A Recipe for Newspaper Survival in the Internet Age

I've spent seven years working as a writer and editor for Slashdot's parent company. During this time I've been to at least a dozen mainstream journalists' and editors' conferences where the most-asked question was, "How do we adapt to the Internet?" You'd think, with all the smart people working for newspapers, that by now most of them would have figured out how to use the Internet effectively enough that it would produce a significant percentage of their profits. But they haven't. In this essay I will tell you why they've failed to adapt, and what they must do if they want to survive in a world where the Internet dominates the news business. I'm going to use the Bradenton Herald as an example, not because it's a bad newspaper but because I live in the middle of its circulation area. The Herald is a typical Knight Ridder small-city newspaper in every way except one: it serves Manatee County, an area with a fast-growing population where most new residents are old enough that they grew up reading newspapers every day. Despite these favorable factors, the Herald's circulation has declined by 3.5% in the last year. Of course, newspaper circulation declines are now normal rather than exceptional. Other newspapers have done far worse, with the San Francisco Chronicle recording a 16.4% drop in the last six months alone.

Readership vs. Circulation

Much of the Chron's circulation decrease was because it stopped giving away free papers. The Boston Globe also stopped a giveaway program and suffered a circulation decline as a result, although only about half as big a loss as the Chron's, but the Globe's marketing people have said that only half of the loss came from stopping the giveaways, and blamed the rest of it on the usual suspects, notably TV and the Internet.

These figures only measure paper newspaper circulation. They don't include Web readership, which generally seems to be trending (slowly) upwards on newspaper Web sites. Circulation figures can also be misleading because they only measure the total number of newspapers distributed, not the kind of people who read them. And readership quality can often be more important, in a business sense, than quantity. This is especially true for those newspapers (namely, just about all of them) that rely on advertising for the bulk of their income.

By definition, anyone who reads a newspaper online at home can afford a computer and an Internet connection, which means they aren't at the very bottom of the economic pile. Online readers are also likely to be more open to new experiences, products, and services than those who don't feel they need to use the Internet -- which by some estimates may be as many as half of all households within the Herald's circulation area, which has a higher percentage of retirees than all but a few other U.S. counties.

Journalism professor Douglas Fisher and media executive Alan Mutter have both talked about intentional circulation losses on their blogs. In his post, Fisher says, "The industry evolves to the point of small, expensive print publications and most of the 'mass' news on the Web somehow. Then, as we evolve toward paid content online will come issues such as whether a certain amount of 'base' information should be free for every person -- sort of like a public utility of information (perhaps presented as a social utility necessary in a functioning democratic society)."

Meanwhile, when newspapers talk about readership vs. circulation, they're typically trying to estimate how many people read each copy of their print product (pdf download) rather than come up with a total picture of their publication's readership, including its online presence. This is a mistake. Instead of treating their Web sites like unwelcome stepchildren, newspapers should turn them into their primary method of news delivery -- and teach their reporters, editors, and ad sales people how to work effectively with this new -- to them -- medium.

Slashdot Lessons

1. No matter how much I or any other reporter or editor may know about a subject, some of the readers know more. What's more, if you give those readers an easy way to contribute their knowledge to a story, they will.

Imagine a newspaper with a space for comments below each story on its Web site. This Slashdot story has comments directly attached to it, not tucked away from public view the way the Bradenton Herald's site hides reader comments on Bulletin Boards that aren't directly connected to any of the paper's articles or editorials. To make matters worse, the Herald's Bulletin Boards require a separate login to post. Even if you're a logged-in reader you must put in your username and password again to use them.

As a result of these posting barriers, you hardly see any reader comments on the Herald's site, and what few there are seem to come from a small group that posts over and over. Even the Herald's single (hard to find) blog, maintained by token hip-dude entertainment reporter Wade Tatangelo, draws so few daily comments that you could count them on the fingers of one hand -- and usually have four or five fingers left over.

By contrast, the Washington Post's Web site has two blogs, Achenblog and The Debate, prominently displayed on the Opinions page that almost always draw 100+ comments per post.

A truly Web-hip newspaper would not only allow but encourage reader comments on all of its stories, not just on a blog or two. With thousands of readers as fact-checkers, mistakes would rarely go uncorrected for long, and if there was any perceived bias in a controversial article, reader comments would make sure the other side got heard. Even better, a reader who witnessed an event the paper covered would be able to add his or her account of it to the reporter's, which would give other readers a richer and deeper view of it.

