Don't Cry For Disappearing Newspapers
Forgive me for being cold-hearted, but all of this bewailing is missing the point.
In my often-grumpy opinion, the traditional news industry has shot itself in the foot. Repeatedly. I wholeheartedly agree that a democracy requires an active and snoopy press to function; but that's not enough. We need an independent press that is thorough and accurate, and that digs into the unpleasant dark corners. That necessary function has been in decline long before the Internet, and I think that is due to market consolidation. In 1983 50 corporations controlled the majority of news media in the U.S-- radio, TV, and print. In 1992, fewer than 24. in 2004, a half-dozen. Now we might as well worship at shrines to Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom.
Local TV news was the first and most obvious casualty. Nearly all local TV stations lost local, independent ownership years ago. You might have noticed when you travel that the local news in Podunk, Texas is identical to the local news in Backwoods, Oregon. Only the place names are changed. Even the on-air personalities are the same, like they are bred on special farms.
Local radio suffered a very sneaky downfall-- programming is presented as though it is produced locally, but in fact radio stations have been gobbled up by conglomerates and converted into clones of each other. Chances are your local station is staffed only by a technician or two, and all content is beamed in from a remote central location. When the on-air personality adds local color with statements like "It's a beautiful day here in downtown Podunk!" he is lying his head off, because he recorded his show a thousand miles away and has never been in Podunk. Both local radio and TV stations are remote-controlled by media consultants who have never left their special media consultant lairs.
Another big factor in the downfall of the newspaper is Craigslist. Craigslist took away their classified ads, which were major revenue sources.
The other problem with traditional journalism and news reporting is most of it is crap. Publishing warmed-over press releases is not reporting, it's stenography. Collecting random quotes from whoever answers the phone and stitching them into an article is not fair and balanced reporting, it's Scrabble.
I am greatly amused by the horror exhibited by "real professional" journalists at all of these upstart amateur bloggers. Yeah, it sucks to be outperformed by upstart amateurs, doesn't it. Exhibit A: tech reporting. Is there anything worse? Probably, but that's my field of expertise so I know when they're printing rubbish. Which is nearly all of it. To get to the truth you have to read the unwashed bloggers, email lists, and user forums. Traditional news media have failed their readers bigtime when it comes to reporting on high-tech and the computer industry. We can't even get informed, honest product reviews.
The Internet age should make it easier and less costly to publish news. No need for fleets of trucks to roll, or giant printing presses, or massive rolls of newsprint. Why not have both digital online delivery and print-on-demand kiosks? A kid with a laptop and a laser printer could set one up in minutes, would it be so difficult or expensive for grownups to set something up? Pop in a quarter and get your hard copy on the spot. That will take care of impulse purchases and customers who don't want to hassle with printing their own. It will take care of customers who don't own computers or have Internet accounts. Perhaps the newsstand of the future will be a print-on-demand kiosk, with access to more worldwide publications than ever. I think that would be very cool, and a very large step forward.
References
Media Reform Information CenterFCC commissioner Michael Copps vs. "Big Media"
Sign of the times: Another local radio station gets gobbled up
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Don't Cry For Disappearing Newspapers.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/7660
Thank you. I agree completely. Newspapers are a thing of the past, especially because they are not independent sources of facts. And now, we have a better delivery system and many people like yourself who are knowledgeable and able to publish on the web. You are not beholden to a cash conscious publisher who edits all content based on vested interests of share holders instead of the truth. Is it any wonder we have been so susceptible to lies in the marketplace when we gets falsehoods in the "news"? When a vendor weakens the product eventually the product won't sell. It will take a while for this to play out, but I for one have switched to the web because of both factors: value and ease of use. And no re-cycling.
I do not worry if the news papers collapse. We will learn, over time, which bloggers and other sources are reliable, and still have a good place to get news.
My fear is that they will be "too big to fail" and government bailouts will end with state owned, and controlled, newspapers. The end of the free press. That is what frightens me.
I couldn't agree more. The major newspapers were created because running a printing press was expensive. While that hasn't changed, the printing press itself is a useless relic that has, as you mentioned, been entirely replaced by digital media, or for those who demand it, cheep personal printers.
Besides, wasn't the print on demand newspaper a staple of late 80's and early 90's sci-fi? (Bubblegum Crisis and Babylon 5 both made a point of it)
On a side note, is it ok that I pine for the lost days of the text based network?
Also you must remember the technology like the Kindle use e-paper, so if this technology becomes less expensive than a one year newspaper subscription than that is where the true death of print media will start! All tree-huggers rejoice!
