Journalist Tells Journalists It's Their Moral Duty To Read Newspapers
from the this-is-what's-known-as-desperation dept
We're seeing all sorts of desperation plays from journalists unwilling to adapt to the changing marketplace. These seem to go through weird stages of grief that either involve blaming others for their inability to change with the times or making bizarre moral arguments, that sites like Google and Craigslist (or even the government!) should fund newspapers out of an obligation to support the news. Falling into that latter category, comes the suggestion of one newspaper man, telling other journalists that they need to keep buying and reading newsprint newspapers in order to keep the industry alive. That's just great. The industry will end up with only journalists buying each others papers for moral reasons. That seems like a real strategy for success. Appealing to moral claims rarely, if ever, works -- and it's certainly not going to work in this case. As Steve Yelvington puts it in his response to this bizarre request, that moral plea will only hasten the problems newspapers face. Rather than sitting around pining about the old days of print, reporters should "Get out of the office. Start talking to real people. Discover that we entered the 21st century more than seven years ago.... Quit blaming the Internet. There's nothing wrong with paper. It's your journalism that isn't relevant." And if journalists are only writing for other journalists, that content is only going to get less and less relevant. There are lots of good ideas for how to rethink the news business and make it useful again -- but giving moral reasons for reading newsprint doesn't help. It just comes across as someone unwilling to adapt and pretending there's a way to hold back the tide.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: newspapers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost of Newspapers
If this is true, where are they losing money on the internet, the cost of the newspaper (50 cents a copy) and wait now they don't have delivery costs, printing costs?
I am just confused on where the newspaper companies are losing money because the papers are online instead of printed. Can someone fill me in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost of Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
couldn't they just put static adds on their site for a fixed price, just like they do on the print version? even if that ad doesn't take you to another website and just says, "Come eat at the Hot Dog Shoppe" it's still ad space and people will see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost of Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cost of newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsprint vs. Online
The Internet is good for finding a specific story or reading breaking news, but to sit and read the news of the day the best way is to open up a newspaper, scan each page, read all or bits of stories, instantly move from one article to the next, one page to the next, and go from start to finish.
It's much faster and more efficient. And it's much easier to do while eating lunch.
If newspapers move completely online we will become a nation of headline readers. We'll all know the top national stories, but we won't know about the robbery at the gas station up the street.
And we'll all have Big Mac sauce all over our newsreading-devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe what newspapers are concerned about is having to create those headlines that get people to buy their newspaper. Maybe they don't want to run stories of Britney Spears or whose couch Tom Cruise is jumping on, but they know that just won't cut it.
Maybe the New York Times will be the only publication left that is print only. Personally, I hope not, because I am not a big fan of the Times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like - it's your moral duty to use a horse and buggy, and heat with a fireplace?
I still do read the newspaper commonly at lunch, but in reality - it's the same thing - printed words. Just in a new format.
He should be more accurate and say 'It's your moral duty to give the newspaper company 50 cents' - because, in reality, that argument is the same.
It sounds to me like he's trying to rationalize why it's still good to have a paper copy. And for shame!! Environmentalists have been telling us for years not to waste paper!!! Of course, we burn more coal keeping web servers up. So again, no difference I guess. Using new trees for paper, or very, very old trees for coal.
Perhaps - since communications are so much faster now, and it's easier to assimilate massive amounts of information much faster - we just don't need as many journalists?
Or maybe the industry's model - like Music is moving 'backwards'. No longer do the big corporations have such a hold on it - it's back in the 'little guy's' hands now.
And I think it's better that way. I get much faster and more varied news, with more points of view on the web. Now it's not just the people who the media 'hires' that can provide news, it's anyone with the will and a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
It's like one of those crazies who submits letters-to-the-editors every week about something crazy like water-powered cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers will Evolve and ReInvent Themselves
It is not easy to refresh your entire career perspective.
Newspapers will evolve to be more competitive and to take advantage of hi tech. There are many times when it is much more preferable to transport and read a hard copy than it would be to use an electronic gadget. That is unlikely to change soon.
It will be fascinating to see how the hard copy magazines and newspapers will evolve in the next few decades and the new enhanced technologies that will revolutionize the field.
Perhaps decades from now, a hybrid model will evolve that combines hard copy with cheap, mobile technology with paper screens - and allow for social Web interactivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps the people want, gosh, insight? But then I would say that. I'm here, reading this. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see their angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/news/ paper
Boston Globe, Springfield Republican, NY Times,
WSJ and Washington Post.
Now http://www.ipl.org/div/news/ replaces this for the
most part, although sometimes detail and small items are
missing from the on-line versions.
The only hard copy I buy is the local news paper partially
because I'd like them to stay in business. Surprisingly
the quality of the local paper has improved by focusing
on local news, police-blotter and other items of local
interest. It's one way they can compete and succeed.
Their online version of the paper is not bad either.
Will the internet mean the demise of some national news
papers, yes. But the news papers that draw from local
news should continue unscathed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers
These OLD companies need to deal with a newer and better way to distribute content. They just don't want to give up what they have which is control over their little part of the world. Most small papers deliver to a certain area, which can mean one of two things. One they are stuck in that area, or two they can get a much larger audience online. Both these would seem daunting to me if I were in that business.
In all honesty I will be very happy the day the paper finally dies. It is a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Latest News
News in print should continue in proportion to the demand, which is still there.
For anyone interested, I'm posting this because it's related: Free News Website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper Profits
Apparently newspapers (not TechDirt's recommended mantle of 'News Organizations'), even the bad ones, have at least a 20-30% profit margin. Yes. Profit. After paying for physical materials, facilities, utilities, salaries, benefits, taxes, (et al, ad nauseum), the shareholders divvy up AT LEAST 20-30%. For the (legitimate) business world, that's HUGE!
Someone please point out an industry with those kinds of margins. Now, from those, point out one that's just about claiming that their children are starving...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]