My quest to discover what a community is missing without a newspaper serves up a question that has been fueling industry discourse for the past few years. Respective journalists weigh in on the issue on Newsy.com's video covering the folding of the Rocky Mountain News and the move to online for the Seattle Post-Intellinger.
New York Times columnist David Carr comes up with an interesting proposal. Suggesting that it's time for "wholesale collaboration on the past of the newspaper industry" offers a solution that seems like it would somewhat sustain the industry's existence but likely omit the element of competition. Apart from the commitment to both democracy and truth, competition amongst news organization often fuels a quality product. Competition fuels the incentive to uncover a community's truth.
Furthermore, should consolidation laws regarding monopolies be revised to broaden the view on a competitive news organization in a particular region? Although consolidation in this instance may be helpful to the survival of each individual paper, I'm not convinced the the consolidated group would survive subsequent to the collaborative change. Sharing of content and platforms disables the fundamentals of independent media and the value of a decentralization in the news industry.
Michael Moore, however, seems convinced that it is the newspapers themselves that have produced their own predicament. If you remove all of the highly politicized speech of the notorious Michael Moore in the FORA.tv video below, he does make a few points worth considering in the demise of the newspaper industry.
While Moore attributes it to greed, I consider the cutting back on number of journalists, or specific beats, more of a survival tactic to ensure profits than a malicious plot to cut as many expenses as possible. Most news organizations value the need for quality reporting, and its ability to sustain readership. It is unclear which is the cause here-- did the organizations begin to cut journalists because they could not sustain their business at its costs, or did they cut them in hopes of greater profits and in doing so sacrificed quality and therefore readership, in turn decreasing their profits greatly? I'm not sure when the demise truly began, but I am sure that it continues now. My hopes are that Clay Shirky is wrong at that newspapers, in some form can keep their head above water the changing tides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ali,
ReplyDeleteI found the two theories that you posed here regarding the newspaper industry very interesting. I agree with your stance regarding both the consolidation of newspapers as well as the newspaper companies motives regarding "greed" as to why the staff has been cut. I think that competition does fuel a more quality product because each separate news organization is striving to publish a better story for the readers. Also, like you said, cutting staff seems like much more of a survival tactic for news organizations as opposed to attempting to gain more profit. Its a tough economy and greed is a second priority these days.
Ali, you're doing a great job analyzing the current state of the newspaper industry. I appreciate the links and videos to other people's opinions on the situation as well. Your writing style is very engaging. I would love to see more about the future of the industry or any ideas you or industry professionals have about a business model that could work. I'm also wondering if there are more cities in the country, besides Ann Arbor, who are experimenting with online newspapers instead of daily print newspapers. I'm really enjoying your blog overall!
ReplyDeleteI really like how there is a common thread to your posts, unlike the gamut of topics that my blog covers. It gives me something to think about before I even come to your blog because I know it's going to have something to do about the future of journalism, and I like that. Maybe this is just me and I'm missing it but sometimes I have trouble distinguishing your opinions from the people and articles that you quote or paraphrase. Furthermore, when I read your blog, I want to know YOUR opinions, not some guy who I don't know. That's not to say that outside information is not important because it's obviously vital in forming your view, but maybe you could flush yours out more or conclude with a summary in the last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI think Pete has an interesting point. Blogs, by their very nature, are expected to have opinion in them. While not all blogs have to be this, you may want to start thinking about infusing yourself or your opinions into the blog more...just a thought. But I also like the links and information you provide as well...that's also a part of blogging.
ReplyDelete