Also you must remember the technology like the Kindle use e-paper, so if this technology becomes less expensive than a one year newspaper subscription than that is where the true death of print media will start! All tree-huggers rejoice!
Now, can we please get the phone company to stop printing and delivering that useless phone directory?
I always wonder how the "legitimate" media reconciles their complaints about the professionalism versus the random blog, with comments they make, like "Is your neighborhood threatened by a new fatal disease? Find out at 11!"
Is that journalistic integrity? Is it professionalism? Help me out here.
"most of it is crap" The same might be said of every institution that makes democracy possible, as well as art, music, fiction, and movies... and, well, portions of this article.
"We can't even get informed, honest product reviews." Can't the same can be said for internet sources? Linux distro "reviews"!?
Opinions are too often stated without the qualifications that an objective reporter would carefully include. IMO, this happens on the net even more often than in print.
Getting a true view of what is happening from the net takes research of the sort that the typical citizen lacks the required skill, drive, or time to apply. At present, the net is not as accessable as the printed page... certainly not in most bathrooms and waiting rooms.
The demise of investigative journalism is sad. The existing funding paradigm has become obsolete and has made unbiased investigation unaffordable. When the internet provides the required funding, then your view will considered valid. I think the net will find the answer, but slowly. In the meantime, we have lost something important.
It's been years since you could buy a paper and read the real news. And with everything being online now, it's all but impossible getting real journalism at all. It's all crap, hype or bias.
But what are we going to wrap the fish in? Pack the dishes with?
What a bunch of cynics. First, tree huggers (and I'm one) get your facts straight. Computers and toners use energy. Trees used to make today's paper have been harvested for just such a use for years now. There's evidence that trees breed for future paper do more good for the environment by helping our overall carbon footprint through photosynthesis. But that's an entirely different argument.
Regarding newspapers, it is a loss. Kids learn to read with papers and written material in the house. It's another fact that kids who grow up in households surrounded by books and newspapers grow up more literate. Heavens, with the US now 15th in education, we certainly don't need to help society dump down anymore.
Yes, kids play on computers, but they learn to read with books and printed material. Imaginations fly through books and frequently kids discover books after they've discovered the comics.
The value of newspapers is deep and includes but is not limited to investigative journalism. Print will not die with digital. Targeted reach is too important to politicians and others. I love my computer, but I love my newspaper too. They are different and serve very different purposes in my life. I'm not totally ready to give up the tactile and I suspect others are not either. If they die, they will return, just as Hair has to Broadway.
Sorry, but you barely scratched the surface of the problem.
Of course: no one needs paper to deliver news anymore. But paper is more than a medium, it's a business model. You needed thousands of classified pages to pay for the investigative reporting that led to Watergate and Co. You have to figure out a new business model to get professional journalism.
The quality of reporting in USA has declined at a ridicolous rate. But I can't see blogs as solution, they are part of the problem: Many people don't want actual information, they want to read, hear and see what they think already. If someone referred 20 years ago to the president in the United States as socialist and fascist on a rotating basis, he had to earn his money as cab driver in NY. Today he gets a million dollar contract with Fox News.
Well Rhona, you might supply some facts for starters. Logging and paper production follow a process something like this: cut down trees, which requires heavy machinery using lots of fuel. Transport logs to mills, which requires more heavy trucks burning fuel. Processing in mills uses large quantities of electricity and water. Paper is then transported using heavy trucks and lots of fuel. Then to print newspapers, large presses using lots of electricity. Then to distribute newspapers, more trucks. Then unsold papers must be returned and disposed of. Don't forget the manufacturing and distribution of all those big machines in the first place; for example, anything using aluminum directly affects the health of rivers and fish. Steel production is dirty and energy-intensive, and mining is destructive. Those trees better pump out a whole lot of good before they're cut down to counteract all that.
It's also worth noting that I said nothing about killing print; rather that both digital online delivery and newsstand print-on-demand kiosks accommodate all customers at a fraction of the distribution cost and waste, and make more publications available than ever. Paper can still come from specially-bred trees. You'd think that dramatic reductions in distribution costs would benefit news publications, and free up budget for all those investigative reporters we need.
The media have seen the writing on the wall, and have been using their dirty tricks to make sure that the Internet does not demolish their industry. They have attacked online sites like wikipedia, citing plunging share prices after a fake posting, etc. They set up one of their own type - a British academic, Tim Berners-Lee - as the supposed inventor of the Internet, whereas it is common knowledge that it was the US DOD. But none of these tricks matter, because at long last the public will soon be able to get public information free and unedited from the source, rather than from the middle-men who want to sell it.