The Problem With Newspapers: Lack Of Innovation, Lack Of Engagement... And Lack Of Reporting
from the it-doesn't-look-pretty dept
And here we go again, with yet another post about the troubled business of the newspapers, but this time I've got three separate articles that, combined, give a pretty good explanation for why the newspaper business has been in trouble. Basically, the newspapers failed to innovate, they failed to engage with their communities -- and worst of all, they failed to actually do much reporting.First up is Frank Rich's column on how the American mainstream press is on "suicide watch." He does a decent job describing the problem, in discussing the industry's fear (or outright disgust) towards any sort of innovation, while others did the innovating for them. He compares how the newspapers have acted to how the movie studios acted when TV first became popular.
But... then, he falls into the same old fallacy. Assuming that those who are talking about new models mean "citizen journalists" with no business model:
Reporting the news can be expensive. Some of it -- monitoring the local school board, say -- can and is being done by voluntary "citizen journalists" with time on their hands, integrity and a Web site. But we can't have serious opinions about America's role in combating the Taliban in Pakistan unless brave and knowledgeable correspondents (with security to protect them) tell us in real time what is actually going on there. We can't know what is happening behind closed doors at corrupt, hard-to-penetrate institutions in Washington or Wall Street unless teams of reporters armed with the appropriate technical expertise and assiduously developed contacts are digging night and day. Those reporters have to eat and pay rent, whether they work for print, a TV network, a Web operation or some new bottom-up news organism we can't yet imagine.Indeed. But no one has ever said otherwise. No one has said that "unpaid" reporters will replace all of the paid ones. We're just saying that the paid reporters may end up doing their jobs in a different way and getting paid via other business models. And, Rich also seems to be underestimating the ability of the people who are already in those places to be a part of the journalism process -- not necessarily the core component of it, but certainly a part of it.
The second article worth reading is Robert Niles discussion of how the ruling in the 1995 lawsuit Stratton Okamont v. Prodigy scared newspapers away from engaging in online conversations. The ruling effectively found Prodigy liable for anonymous comments on its message board because it had hired a moderator for those boards. While the passage of the CDA the following year -- and specifically section 230 of the CDA granting safe harbors -- effectively erased that decision, "risk averse" newspaper feared to actually engage with readers in comments or forums for fear that it would suddenly make them liable for the content written by the community. Thus, they ignored their own communities and did little to really interact with them.
The final piece may be the most interesting. Walter Pincus talks about how so many newspaper reporters have stopped reporting and really started repeating the messages being handed to them. For all the talk of "investigative reporting," there's very little of that being done. Most reporting isn't reporting. It's not digging up the details and presenting an informed piece that gets at the facts. It's simply parroting what someone told them, and then perhaps presenting an alternate point of view (what Jay Rosen has referred to as "he said, she said" journalism) without any effort whatsoever to actually determine who's right. It's as if journalists have figured that "balanced" reporting is to present two sides to any story, and then leave it up to you to do the actual work. Pincus seems to be one of the first we've seen in this ongoing debate to make the point that we've been focusing on for a while: the newspapers aren't adding value.
Pincus also highlights another point that we've mentioned, but which is almost always ignored in these discussions: the big newspapers put themselves into massive debt over the past two decades. Many are still profitable, but not profitable enough to service the debt. And when they top that off by not innovating, not engaging with their community (which is their most valuable asset) and not actually doing real reporting, but just acting as stenographers, is it really any surprise the business is struggling?
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: engagement, innovation, journalism, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Debt is killing newspapers
Not just big newspapers. The second largest chain of alternative weeklies (Creative Loafing) took on $31M in debt to expand. The result is that CLN is currently in bankruptcy.
Many newspapers will declare BK this year and most will survive after they give their creditors a haircut (think Marine recruit style). The creditors have no recourse. The assets are not worth much. No one would buy the business and assume the debt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charlie Brookers Newswipe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Problems with reporters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shame Techdirt does not run a news paper everyday :P
- Marak
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of Subscription Innovation?
My local (M-Sat.) paper only offers a 6 day/week subscription nothing less. Who has time or wants the guilt of not being able to read the paper every day of the week. It's simply wasteful on so many fronts.
I have simply asked for a 3 day/week plan, however, they are unable to accommodate my wishes. (Turning a potential customer away!)
I believe Newspapers must experiment with alternate subscriptions plans that tailor to the lifestyles and demographics of current non-readers. (40 something & business owner here). Current options only serve the newspaper's desires and caters to an old business model that serves to falsely inflate readership numbers.
How about you? Might you subscribe for a 2 or 3 day/week subscription?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hit the nail on the head
"Meanwhile, we have turned into a public-relations society. Much of the news Americans get each day was created to serve just that purpose—to be the news of the day. Many of our headlines come from events created by public relations—press conferences, speeches, press releases, canned reports, and, worst of all, snappy comments by “spokesmen” or “experts.”
This is exactly why I stopped reading newspapers.I want to know what they're not telling me, not what they want me to know. But newspapers don't do that anymore, they're just as happy re-writing press releases as they were actually digging for news.Probably more since this way they don't actually have to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is funny
Isn't that what blogs are for? In fact, I think he just described techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When did this reporting utopia ever happen?
The newfangled internet is the real problem for newspapers and news in general. It will take some time, creativity, and luck to figure out how to make money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The internet is the real problem for newspapers
A keyword is a simple word or phrase used in place of a URL ... when typed into a keyword enabled "search" like box, the associated page opens directly.
A story tagged with a keyword link that is typed at the newspaper home page provides an easy path for readers to find the information they want ... How many of the 70 + million Susan Boyle views originated from a newspaper website? I recently told a newspaper publisher that when Susan Boyle next appears I could guarantee the website a spike in visitors equal to their daily circulation ... Is it just me, would it make sense to have a direct keyword link in the movie section of the paper to an online trailer of the movie? Publishers really have the ability to be huge internet portals, just not sure about desire.
An effective solution doesn't need to be complicated, the lightbulb is just electricity running through a thin wire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newspaper industry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newspapers aren't the only ones parroting
It seems that the "investigation" in journalism consists of searching the web, and "reporting" on what it says.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or maybe we just prefer to watch cable news.
If I may (: the non-scarce is the news itself, while the scarce is the physical newspaper. Assuming the scarce / non-scarce model, we can say that the non-scarce news offered by the paper is insufficient to attract enough consumers to the scarce newspaper itself.
No news there. For decades, alternate non-scarce sources of news information have competed against newspapers. Cable TV is an overlooked example. Ten or twenty years ago, we didn't have the variety of cable news we have now, which is an obvious source of competition.
Likewise, twenty or so years ago, we had more local newspapers. Twenty years ago, we had a local newspaper that covered our own city. The so-called local newspaper here rarely covers events in city I live in.
Of course, that assumes we want local information. Do we really? There's quite a bit of information out there, and we can't consume all of it. A new administration... the economy... international events... there's quite a bit going on out there that overshadows the local this-or-that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]