The Future of Journalism

Over 40 well known journalists  and media professionals were  interviewed for this report. You  can read the raw interviews by  visiting the Future of Journalism section.

We are currently conducting a Future Journalist interview series. If you would like to participate in this series, contact sandy @ ourblook.com

You don't get free gas from a gas station.

You don't get free meals from a restaurant.

You wouldn't walk into the Googleplex ...that's Google's corporate headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. ... and expect a staffer to rush to the lobby with 1,000 free shares of Google stock for you.

At least we don't think so.

So why is the newspaper industry the only one in America that is expected to give its product ... in its electronic version ... away for free? Wrestling with that question will determine the fate of this nation's newspapers.



The Current State of Newspapers

In recent months ... as erstwhile titans like the Rocky Mountain News and Seattle Post-Intelligencer have vaporized, and others like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times teeter in bankruptcy, and still others like the Detroit News and Free Press resort to desperate new measures such as curtailing home delivery to just a few days a week ... a rough consensus has emerged.

And that is ... except for the "Big Four" national players, metro newspapers will not survive unless they 1) convert out of print and totally into the Internet on weekdays, saving a big print edition for the weekend, 2) confine themselves to local and regional news and, most importantly, 3) charge for it online.

Astonishingly, despite the sickening financial slide in the industry, very few charge for their web site product, the most notable exception being the Wall Street Journal, which has a hybrid system (pay for premium content). With the income from online advertising so paltry for papers as to be meaningless, the effect has been to give it away for free even as they swirl down the drain.

"Giving away information for free on the Internet while still charging 50 cents to $1 for the print version of the paper was one of the most fundamentally flawed business decisions of the past 25 years," says Prof. Paul J. MacArthur, who teaches public relations and journalism at Utica College. "Newspapers told their paying customers that the information truly had no value. They told their paying customers that they were suckers. Why would anyone pay 50 cents for something he or she can get for free? This poorly conceived and obviously flawed strategy has helped put the newspaper industry into its current financial condition and hastened the demise of many publications."

Prof. MacArthur is one of the more than two dozen journalists, professors and media professionals across the nation who helped us address what's going on in newspaperdom and provided their thoughts on what might and should happen next.

Now for our suggestions, as gleaned from their input ...


The Future of Newspapers

Step 1:

Papers are being overwhelmed by enormous newsprint, production and delivery costs ... and a huge amount of staffing associated with them. All no longer needed, at least during the week. If a weekend print edition remains viable, and in most cities it does as it can still attract a lot of ads, that would continue.

The Christian Science Monitor has become the pioneer for this change. In March, it eliminated its weekday print editions but its weekender continues.

"While we won’t initially save significant money by ending our daily print publication (costs of printing, distribution, etc. are halved, but subscription revenues fall as well, making the move a wash in the first year), we are able to free most of our editors, reporters, photographers, and designers to continuously update our web site, CSMonitor.com. That should bring us more readers," editor John Yemma told OurBlook. "Our aim is that over the next five years, our online readership will grow fivefold … from 5 million page-views at present to 25 million … and that that will provide the revenue to sustain our operations."

Newspapers can still "deliver" their product ... instead of being flipped from a speeding pickup truck at 4 a.m. on or near a driveway, its content can be delivered electronically to a customer's computer or to a portable wireless electronic reading device such as Amazon's Kindle.

What's more, "content providers, once called newspapers, are experimenting with on-demand delivery particularly to mobile telephones," says Michael Ray Smith, communications professor at Campbell University. "Telephones are computers and computers make moving information more convenient than ever. In some cases, information alerts and bursts can be downloaded from a source at work or home or even in transit and then read while on the road."

Let's hope that papers have a heart and offer the best severance packages and retraining possibilities they can to their blue-collar workforce, many of whom tend to be long-term, loyal employees.

But obsolescence is obsolescence.

Oh, yes, the four papers that probably can survive as they are in print ... of course they're USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

They're in the right place ... "I see New York and Washington always having newspapers because they are the seats of financial and political power," says David E. Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision, an influential public relations firm in D.C.

The "Big Four" have a national base in their financial and/or political reporting and an affluent readership that surely is strong enough to keep them going.


