Jan
20

How to Break Up with the Newspaper Industry

Let’s be honest: it isn’t working out.  In fact, it hasn’t been working out for almost 20 years now.  And let’s not point fingers because we’re both to blame.

Don’t Cry, Your Newsprint Will Get All Blotchy.

In a healthy relationship, both parties respect and appreciate one another.  They know neither side is perfect, but they continually work together toward mutually beneficial goals.  And, PS, the sex is great.

In a broken relationship, neither party values the goals, accomplishments or contributions of the other.  Each side takes the other for granted, while refusing to take steps that could strengthen the connection.  And let’s not even talk about what doesn’t happen in the bedroom…

So: which scenario best describes the relationship between us and the newspaper industry?  And if things really are as bad as they seem… isn’t it time we see other people?

When Did It All Fall Apart?

Sure, the Internet disrupted our local and national newspaper industries.  Suddenly, what we could only get by paying for locally, we could now get for free from someone else — someone newer, faster and on-demand.  So much for fidelity.

Jilted, the newspaper industry called us out.  They accused us of taking advantage of their hard work, ignoring their needs and walking away from centuries of tradition.  And we laughed because we thought they were crazy.

Mostly, they just seemed jealous of our high-speed mistress, who wasn’t always reliable but, hey, when she was on, she was available whenever and wherever we wanted.  Plus, she was always interested in finding newer, faster, better ways of doing it — even in different languages!  And did we mention she did it all for free?

Will Your Kindle Go Down on You in a Theater?

Now that we all seem ready to commit to the Internet, the newspapers (or what’s left of them) are pulling out all the stops.  They’re guilting us into finding them relevant, or insisting that we’ll miss them when they’re gone.  Which may be true.  But they’re also trying to punish those of us who do care, which is driving away the very people who should most want to find a way to make this all work out for everyone involved.

Yes, maybe we were callous for leaving in the first place.  But times change, people change, goals and needs change.  If both parties don’t evolve together, one of them gets left behind.  It’s a sad situation, and we really hope newspapers find someone who’ll love them for who they are, because they really do deserve it.

But it can’t be us.  Our hearts are with another.

Now, let’s do the mature thing and sit down to tell the kids.

Dig this blog? Subscribe and you’ll never miss a witty insight again.

Share This Post:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Justin Social Media, Sociology Subscribe to RSS feed
  • I know you guys are talking about deeper stuff here, but in my experience I have have frustrating customer service from newspapers. Their unwillingness to change not only news delivery but adopt modern customer service reinforces your point. It is the whole of the business that has issues, not just one facet.
  • The biggest challenge I see in my newsroom isn't a willingness to adopt new methods of delivery. It is embracing the expectations that come with the new platforms. We've been a one-way street for a very long time, and most of the people I work with are nervous -- or fearful -- about the idea that we should not only be listening to our readers/users but responding to them as well. I can't begin to explain how many times each day someone who leaves a comment on our site is dismissed as an idiot, whether he is or not. And when the owners told us a few months ago that we would do a better job of listening and responding, the reaction among those who run my newsroom was outward hostility.

    Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic -- because this is my profession we're talking about -- but I think journalism is still relevant and will remain so. But only to those organizations that are smart enough to adopt the tools available to us and use them properly. I'm hopeful that I'm working for one of those "smart" companies; if I'm not, I'll find one that is.
  • The links in this post point to some spooky stuff.

    From the NYT story: "Even the reporting done by traditional media
    was driven mostly by government statements rather than journalists’ own digging, the study found."

    That scares the bejesus out of me. Working more poorly only makes things worse.

    And Ms. Sullivan's opening in the Buffalo News is a tad overwrought. I'm a newspaperman and I'm not sure that "Newspaper journalism matters more than ever." Good journalism, yes.

    JK: "A good journalist is a good journalist, regardless of platform." I agree. And I'd pay good money to spend an hour - heck, half an hour - talking about the industry with a fellow journalist who is confident rather than scared; one who, if pressed, would say, "I'm a good enough journalist and a smart enough person to make it, even if my newspaper doesn't."
  • Journalists break up with newspapers all the time - how can the public be expected to do anything else? Telling me that the newspaper is more valuable than its writers is the same as saying CBS has more power than Oprah, and we're just starting to see how that's unfolding.

    If the story is the powerful part, then journalists will turn out fine. Like successful authors whose distribution fails, if there's ambition to see their work succeed, they need to fire the publisher, not the format.

    Time to put our big girl panties on and look for sustainability, not reliability - the latter is a perishing concept.
  • As I see it, the news industry took itself and its readers for granted.