2. Not all readers know what they're talking about.

While some readers know more about any given topic than a professional journalist writing about it, most don't. Some, indeed, post anything about anything, including misleading or false information. This is why Slashdot has a moderation system, and why all newspaper Web sites need to have moderation systems in place before they allow reader posts attached directly to stories. Slashdot's, which is built into the code that runs the whole site, is probably too complicated for most newspapers, but everyone (including newspaper publishers) is free to download, use, and modify it. For those who don't want to use the code behind Slashdot, there are many other free (and proprietary) content management programs available that have similar -- and often simpler and less geeky -- moderation features built into them.

3. No matter what you do, some readers will post malicious and/or obscene comments

Slashdot removes posts only in response to Cease and Desist orders or legitimate copyright infringement complaints. We find that malicious or obscene posts are usually moderated into oblivion almost immediately, because our readers -- hundreds of whom have moderation power at any given moment -- have a sharp eye for stupid stuff.

A mainstream newspaper might choose to remove blatantly disgusting posts, which would take some staff time. There would also -- inevitably -- be second-guessing and complaints, including whines from readers who believed their posts were removed because they didn't follow the [fill in political party here] line, not because they used offensive language.

Moderation never makes everyone happy. Someone will always feel the rules are too loose, while someone else will believe they're too tight. And moderates -- I mean moderators -- will always get flak from ____-wingers who think they're biased. But these problems shouldn't stop grown-up newspaper people from soliciting and publishing readers' posts. They should already be accustomed to bias accusations.

4. What if readers post comments that advertisers don't like?

This is a problem, and one to which some newspapers are extremely sensitive --not just over readers' comments but sometimes over their own reporters' stories. A 1999 Washington Monthly article had some examples of how newspapers sometimes cater to advertisers instead of their readers. Allowing readers to comment on stories, and allowing them to post anything they want (other than obscenities, blatant hate speech, and personal attacks) increases readers' faith in the newspaper, which makes it a more effective advertising medium in the long run because some of that trust will rub off on advertisers that support it.

The Business Side of a Newspaper Web Site

Slashdot, like almost all other Web, broadcast, and print media outlets, depends on ad revenue for most of its income. For the first few years of its existence as a commercial entity, major advertisers were afraid to buy ads on Slashdot or other free-wheeling, community-driven sites. They worried that every time they touted a product, all the customers they'd ever irritated would post bad things about them. It's impossible to run a company of any scale without having at least a few dissatisfied customers, no matter how good your products and services are, so this was not an unjustified fear.

Luckily for Slashdot (and our parent company), many companies have learned that they are going to get criticized online whether they like it or not, so at the very worst, running ads on pages where they get slammed gives them a chance to tell their side of the story.

Keyword-based ad placement helps them do this. Imagine making software that's often knocked for its security vulnerabilities, while competing software is available that costs little or nothing and doesn't share your product's problems. You'd want to run a Get the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign on every Web page where the competing product was being discussed so that you could tell people who are (obviously) interested in the competing product how awful it is, and why they should buy yours instead.

On a local newspaper Web site, a developer intent on replacing pristine wilderness along a scenic river with ugly condominium towers in the face of opposition from local citizens' groups could run a keyword-targeted campaign explaining why their buildings would be better than a swampy, mosquito-ridden riverfront. They could stress the fact that they would reduce the population of turtles, spiders, alligators, shore birds, frogs, and other annoying wildlife, and that runoff from their chemically-fertilized landscaping would help keep local fish populations down by contributing to red tide, thereby reducing the number of smelly fishermen infesting the area.

Other, more sensible, businesses would use the same tactic -- keyword ad placement -- to sponsor discussions in a positive way. An obvious example here in Florida would be resort property owners linking ads to tourism-related stories and the discussions attached to them. With geotargeting becoming common on the Web, ads aimed at visitors could be visible to all of a Florida newspaper's online readers, while ads for a local business would only be shown to local residents -- unless the local advertiser was canny enough to realize that Florida has many thousands of seasonal residents, and that reaching these snowbirds through the local newspaper's Web site before they come South is a great way to get a leg up on competitors.