Step 2:

Carve out a niche that makes the paper's web site dominant, irreplaceable and one of a kind.

"I would like to offer a two-word solution to the financial woes of our ink-stained friends: 'local news,' " says business consultant Jonathan Stark, who has consulted for a number of U.S. papers. "Newspapers have real roots in the communities they serve. They have history, tradition and personal relationships. In some cases, they are a source of local pride. If newspapers are willing to let go of their print-based history, invest in their writers, embrace technology and dedicate themselves to being THE source for local news, they will have readers for as long as people can read."

Who else can do it better? Local TV station news anchors and skimpy throwaway weekly papers can't. They feed off the big local paper anyway. And let's get real ... the "start-up" lonely techie sitting in his basement with a computer poses no threat, either.

While papers have cut their editorial staffs not only to the bone but inside the bone, there's no excuse for them not coming up with a dynamite local news web site. That's because they can reallocate the staffers who work in national or international news or other areas of the paper to the radically new and different local effort.

"While all journalists will have to think multimedia in the future, some will naturally be more skilled at one medium than another," says Yemma. "A photographer may be especially good at web video, for instance. An investigative reporter might excel at databases. A graphic artist may be drawn to mashups and interactive applications such as Flash. And one of the most valuable new skill sets is the hybrid journalist/developer who can build new storytelling tools on the fly. But the core function of the news operation will still be reporters who dig up information and present it to the public."

Go for it ... marshal all the resources into this one specialty. Local news, local features, local business, local sports, local commentary. It's the chance for newspapers to make up for what they should have been doing.

"The problem for U.S. newspapers is that they failed to invest and innovate during the good times," says Nigel Eccles, co-founder and CEO of the UK web site hubdub.com. "They remained hugely overexposed to print revenues and missed a golden opportunity over the period 2003-06 to increase their exposure to digital."

What's more, the staff can even be augmented ... and the reach of the newspaper extended ... by using "citizen journalists" for neighborhood news as the Washington Times is starting to do now. With staffers editing their efforts with hopefully professional standards, the paper can create a communications channel that is one giant step above blogging ... making citizen contributions rational, useful and temperate in tone.

The citizen journalists also would probably be internet savvy, helping the traditionally stodgy papers link up with readers better in this new medium.

"There is a major stylistic difference between writing for print and web: length is the most obvious example," says Thursday Bram, a prolific freelance writer with her own site www.thursdaybram.com. "Articles written for the web can be quite short ... despite the fact that there is more room for a lengthy article online than in print, many readers find it harder to read long articles online."

But however you do it, cover the community inside out and top to bottom.

"I think that despite all the problems, the major local newspaper still has a strong brand, tremendous institutional depth of knowledge and bonds with the community, and a great opportunity to remain the main hub of information for a community," says Chris O'Brien, who's one of the nation's leading visionaries about the future shape of journalism. He heads the Next Newsroom Project, which works out of Duke University to plan and create the next generation of news coverage structures.


Step 3:

How much to charge? The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, perhaps the only sizable metro paper to charge for its web site, makes readers pay $4.95 a month. Since that's about 16 cents a day, we'd say it's far too low. We'd make it a nice round number, easy to remember ... $20 a month. That hopefully would bring in a substantial amount of revenue. But charge what you need to charge to survive ... in this sense, a newspaper will become more like a newsletter with a narrow scope but an audience willing to support it. Aren't many newsletters profitable?

Subscription is one way, and the other way being widely discussed is micropayments. Readers would establish a credit account and be charged a token amount, perhaps a few pennies, for each article they click on. That amount would have to be tinkered with to make sure enough revenue comes in.

Papers will almost have to turn to this as a new source of money as hopes by some in the profession for a government bailout for newspapers seem neither feasible nor desirable.

"It’s a terrible idea, and it is against the Constitution," Prof. Douglas Perret Starr, a professor of agricultural journalism at Texas A&M, told us in a response typical of other experts. "If government bails out newspapers, even with a blank check, government will control not only newspapers, but also every other news outlet ... radio, television, World Wide Web, and whatever else the mind of man can invent. "

Users, unfortunately, have become conditioned to free content on the Internet. Many expect it, some stridently demand it. Can that habit be broken?