    Over the past 20-30 years, the combination of cable, USA Today and the Internet has disrupted and rewritten the rules for information delivery. But instead of acting (or even reacting) fast enough to remain ahead of the game, traditional newspapers have been stuck playing catch-up. And their adherence to outmoded ways of gathering, disseminating and funding information have kept them from making the hard decisions necessary to stay competitive.

    Storytelling styles have changed. Our appetite for information, our areas of interest and the ways in which we opt to receive it have all changed. Books, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio are all still useful and relevant *for specific kinds of information, at specific times and to specific audiences.* Understanding where other media -- especially web media -- are BETTER, and then cutting the fat from their existing operations, is what these existing formats SHOULD be doing. But I don't see that kind of critical analysis happening nearly as often as I see them scrambling for ways to lock us into the old, discarded paradigm.

    A good journalist is a good journalist, regardless of platform. There are bloggers who do better research than some newspaper writers or news anchors, and if their relevance jumps as a result, that's a matter of the audience rewarding the most salient source. All news is information, and all journalists are service providers who need to determine what their customers want, how they want it, and how best to deliver it at a cost-effective rate. Anything else is romance, and romance is a luxury that floundering business models can't afford.
  • Once again, spot on. It's not journalism, it's the medium. More and more people prefer to "go green" or just prefer to read their news online while they do other things, like work. A few still prefer the hard copy (like me), but can't/don't want to afford it (like me).

    I get more of my news from social media--mostly Reddit--than anything else. I read the PG and New Castle News on-line. The former does a wonderful job of keeping its web site relevant. So much so that I don't feel compelled to get the hard copy. The NC News, however, updated its headline story 19 times in one month. That's a week without news updates, and its format--slideshows for stories--is terrible and annoying (I know someone who they could hire to fix that). I doesn't make sense for me to shell out cash for the paper copy since I don't live there any more. I just want to keep in touch via the Internet.

    My actual hometown paper doesn't even have a real web site (New Wilmington Globe-Leader). I offered to intern. They turned it down because the editor at the time didn't see the relevance (this was three years ago).

    My post meanders, but I intend to say that newspapers as a medium are dying out in same way that carriages and 8-tracks died out: there are more convenient mediums for the masses. People still travel and still listen to music, but do it cheaper and more conveniently.

    Excellent Alanis reference, btw.
  • Derrick
    You're of course entitled to break up with the newspaper industry but you seem unlikely to want to divorce yourself from the information they're currently providing (me either). So the question in my mind is "how do I keep reporting of the information I want viable"... which can still potentially involve breaking up with the newspaper industry. If I do it, this is a case where I want to dump someone *for* someone else. I'm not interested in being out in the cold, and a rebound relationship with soundbite reporting won't do it for me.
  • Bobby
    I don't see blogs as the enemy. I'm very much interested using "social media" tools to further journalism.

    But your comments are misleading and unfounded. What are you asking of the news industry, Justin? What are you wanting us to do? And what are you expecting of the people who read newspapers?
  • Bobby: As a newspaper employee, you seem unable to separate yourself from your job, or to understand the difference between commentary about an industry's failures and a condemnation of the industry itself. With this kind of "critical thinking," it's no wonder the newspaper industry is hugging itself to death instead of taking action to slow its own demise.

    A newspaper is a delivery mechanism, not a religion. You're a journalist, not a martyr. Do your job in a way that makes me realize you're indispensable, rather than threatening me with horror stories of what might happen when you're gone. Doing so proves that neither you nor I have any faith in the future of your profession.

    And I have nothing against journalism. I've been saying for years that blogs can't replace traditional journalism UNLESS blogs are granted the same access to information and seats of power as traditional journalists currently are. What determines access? Reach and influence. Blogs aren't as influential as newspapers yet, but if you spend more time wringing your hands than you do working with them, soon you'll REALLY have something to bitch about.

    Finally, spare me the insults. If I had a dime for every traditional journalist who's complained about social media instead of doing his actual job, I could buy a newspaper of my own and teach its employees how to use computers. Stop seeing blogs as the enemy and you'll have more time and energy to prove your own relevance.
  • Bobby
    Justin, I'm not sure what you have against journalism, but I think it's important for you to understand that without a solid news industry, democracy is lost. Where are you expecting to get your news from? Twitter? Facebook? Digg? Huffington Post?

    Ever look at Google News? Where do most of the stories there come from? Newspaper Web sites?

    Without a dedicated news staff, how do you expect investigative journalism to continue? Are you going to spend your free time tracking down leads and sources and documents? And when you publish it, who's going to take you as an authority?

    But I guess it's easy to write a blog with opinions instead of gathering facts.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=960...

    In the "social media" world, there's too much opinion and not enough fact.
blog comments powered by Disqus