The future of newspapers is a hot topic — especially right now (with the economy tanking and announcements from newspapers about new and bigger financial troubles coming every day), and especially for newspapers. Few would argue that without significant changes, the newspaper industry may cease to exist, as we know it, within a relatively short period of time.
Of course, while nobody has quite figured out a solution to the current woes of news companies – there are some experiments underway that suggest some balance of better or more localized content, different delivery mechanisms and new revenue opportunities (or all those and more) could be the key to success — the debate about what is needed to save the news, what will suffer if it goes away (or changes significantly), and why these problems exist, rages on.
There are too many articles to cite and conversations to analyze – this week alone I read more than a dozen myself. The New York Times alone took up the discussion at three different times this past week. But, rather than scold the news industry for talking more about how to solve its problems than actually doing the things they preach, I will just say that each is worth reading and considering, and I hope you will take the time to do so.
1) New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, pulls back the curtain a bit on the newsroom at ‘the most widely read newspaper Web site in the nation.’ He notes:
“..the Internet offers “a new kind of landscape of advantages and disadvantages.” They include immediacy but fewer layers of editing; the opportunity to develop a story in real time but demands to “feed the beast” that can prevent deeper reporting; keen competition but wasted time chasing false leads published by less reliable sources; the ability to fix mistakes quickly but no way to prevent them from ricocheting around the world first.”
You should read the first of his two columns on real-time reporting on the web, published in last week’s paper, as well.
2) Eduardo Porter offers an ‘editorial observer’ column about “What Newspapers Do, Have Done and Will Do.” He explains:
“From the poorest country to the richest, a welter of academic research since then points to the importance of an independent press — mostly newspapers — in disseminating hard-to-get information, mobilizing the public and putting pressure on government and businesses in favor of the public good.”
And, on the Room For Debate blog, the Times assembles an all-star cast of thinkers, writers, publishers and such to offer their own personal “Battle Plans for Newspapers.” The list of contributors includes:
* Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia Journalism School
* Joel Kramer, editor of MinnPost.com
* Steven Brill, founder of The American Lawyer magazine
* Geneva Overholser, Annenberg School of Journalism
* Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist.org
* Andrew Keen, author
* Edward M. Fouhy, founding editor of Stateline.org
* Rick Rodriguez, former editor of The Sacramento Bee
(SIDE NOTE: I think it would have been interesting for the New York Times team to ask a few newspapers readers, average subscribers and non-subscribers, to share their battle plans as well. I have to think that the people who make up the NYT’s audience have some thoughts on how newspapers might better serve their interests. I would be happy to share my thoughts. Maybe that will happen next week).
That’s it, happy reading.
Brian is Managing Director of little m media which provides strategic guidance and support to organizations around the use of the internet and technology to facilitate communications, engagement, education, and mobilization.