"The only way you can charge online is if you have something so special that no one else can re-create it," says Paul Swider, a former St. Petersburg Times reporter who also did a citizen journalist web site for the paper. "Don't charge for national politics because there's 1,000 other outlets to which the reader can turn, so you're done. But if you have a synthesis or data or other unique quality of content that others can't duplicate, you could charge for it and succeed."

That means local news.

And what of the current business model of newspapers ... the one that has them give content away free on the Net in hopes of luring huge numbers of readers and the attendant "page views" to lure advertisers. Well, if it works, why are so many papers failing?

Papers should do both ... charge for their content and work hard to get advertising on the site. Wouldn't a lot of advertisers prefer quality over quantity in readership ... wouldn't potential business customers be a lot more likely to be those who pay for the paper instead of those who freeload?

Walter E. Hussman Jr., publisher of the Democrat-Gazette, noted in an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2007 that the U.S. newspaper industry collectively spends about $7 billion a year to gather news. "By offering this news for free and selling it to aggregators like Google, Yahoo and MSN for a small fraction of what it costs to create it, newspaper readership and circulation have declined," he wrote. "Why would readers buy a newspaper when they can get the same information online for free?"

He added this point: ads have much more impact in print than on a computer screen. "While consumers often find pop-up ads a distraction (on a web site) and banner ads as more clutter, readers often seek out the advertising in newspapers." This makes it all the more essential that papers charge for online.

Hussman's paper, incidentally, while not exactly flourishing, has suffered much less advertising and circulation declines than most other of his peers. Since Hussman whipped the much larger Gannett in Little Rock's famed newspaper war of the early '90s, we'd say he knows how to survive in this business.

Which brings us back to our original question: why do people expect newspaper web sites to be free?

And there's no good answer. Some experts use airy, meaningless phrases like "because that's the internet culture" as if this notion just floated down from heaven somehow. However, there are plenty things on the web that people find valuable enough to pay for.

In fact, that's how Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who benefits immensely from basically free news, views it. In an interview with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky, he actually said, "the culture of the internet is that information wants to be free." And he might be accurate about internet culture. However, the "free" model has obviously not worked for the American newspaper model.

Another time, talking to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, he seemed to summarily dismiss Google's role in "hijacking journalism" and advised, “The best way to get out of this is to invent a new product. That’s the way Google thinks. Incumbents very seldom invent the future.”

Of course, there's one dreary old product Google doesn't mind having and that's a bunch of crisp $1, $5, $10, $20 and you name it bills.

Quality news doesn't want to be free any more than gasoline wants to be free or food wants to be free. When Mr. Schmidt stands in the lobby of the Googleplex and hands out free shares of his company stock, then maybe we can believe the "free" rationale. Until then, newspapers need to find a model that brings in revenue so that they don't go out of business. Simple as that.

Gerry Storch is editor/administrator of www.ourblook.com, a political discussion/media analysis site that bridges the gap between a blog and a book. He has been a feature writer with the Detroit News and Miami Herald, Accent section editor and newsroom investigative team leader with the News, and sports editor and business editor for Gannett News Service. He holds a B.A. in political science and M.A. in journalism, both from the University of Michigan.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (29)

...
written by Androcles, March 12, 2010

Your conceit blinds you to the obvious - people expect journalism to be free because they do not believe it is worth paying for

• 
• +0
• 
• 

information
written by salim, March 09, 2010

hi i wan work with international comunity .i have experiences politic and visi ..how can you advice me.
thank you very much

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Not sure that'll work...
written by Kevin, March 07, 2010

It seems to me that since we're so used to free news, not enough of us will start when asked to. There might always be services that remain free, for one thing. And local news, in this globalized world, might be a tough sell, at least until a local disaster, which might bring a temporary boom, followed by a bust.
But what if news subscriptions were offered with the internet package? That is, the price would be the same regardless, but you'd have the option to choose which newspaper(s) your $4 or whatever would go to.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Click here to understand., February 19, 2010

THE SORRY STATE OF JOURNALISM !

