Comments on: The Elephant in the Room

By: Sean Olson

Sean Olson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:04:48 +0000

For those of you that know John, there shouldn’t be any argument that he’s one of the most upbeat, optimistic guys out there. That’s why this post terrifies me so much.
And for everyone that thinks a new medium to cover your local news accurately and objectively, good luck with that. I like blogs as much as the next guy, but the good ones still use newspapers every day for their best content. For every story of a lying, foolish or biased reporter in the — sadly bunched together, like we’re all the same — “traditional media,” there are thousands of newspaper, television and radio reporters doing a good job covering the news.
The newer generation of media consumers (this includes myself) has been conditioned to think the “traditional media” is the enemy of what could be outstanding journalism. Ironically, the generation has been convinced of this by our competition/people with something to lose: point-of-view television pundits, blogs and politicians. The media criticism often comes from those who have no real idea how objective news writing works. There is some excellent media criticism out there, but its often used as a blanket statement applied to every story, whether the circumstances of the story warrant criticism or not.
What we have left when the newspapers die is a barren wasteland of biased reports coming from passionate — and sometimes well meaning — people.
I repeat, good luck with that.
Before, reporters had still feared the coming end of the daily newspaper, but managed to keep that fear snugly in the back of our minds.
Now, if John Fleck doesn’t have anything positive to say about our chances, I’m starting losing sleep.
In fact, the only optimistic thing John is getting excited about these days is welding.
God help us all.

By: pepeye

pepeye — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:22:47 +0000

I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of a newspaper. I come to this issue from the perspective of a consumer of information. It has been many, many years since I subscribed to a daily newspaper. To the question of why not, I can say:

– Even before the internet became prevalent, I came to hate the “inkstained” part. The daily accumulation of paper that was news yesterday but birdcage lining today annoyed me and made me feel guilty. I mean most of the Sunday paper simply slid straight into the discard pile;

- I never had time to read much of the paper anyway. Reading the paper at work was much too conspicuous as “not working” to pull off. Now I can consume info throughout the course of the day wherever I am while still getting other things done;

- the Internet has come to serve my daily info needs in a much more diversified way. My “daily paper” consists of a browse through a range of sites (Washington Post, Duke City Fix, New Mexico Independent, Daily Kos, etc). Need to sell something? Craigslist works better than any newspaper ad I’ve every used. Need to know about a product, Google has the answers. I was never as well informed in the old days as I am now.

- the traditional media has done many bad things that caused me not to trust them. Judy Miller at the NY Times. CBS fired Dan Rather. Fox News. Even the AP has become suspect. Right now blogs and web publications are putting them to shame in the insight, analysis and accountability categories. The ABQ Journal? No no no no no no no.

What does this mean? I don’t know. Maybe it means that if we lose the local city council reporting people will miss it and new way will emerge to pay for it. Maybe it means that I’m no longer the customer for the people who are doing that kind of reporting and that they need to find a new type of customer. (i.e. those who need access to this reporting to develop there own content such as bloggers and web publications). Maybe it means that newspapers are just going to go away.

What I do know is I do not want “words on paper thrown on driveways.” I can pay for it. I will pay for it. But it has to be in a form that fits into my current means of consuming information. Then I would happily welcome it into my “byte-stained hands.”

By: Jeff Proctor

Jeff Proctor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:24:25 +0000

I totally agree, John, about the upside-down business model that, for years, allowed us to get more than we deserved. My question, then, is this: How do we square the fast-falling bottom with the unaffordable civic mission?

As a fella who has fed his family for five years “shivering in the cold at dawn at the scene of some horrible accident, the formal witness to mark the passing of the deceased,” I’m scared, confused and kinda pissed off. (Mostly because my skill set doesn’t lend itself to much else.)

???????????????????????????????????????????

By: slinger

slinger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:23:19 +0000

As one ink-stained, lead-infused City Council wretch to another, let me echo your most important point, John: the so-called civic stuff is the bedrock of the representative democracy in which we still live, work and vote. And the lowly newspaper is the only honest broker that puts all of that stuff on the street, in the coinbox and in the driveway. Even those who don’t pay attention to the civic stuff pick it up at the watercooler, through their friends and over the aether. (Q: How do they decide what to yak about on TV? A: They read the paper.) I’m even fine with “what someone else thinks is important.” Without it, we really are doomed.

By: J. Reiter

J. Reiter — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:37:40 +0000

Great post John. “…words on paper thrown on driveways.” is classic.

I was lucky enough to grow up with a mentor from the newspaper industry. I have experience in both circulation and advertising, and I’m getting to know the comings and goings of a newsroom. For whatever it is worth, I still value the morning combination of caffiene in one hand and newsprint on the other.

By: Dan McKay

Dan McKay — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:38:55 +0000

Interesting post, John.

By: David Zetland

David Zetland — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:35:48 +0000

whoops — I meant Drum @ Mother JOnes

By: David Zetland

David Zetland — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:30:42 +0000

This is an interesting topic, and it is a good example of the economics of bundling and transactions costs.

Before the internet, papers had information on many things (good for you and what you wanted), and the paper covered costs with ads and subscriptions.

[Note that free papers did the same -- just more ads.]

With the internet, information was unbundled AND more material came for free (best example is how free porn is killing pay-porn — so the papers are losing custom to places that deliver what people want, faster.

The way to go appears to be online (free) papers with targeted ads, and subscription papers. Sadly, only the WSJ can do the latter (even most of the economist is free now!) — and that’s probably b/c WSJ subscriptions are paid by the company.

[btw, I discuss a similar disruption of academic publishing on Friday @ my blog...]

As it is, I think that papers are goign where network TV has gone. Bye bye to “objective” POV and “quality” shows — the model now is Fox and Jackass…

Bottom Line: Average quality will fall; excellent quality will be supported by locals writing for free and pros writing for “tips” @ nationally syndicated sited (e.g., Sullivan @ the Atlantic or Jones @ MotherJones…)

By: Avelino

Avelino — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:54:48 +0000

I’m a little late to the conversation here, but thought I’d jump in. John, I think you’ve always been a little ahead of the curve in examining the industry, and reacting to it as well. That’s why I looked up to you so much (and still do) when I was writing for the Daily Press a few years ago.

I’d agree with your points on revenue generation, and also wonder what will happen as more and more newspapers die. The internet can’t be the sole answer, especially in rural areas that don’t have broadband access. I almost wonder whether a public broadcasting-type model couldn’t be worked up for the print industry. Subsidized by the government and supported otherwise by donations (and maybe advertising too, to a degree?), it might just work.

I also sometimes think the changes will vary geographically, or as individual circumstances permit. What works in Albuquerque might not work in Dallas, much less Washington D.C., while smaller communities or rural areas will have to pursue other alternatives. Daily newspapers are in all these places right now, but what happens in five years? Ten?

Don makes a good point as well – the Desert Exposure down south is a nice example as well, though it lacks the local news component of the Reporter (understandable, since it’s a monthly publication).

By: Don Pizzolato

Don Pizzolato — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:24:20 +0000

Great topic John, and timely given Tribune Co’s impending bankruptcy.

What are your thoughts on the alternative press? I am not all that impressed with the Alibi, but the Reporter manages to put out a number of relevant and civic-minded pieces every year. This is in addition to their solid arts and “goings on” coverage.

Might that be a good place for traditional journalists to land?