Some other ways to exploit the Web that newspapers don't seem to do well:

• Print-them-yourself coupons. This is lots cheaper than putting coupons in a print newspaper. Many newspapers boast that today's paper contains $___ worth of coupon savings. Why don't more papers make this boast about their online editions? TV stations could do this on their sites, too. This would be an entirely new source of revenue for them, since there is no way to put a coupon in a TV spot.
• Online ad circulars, similar to the paper ones that pack print newspapers on Sundays and holidays. The print ones are expensive to produce and deliver, especially in color. Online circulars would be far less costly.
• Selling sponsorships for community calendars and other "public interest" sections that should be on every newspaper's Web site -- but often aren't or are produced in too scattered a manner to be useful for readers. C'mon, newspaper (and local TV) people! A well-organized, database-driven events calendar is easy to produce. If you don't have one (and sponsors for it), you should.
• Sponsored, "free to individuals and small businesses," local classifieds. craigslist and eBay are busily taking the classified ad market away from newspapers, with Google getting ready to help them with this effort. The Poynter Institute's Steve Outing suggests that the best way to beat back this threat is to "Turn newspaper classifieds into an active and interactive community, instead of just static, dull listings. A cold-hearted newspaper classifieds database could well be smothered by Google classifieds. A local-focused interactive community may be less vulnerable."

The Local-Focused Interactive Community

I believe the future of not only classified ads but of local news gathering and distribution is the "local-focused interactive community." According to this article, craigslist founder Craig Newmark agrees with me. So do plenty of other Web entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are busily building and financing "community" sites.

Local newspapers should have dominated all of this interactivity from the beginning. They had the name recognition and -- through their print editions -- the promotional muscle to make their Web sites into unassailable community hubs. But they didn't, and now they're reduced to playing catch-up.

If the Sarasota Herald-Tribune had followed through on its plans to incorporate reader-written blogs into its site, Suncoastblog.com probably wouldn't exist. This group blog is an admittedly lame effort, barely begun, put together by several people in this area (including me) who thought it would be nice to have a local site that might eventually cover events and places that don't make their way into the local papers. We know the Herald-Tribune, whose circulation area overlaps the Bradenton Herald's, had thought about hosting reader blogs at one point, because they asked readers to submit blog ideas several months ago. I submitted one and never heard back.

I also submitted a local computer business column concept to the Herald. I came up with it because the Herald has a Sunday business page it calls "Digital Manatee," on which I have never seen anything other than out-of-town wire service material even though there is more than enough local computer and Internet business activity to fill a weekly column, and enough local computer and computer service vendors to surround that column with profitable advertising.

The Herald's editor didn't respond to my proposal. I've written three computer-oriented books, and thousands of articles that have run online and in print all over the world, but I am apparently not worth even a polite turndown from my local paper's editor. No problem. A week later I was having lunch with a couple of local entrepreneur buddies. I told them what had happened. They suggested an online computer business magazine instead of a Herald column, and offered to finance it on the spot, out of their pockets.

I don't have time to start a new publication. But I am in a position to help someone else start one, and to write a story or two for it now and then. Financing's in place. So is a domain name. So at some point the Herald and Herald-Tribune may have (yet) another niche publication competing with them. It won't be a big competitor, but its ad revenue will come from lucrative business-to-business accounts you'd think a local newspaper would be eager to lock up with a weekly (or more frequent) column for local computer-using business people.

This doesn't mean the Herald has a bad editor or that another small paper would have reacted differently. I use this anecdote only to point out that it is now easier to start an online publication than for even a highly-qualified outsider to get his or her work into a local paper. Is it any wonder that local blogs and other online niche publications are springing up like mad? And as a corollary, is it any wonder that newspaper circulation and influence continues to decline?

Newspapers need to open up more to the communities around them. They need to stop confining their interaction with readers to advisory board meetings and questionnaires, and allow readers' stories, opinions, and thoughts to become an integral part of the newspaper itself. They should not allow readers to alter the newspaper's own words, as the Los Angeles Times did back in June with their laughable wikitorial experiment. Moderated comments are a much better way to give readers a voice. So are journals that allow (logged-in) readers the same level of freedom they'd have with their own blogs, but also give them the cachet of being published on a "major brand" Web site.

'Local' is the Key Word

The Herald, Herald-Tribune, and many other (if not most) local newspapers seem to think that they are still their readers' primary source of national and international news, just as they were 20 years ago. So that's what fills their front pages most of the time, with local and regional news stuck in a "B" or "C" section.

Welcome to the Internet age, local newspaper (and TV) people. I can and do get my national and international news from the New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox News, CNN, and other online media that cover faraway events better and faster than you ever will. I turn to you for local news. You tell me more about last week's home invasion robbery on 11th Street East than they ever will.

It's time for local newspapers to become truly local; to feature local news on the front pages of both their Web sites and print editions, with only a few out-of-the-area stories up front, augmented by an above-the-fold story list that tells readers where to find national and international news on their inside pages.