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Journalism has no future and it has no past.
written by Jill, February 19, 2010

It has a present, but you have to know where you have been to know where you are going:

http://surftofind.com/lie

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by This is what you call Journalism !, January 29, 2010

Check this out, you need to understand YOUR responsibility.

http://surftofind.com/news

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Free?
written by Manifest Desires, January 26, 2010

It is simply not true that news are "free" online, just as news are not really free on TV. It is paid through advertising of course. Google's search engine is a "free service", however it is also financed through advertising. So what exactly is the problem? The problem is that news outlets are routinely used for government propaganda. The "truth" does not matter as much to journalists as securing their income and priveleges. THAT is not the future of journalism and a big part of the reason why corporate media are losing their audience to independent online news sources and blogs.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Cost Benefit Analysis
written by Kim, January 07, 2010

The moment you ask people to pay for journalism they will perform a cost benefit analysis . Publications that have low informational value will not be worth subscribing to . Yes , hopefully , this will result in a return to traditional high standards of journalism . It will also result in a lower yearly cost versus paper versions . People these days multi-source , if a single publication is being paid for they will expect that the range of content is very extensive . Multi-layering will be important - local , national & international , this will mean that single sources will be published in multiple publications . Copyright will have to revert to the source .

• 
• +0
• 
• 

World Press
written by Seneka Ross, January 02, 2010

Future of journalism was predicted thousands of years ago.
As it was the second 'oldest' profession...
http://japan-russia.jimdo.com/world-press

• 
• +2
• 
• 

don
written by tiravino, December 02, 2009

modernism, post modernism, liquid modernity, super modernity, post history, and so on. names, names we like to give to things to make look radical. journalism is no dead, is not dying out. free electronic news are a good thing.
to take R. Murdoch press as an example is as bad as taking A. Hitler. do not insult our intelligence in such a fashion.
I would better suggest to learn how to cook or opening a restaurant. I have wasted some precious time on this point less affair. get real.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by sagne, December 02, 2009

bonsoire moi je suis un jeune burkinabè j'ai voulais faire formation gournaliste

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Journalism is dead in St. Lucia
written by Stephanie Queen, November 27, 2009

I don't know what you would call what passes for journalism in St. Lucia in the Caribbean. There are a few journalist, but those who own the press have hijacked ethics because of their debt to foreign government involved in local politics.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

To Whom It May Concern,
written by Trevor Michael Velzeboer, November 25, 2009

Oh, you poor, poor newspapers. With egg on your face, a foot in your mouth, and a boot up your readers' ass you still manage to hold out a hand and mumble, "Can you spare me a dollar?". Meanwhile, your other hand, tucked deep inside your designer jacket (purchased years ago, during the "the good ol' day") is yanking away to vivid memories of when you first watched All the President's Men.

There are men (and women) who sell newspapers, and there are men who write newspapers. Dare you call yourself a journalist and defend the "business" of the news? If your newspaper ship is sinking then I suggest you abandon ship. Always be wary of the "unsinkable" or, the "too big to fail". Your job was great, but if it's almost gone now, don't tell me how safe watertight compartments are, I am just a passenger, and if you don't mind, I'm trying to find a life raft.


Love,
Trevor Michael Velzeboer

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Why should advertising pay for a newspaper?
written by John Grimes, November 23, 2009

Newspapers need to report the facts - of court cases for example, of council meetings, of international trade treaties - and this requires money and some sort of consistency. Originally newspapers were started by concerned individuals to get their message out and wouldn't necessarily charge for advertising or ownership of the sheet. I'm talking about the 17th and 18th centuries here. So the question is, do we need multimillion dollar operations run by corporate gatekeepers to achieve what we want - get factual news and insightful commentary?

Clearly what we have got is oligarchs with ridiculous levels of control over what the people are allowed to see and hear. Why should we pay for that tosh when there are so many people with excellent insight and factual commentary telling us what's really going on over the internet for free - in economics for example Mike Shedlock and Mike Whitney or the guys who write articles for marketoracle.co.uk. 4 years before the economic meltdown these guys had put me right on what was going to happen and why. Any fool following the mainstream media would have lost his shirt.

I notice your essay above has the usual clichés - the sneering tone towards citizen journalism, the dismissal, via caricature, of those who are starting up a weblog or site on their own. There's also rather a smell of contempt for your readership - how dare they not pay us, the chumps!

