokerage, or even experience as a day trader. They are experts at talking to people and writing short summaries of what they've learned. The actual subject matter is secondary. So in fact, the internet is a boon for "research" reporting as well. We are finally hearing directly from the experts, in a forum where they can write what they please. The doctors are writing about medicine in their blogs, and the lawyers are writing about law. Now we can read a realtor writing about his business, not an article by a reporter who talked to an industry spokesman who's never sold a house in his life. The failure of newspapers to turn some of that blog content into articles is mindboggling. It's not as if the authors would object! Newspapers and TV news should be moving onto the web with new content -- instead of some reporter standing in front of the white house with some dull summary, why not transcripts of the speech linked to video segments, linked to analysis or backgrounders on all the issues mentioned, linked to advocacy groups and pundits, all arranged in a searchable, permanent archive? This isn't much harder, and it would use the internet in the way that it's used best -- to give you as much or as little information as you want on a subject, all searchable by keywords. Over time, if newspapers kept their archives up to date, linking in new material, soliciting summaries from real experts, they'd accumulate massively useful databases. Then run ads at all the links to make some money. I still skim the online front pages of newspapers like the New York Times or Washington Post or my local San Jose Mercury News, but I wouldn't pay for most of that content. I haven't looked at a paper version in years. Why should I? Update: Here's an interesting item, from State of the News Media I thought newspaper circulation had been in absolute decline since the 70's, but it's only been as a percentage of the population. Absolute decline started in the 90's. By 1990, however, even the boost from a growing population was not enough to maintain how many newspapers were sold each day. Circulation began dropping at the rate of 1 percent every year from 1990 to 2002. By 2002, weekday circulation of U.S. newspapers had dropped 11 percent in 12 years.
There's no reason papers can't distribute online and make money from
advertising. Local entertainment/Metro papers are free and presumably
profitable. The big newspapers were already computerized, so it should
have been relatively simple and cheap to produce digital editions and
serve them over the web. Of course, some organizations, large and small,
get taken to the cleaners doing technology projects, so who knows?
For more, see Free The Memes! Have a Comment? More Writings |
|