Add readers' stories and comments to the mix and you suddenly have a local online community, not just a newspaper. This will not take work away from professional reporters, photographers, and editors, who will still be the foundation of local news-gathering. In fact, increased interaction with local community members will probably give them more work than ever, because they will find themselves inundated with news tips and story suggestions they never would have found on their own. Some of these story ideas will be dreck and some will be invaluable. It will be up to the newspaper's editors to find the (rare) nuggets in the huge pile of dross they will need to sort through every day, and up to the newspaper's reporters to follow up on them.

One important thing a community-oriented, Web-based newspaper must do is credit readers for their story leads unless they specifically request anonymity. Another good idea is to pay readers who submit news stories that are written well enough that they can run with only routine editing and fact-checking. Those readers are, in effect, doing a reporter's work, and they should get some sort of compensation for it. Some may even turn into stringers capable of covering government meetings and other events when staff reporters aren't available, and a few of those stringers eventually ought to become staff members. After all, if a newspaper is going to be about, by, and for its local community, shouldn't that community be its primary recruiting ground?

Newspapers Will Not Die

Some newspapers (and newspaper chains) will probably not survive the shift from news-as-monologue to news-as-dialog. Most will, although those that wait too long to adjust will have much of their audience, influence, and ad revenue taken away by more agile competitors.

The smartest newspapers will follow my survival recipe or come up with their own way to become an integral part of their community instead of a building full of people who have been sprinkled with Secret Journalism Powder that makes them better and smarter than their readers. These newspapers will not only survive, but prosper. They may even become the prime outlets for bloggers in their communities, which will increase their readership and ad revenue. Extreme ____-wing bloggers won't want their words associated with the hated Mainstream Media, but most others will be happy to have a widely-read, influential outlet for their work.

Eventually, I expect print newspapers to become "snapshots" of their Web editions taken at 1 a.m. or another arbitrary time, poured into page templates and massaged a little by layout people, then sent to the printing presses, a pattern that has potential for significant production cost reductions if handled adroitly. From that point on, their paper editions will be distributed the same way newspapers are now.

Senior citizens and others who can't afford (or don't want) computers are and will continue to be a viable market. So will commuters who use public transportation. Then there are those -- a substantial part of the population -- who simply prefer reading words and looking at pictures on paper to seeing them on a screen. They will still want physical newspapers, even if they are not as up-to-date or as complete as what they'd get on the Web.

However it is delivered, text will not go away anytime soon. For a fast reader, it is the most efficient way to take in large quantities of information. Most people speak at a rate of between 130 and 200 words per minute. Most college students, according to a Virginia Tech student guide, can read non-technical material at 250 to 300 words per minute, and can increase that reading speed significantly with a little thought and practice. Listening to a city council meeting at 150 words per minute takes much longer than reading a meeting transcript at two, three, four or ten times that speed. Now have a skilled reporter -- whether a staff member, paid contributor or volunteer -- write an intelligent summary of that meeting, and even an average reader can learn what happened there in a few minutes instead of slogging through a two hour audio or video recording.

The Web version of that summary can be posted without waiting for the printing presses and delivery trucks to roll, and can have audio or video snippets embedded in it, but there is no reason not to make the text portion of it available on paper for those who prefer it in that form, unless the paper's editors decide so few people are interested in a city council meeting that it doesn't deserve a spot in the print version -- and tracking page readership on the Web version of the paper before the paper edition goes to press should give those editors a good idea of what they should and shouldn't put on paper.

Printed newspapers will have a significant following for many years to come. They may or may not become "expensive," as Professor Fisher predicts, but they will likely become smaller than they are now, and subscription sales efforts will probably be targeted more closely at groups unlikely to have Internet connections, especially senior citizens.

On the Web side, it's likely that newspapers will end up keeping most of their content free, with specialty sections (and posting privileges) reserved for logged-in users. Whether they'll be able to charge for some or all of their Web content is questionable. I paid $50 for a year's subscription to the NYT's Times Select program, and I don't think it's a good enough value that I'll renew my subscription when it runs out. I would be more likely to pay if I lived in New York and that subscription, in addition to what it gives me now, offered access to additional features like complete transcripts of government meetings. Indeed, I would happily pay at least $30 per year to the Bradenton Herald for a well-organized Web edition that gave me what I now get in the paper edition, plus government meeting transcripts and other useful subscriber-only features.