You just don't get it. Better journalism is now to going to arise. The only concern is for consistent factual reporting and who's going to pay for the guy to turn up at the court to note down proceedings. It's just a question of money. If an online paper can affiliate with its advertisers to get 50% of whatever sale they may make online as a result of a clickthrough by a reader, or if papers have a 'donate' function which actually brings in revenue (but clearly hurts your pride as you flail around hopelessly trying to get people to do what you want), then information - which is all that is important - will thrive.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Belisa News - World News Information
written by Belisa News, November 20, 2009

The future of journalism is the future of the human beings... in every moments in the world history the development of tecnology cross the media... that interactivity open the new window of knowledge on contemporary society... specialy on «mass self communication».

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dr. Jones, October 17, 2009

Journalism is alive! It depends on your defination of journalism. I live in Sweden. Sweden has one of the best press in the world.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

It's the economics, stupid!
written by Greg Stielstra, October 07, 2009

I believe newspaper's problems are economic, not editorial. The pesky law of supply and demand is turning traditional dollars into digital pennies and no amount of snappy writing will thwart it. That's Bob Garfield's (Ad Age & NPR) message in his new book The Chaos Scenario. (Full disclosure: I am helping him publish and promote the book.) You can watch the video and download three free chapters of the book at www.thechaosscenario.net.

Here's a quote from a presentation Bob gave recently.

"In the past year, the papers you see here have either folded, gone online only or declared bankruptcy. Chicago's vast Tribune Co. was valued at $12 billion in 2000 when it took on debt to acquire the Times-Mirror Co. for more than $8.3 billion. Now its in Chapter 11. And, my God, The New York Times. To defray its crushing debt, decided to sell off 75% of its shiny new headquarters, suspend stock dividend, cut salaries and borrowed $250 million at usurious rates from Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim, whom a Times editorial not long ago condemned as a "robber baron." And if not Slim, who, loanshark.com? Industry wide, revenues are at 1965 levels.

On the plus side, thanks to the internet, newspapers have seen their total readership soar. And with every new set of eyeballs, they lose money.

Why? Because long ago newspapers based their online strategy on advertising, at which point traffic became the Holy Grail. This despite two structural facts of online life: 1) Nobody clicks on ads, because why would they? 2) The virtually infinite supply of online ad inventory will always depress the price even the best publisher can fetch.

That’s why Rupert Murdoch and others are now saying online content must be paid for. Sorry. Too late. You’ve trained us to think otherwise. The audience doesn't imagine that all cars want to be free, or that all toasters want to be free, or that all paper towels want to be free, but it somehow believes that all content wants to be free. That's an indefensible ethic, but moral high ground doesn't repay the creditors."

• 
• +2
• 
• 

The future of the newspaper industry
written by Bulent Keles, June 08, 2009

You might also find these presentations useful. Regards,

http://www.slideshare.net/bkeles/grateful-to-newspapers-1421068

http://www.slideshare.net/bkeles/newspaper-readershift-1515435

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Bogus analogy
written by Mike, June 04, 2009

There is a big difference between gas/food and information. Information has much lower marginal cost associated with it. Quit your Google hating already, your business model is dead.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

Flawed Analogy
written by Kathy E Gill, May 18, 2009

Like many discussions (hand-wringing) focused on "the future of news" ... this essay begins with a flawed analogy.

I'm using an out-dated pedagogical tool, but here goes. Write on the (chalk)board 100 times: bits are not atoms.

What do I mean? Comparing food or gasoline (or even stock) with digitized information is flawed on many levels.

First, with goods made of atoms, it is (usually) possible for the owner to prevent an unauthorized person from "possessing" the good (theft excepted). Thus, the owner of a restaurant can require that a customer pay (usually in currency) for a meal. Economists characterize these types of goods as "excludable."

Second, goods made of atoms are "rivalrous" -- which means that if I check out a book (or order the last piece of apple pie), then you cannot "consume" the book (or pie) ... unless I "give it up" to you (or you you wrest it from me by force).

These two characteristics underpin our economic system (and traditional economic theory): these goods are "private" (excludable) and "scarce" (rival).