But if I paid for an online subscription to the Herald, I'd probably drop my subscription to the paper edition. I'd still be the same person, with the same interests, earning power and spending habits. The only thing that would change about me, from the newspaper's perspective, would be my news delivery preference.

The challenge for local newspapers that beef up their Web editions at the expense of their paper versions won't be to keep (or add) readers, but to teach advertisers that the Web, not paper, is the best way to reach their most lucrative potential customers.

This may not be easy, but it will be a lot easier than explaining to advertisers why they should keep spending money in a newspaper that has fewer readers, and less influence, every year.

Comments

Cost savings is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Print journalists should throw sway standards like searching for duplicate articles, insisting on proper spelling, or even writing coherent articles. If all print media matched Hemos' Yellow Box review, think of the savings!

Smart People?

[RacerZero]

You'd think, with all the smart people working for newspapers...

Ha ha, ha ha.!

Re:Smart People?

[SamSim]

No, no, no. Don't think that the target demographic reflects the intelligence of the journalists. The people who write tabloids like The Sun are very, very clever. They know how to get people to buy newspapers - and that's to sensationalise, and write in big block capitals and short, punchy, easy-to-read sentences and paragraphs, using language suitable for the third-grade.

Re:Smart People?

[Hogwash McFly]

and that's to sensationalise, and write in big block capitals and short, punchy, easy-to-read sentences and paragraphs, using language suitable for the third-grade.

You forgot the PUNS, PUNS, PUNS!

It's bad enough that they're in the headlines, let alone the article text itself. Also, I love how they embolden (or is it italicise?) the puns, just incase the drooling readers can't spot them as-is.

Re:Smart People?

[SatanicPuppy]

As a smart person working for a newpaper, I'd like to say, kiss my ass. You'd be hard pressed to find another industry that has more interesting data handling issues than a newspaper. We've got financial data, image data, text data (which is stored in a version tracking system similar to, but more extensive than, CVS), and massive archiving which is seperate from and connected to all of the above.

And all of this data has to be able to transition from pure digital to paper through a conversion and optimization process that requires raster processing and laser lithography like a goddamn microchip fabrication plant. You've got disaster recovery and stress like you wouldn't believe.

That being said, I have to agree with Rob. Interesting that he picked a KR paper. Knight Ridder has a terrible online presence...It's not done by individual papers either, it's all done on the corporate level. Check the websites: Charlotte, Philaphelphia, Biloxi, Macon...Notice anything? One size fits all.

The reason Knight Ridder is a bad example is because they don't take the web seriously in the least. They don't spend any money on it, and they don't let their individual papers do it themselves. Until they make more of an effort, they're not going to grow their web readership or their web presence. That's just common sense.

Re:Smart People?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your average reporter is a journalism major. That means no background in science, math, accounting, architecture, art, business, law enforcement, law, administration, history beyond Roe v Wade, social studies, geography, military history, or anything else requiring a triple digit IQ. Oh, and their the lowest life form at the paper and are paid the least and have the most turnover. It's easy to why the articles are so shallow.

The only qualifications for a reporter are that anything Planned Parenthood and the Right to Choose are just wonderful, and only Abortion Clinic Bombers would thing otherwise. That, and We All Hate Bush. Dan Rather still cant' figure out why he was fired, his TANG story evidence "was falsified, but the story was still true." Yeah, that's the ticket.

The public isn't just bored with today's J-majors, it holds in contempt their advertisers. I'd go on, but why dummy up chumps?

Re:Smart People?

[GodfatherofSoul]

The integrity trend downward in news has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the new corporate culture that's taken over the newsroom. It's all about profit margins, which means salacious stories about bimbo heiresses. You managed to squeeze in all the liberal-slant myths about the media, yet somehow right-wing hype seems to stick in the average Joe's mind. Wonder where it all comes from since we're not all listening to Rush and Fox?

72% of us thought Iraq planned the 9-11 attacks when we invaded Iraq and the liberal media planted that Bush godsend in our minds?

Maybe the upsurge in right-wing media sources is responsible for the dumbing down of the news?

Yeah, Dan Rather was an idiot for selling us those awfully bad forgeries, but Bush still managed to jump over hundreds of more qualified candidates to get into the Champagne Unit when he barely qualified to fly, still skipped out on Guard duty, still skipped out on his drug test, still didn't fulfill his obligations, still checked "NO" on volunteering for combat duty in Vietnam, and his remaining records still mysteriously burst into flames when he decided to run for office. Don't let one bogus document plant (yes *plant*) discredit the whole story.