Digital goods are neither. I can read this web page at the same time as someone half-way around the world; the constraint on our experience relates to connectivity. There is the individual's connection speed/hardware and the web server's ability to supply the web page to multiple readers. Anyone who has content that has been "Slashdotted" understands that access to an individual webpage is limited by the physical (atoms) webserver and internet connection. Anyone who is forced to use 28K dialup on a 5-year-old computer knows the frustration resulting from hardware/network constraints (atoms). But the information -- the zeros-and-ones that form the webpage -- exist independent of these physical constraints.

In their native form, digital goods -- news, music, photographs, Wikipedia -- have the characteristics of public goods: non-excludable, non-rival. This is why DRM systems eventually fail. For more on this topic, see http://www.slideshare.net/kegi...nformation

Finally, this argument also rests on the flawed assumption that the great unwashed consumer base has always paid for news and is somehow getting something for free. That argument is false.

We have paid for convenience (the paper on the doorstep) and quality (terrestrial TV via "cable"). In both channels -- and with most magazines as well, Consumer Reports being a notable exception -- the media organization had a monopoly on "eyeballs" and used "content" to "marry" advertisers with those eyeballs. The cost of distribution (printing presses, broadcast licenses and studios that provided access to consumers) was such that dailies and TV networks/stations enjoyed a geographic-based monopoly. The bulk of the cost was born by advertisers who needed these monopolies to get their messages to potential consumers. This cost model also contributed to media consolidation; many scholars argue this consolidation has led to a corresponding decline in quality. I'm not talking about "entertainment" here -- I'm talking about *news that is needed for a functioning democracy*.

For more see: http://wiredpen.com/2009/03/08...e-content/ and http://wiredpen.com/2009/03/15...e-content/


There are serious issues around "news" and "democracy" -- but arguments resting upon such a false premise are unlikely to yield useful (for democracy) results.



Kathy

PS - I tried to register for the site. (1) I did not receive the "confirmation" email. (2) I tried to re-create the account; I was informed that those credentials (user name, email) were in use. (3) I then tried to login anyway; the rejection message asked: "Did you not get an activation e-mail and follow the validation link?" My answer is "no" but there is no "resend the confirmation mail" option. Anywhere. Nor is there a "report a problem" link/form that I can find on the site.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Miriam, May 17, 2009

___why do people expect newspaper web sites to be free?___

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question should be 'why do people publish information for free?'. To rephrase that question: Why did you publish this article on a website that can be read by anyone for free?

The answer, I think, is because people have a message and they want other people to read that message.

___Quality news doesn't want to be free any more than gasoline wants to be free or food wants to be free.___

So... why can I read this article for free? Is it the quality of your article or is it because you want to be heard?

• 
• +9
• 
• 

Is white day in moon lights at economics?
written by Engerneer Oong, May 10, 2009

The spaces are filled of material . What's useful same to newspapers. Wondering the News maker little than reader.As ecomonics is Marc theory to come news ? Is the question in ability handleing materials. Nor the CEO neither Advisor of ecomoeicist new not issues.Either elephines groups or Democracy party working of journalist career. The "RT'.. AS'..CO'.." togather consuencesion is economics issues.
It is not clean turn right. The Bourgourver classes conposited by Chinese, East Asia peoples , South Asia peoples . The meanings based fundation of politics views. Going nowsadys , Asia is more richer than IMF (international Money Foundation) establishment.The Money theory of lonable funds is limlitetation monetory. They consist money interest rates cooperate to development economics. They were not GM dealer or buyer, so lefts groups hand away. They reporter simply looks at spelled words that are materials.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by GL, May 08, 2009

It has probably dawned on readers that they should not pay to be swayed by the views of others in news journals.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

Future of newspapers
written by J T McMark, May 04, 2009

Cathy MacLeod is right: for newspapers to survive, they have to be worth reading. This may seem obvious, but it has not been obvious to the money men in newspapers - that is, the accountants - for at least a generation. The accent over the last thirty years or so has been to economise on journalists and concentrate on short-term shareholder returns, viewing editorial content as mere stuffing between the adverts. It has been a disastrous policy.

Though the internet is frequently blamed for the decline of newspapers, the truth is much simpler. They have been sabotaged by poor management, people with no real regard for journalism who saw newspapers as just another business, like jam manufacturing or pickle bottling. In fact, newspapers have traditionally been more than news providers, they have been the consciences of society, the catalysts for debate, the only institutions capable of keeping corrupt politicians in line. Unfortunately, newspaper managements since the 1970s-80s have misguidedly seen these roles as too costly for serious consideration.

I dread to think what society will become without newspapers, even in their current denuded state. TV doesn't cut it - I have always regarded television news as Mickey Mouse journalism, a repository for fifth-rate journalists who can talk but can't write. The real journalist is the guy or gal who can sit down at a keyboard and produce sublime, provocative prose that lures readers to the newsstands and tells people what they otherwise wouldn't know. There is no substitute for such people.

Forget blogging and so-called 'citizen journalism' - these are for spotty-faced wannabes who have neither the ability nor discipline to be real journalists. Any semi-literate oaf can be a blogger or 'citizen journalist'. Comparing these people with real journalists is like comparing street corner buskers with the professional musicians of big city orchestras. There IS no comparison.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

No one believes the news anymore
written by Voland, May 02, 2009

I agree with the first comment here - newspapers and even their websites aren't worth paying for because people no longer they're being given anything other than a load of masqued advertising and a pile of corporate government propaganda. It ceased being news a long time ago.

If you want us to pay for news, then provide some. Provide proper, insightful, courageous investigative journalism, instead of kow-towing to your corporate governmental overlords. Otherwise you're just asking us to pay to be spoonfed propaganda - no thanks.

Strangely enough, western newspapers have come peculiarly to resemble those of the Soviet era. No one believed a word in those, either.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by denotsKO, May 02, 2009

Sadly, the death of American newspapers has less to do with the delivery method and a lot more to do with what is delivered. If I actually thought the information found in any newspaper, news show, news channel, etc was different from any other I would gladly pay to read it. Death began creeping into the industry when it became acceptable to allow media monopolies. If the majority of media outlets are all controlled by the same group of rich men, why would anyone believe there would be any difference between them? Major news outlets are dying because the information in them is crap. It's that simple. You should instead be fighting to regain your integrity. The new media outlets on the internet worth my money are not names familiar with my father or grandfather. Those names are as old and impotent as the men that control them.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Journalism isn't dead, it's in Heaven
written by Cathy Macleod, April 30, 2009

Most people get their news free now, from television or radio. It doesn't mean journalism is dead. First, of course, these free sources need journalists to supply them, but here's the real big news: Journalism is in a new print Heaven, where readers are hungry for news analysis, in-depth comment, and entertaining articles.

A printed newspaper providing these to its niche market (local, national or world) will continue to sell and thus continue to attract paid advertising. In short, if a newspaper or magazine is worth reading, it keeps its readers. The scope for good journalism, as opposed to "news-holes" between the advts, has never been greater. This from Cathy at booktaste, where journalism thrives amid book news.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Stop the bias
written by Nick, April 28, 2009

I did not read the raw interviews. But did any of those over 25 journalists realize that maybe the demise of many newspapers is because "big" journalism does not print news, but just political comments? The bias we saw in the last election campaign in US (I'm not living in US nor I'm US citizen) all over print media and visual one was disgusting, reminding me of communist media from 20 years ago. People who are staying in queues to receive government hand-outs does not pay subscriptions. Illegal immigrants neither. Middle-class does, people with daily jobs and businesses. Call this class on daily basis racist, red-neck, bible-clinging, capitalist pigs or whatever and they will stop pay for this non-sense. Revert to unbiased, non extreme left points of view and investigative journalism (how many stories were followed regarding the murky past of the present POTUS by big media?) or you will either disappear, or become property of government. Long live the Dear Leader!

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Future of Newspapers and Journalism
written by Creativity For Gaining Success, April 15, 2009

The road to journalism and newspapers is making a huge turn around. Coming up with new ideas for joining in with the newest trends of online media news,writing for print and the web. Both have to get creative and develop their own road for achieving success. At http://determined2.com Interactivity that promotes successful pursuit of life goals.Working on goals helps the process of gaining success and determination.

• 
• +1
• 
•