Inflammatory posts and ACs go hand-in-hand I guess...

Re:Smart People?

[SatanicPuppy]

Frankly, I'm all for the sale. Corporate journalism sucks. KR is a corporation filled with huge, unprofitable papers (Philly, Detroit(formerly), San Jose), being propped up by smaller papers that are getting squeezed like grapes to produce obscene profit margins (25+ percent), so that the shareholders can still get fat dividends so that the stock price stays high and the executive stock options are more lucrative. Chances are the papers'll just get bought up by other bloodsucking corporates, and the cycle will go on.

They just don't get it. A small paper in a saturated market can't grow revenue every year. In the market I'm in, we're bumping up against the effing LITERACY rate...We'd have to TEACH PEOPLE TO READ to sell more papers. But our budgeted profits are still targeted higher every year, so we have to cut and scrimp to make budget so we can make a 31% profit instead of a 29% profit, and squeezed to the bone, quality drops, and when quality drops, people stop subscribing, and then we have to cut yet still more to make 32% for next year.

Then magically, one day the company is in the toilet and they're trying to sell, and all the while the stockholders are complaining because the profits aren't big enough. Oy. If I could find a place to put my money where I'd make 25% a year, I'd do it and retire.

Re:Smart People?

[furnk]

Great discussion on this, and while I question some of the points, it's obvious Roblimo put a lot of work into the piece.

What's frustrating is to see so many of the comments from people with such disdain for newspapers. I agree that arrogance, ego and laziness run rampant throughout the industry, but I'd much rather wade through 30 worthless stories in a newspaper to find two really strong pieces of journalism than wade through 50,000 worthless blog entries to find those two pieces of journalism. (Could you honestly say that you could read a newspaper and not learn something?)

And I tend to see all mass media as jumping boards. If I see an interesting topic in a newspaper, it usually leads me to go find out more online. I don't expect a newspaper to have the space, resources or time to report on every article to the depths that all of its readers would want (after all, what's important to me is very likely unimportant to you -- and vice versa). But nowhere other than mass media can I get the breadth of topics that I normally wouldn't be interested in, but that because of the news I suddenly am.

Newspapers fail to understand that. Many see themselves as guardians of information -- one-stop shops for all you need to know. While some are good about pointing out links or other places to go for information, many are hestitant to do this.

I don't have much love for people who get all of their information from mainstream media. But I also can't identify with people who are so closed-minded (or have the time) to get all of their information for niche-specific media.

As for journalists themselves -- I've known quite a few. Many are egocentric, hollier than thou folks who have their own agendas about the news. But most are curious people who have a passion for writing and love the little guy.

Why don't journalists have medical degrees, engineering degrees, law degrees, business degrees or art degrees? Answer me this: If you had your MD (and $100,000 in student debt) would sign on at your local paper for $22,000 a year or at the local hospital for $85,000? Besides, if you agree that newspapers should be launching pads for information, shouldn't stories be written for people who don't understand the latest medical breakthrough? Doctors don't hear about medicines from newspapers. But I'm not going to try to muddle through a medical journal to try to figure out how the new research into amino acids is going to affect me.

A closing thought: One poster made a great comment about a problem with newspapers being the low barriers to entry. I couldn't agree more. What do you think about creating some sort of licensing for journalists? Would that weed out the weak ones, or would it simply add to the air of arrogance that plagues many within the industry?

Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[PenguinBoyDave]

As long as there are "old people" there will always be newspapers. It is a fact that people enjoy getting their paper, sitting down and reading. I have noticed that my technically sharp father has started reading less online and going back to the traditional paper. When I ask him why he says "it's relaxing."

I know when I fly (which seems to be every other day) I prefer to read a paper than fire up my computer to read a downloaded electronic format paper. Why? It is, interestingly enough, relaxing, even for me...a geek.

VERY interesting article Robin. Thanks for sharing.

You'd think, with all the smart people working for

[xzvf]

"You'd think, with all the smart people working for newspapers," That assumption doesn't stand up. In college journalism students are taught how to write badly. Then they get jobs as political reporters without a poly sci degree, business reporters without business degrees, and technology reporters without being able to do basic math.

Slashdot Lessons

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic competence in English grammar and spelling are to be avoided at all costs.

Reading your own paper is to be avoided at all costs.

Posting the same stories again can make your site twice as newsy.

Posting incoherent rants always rates over sober journalism.

Your job isn't to inform, but to generate the highest number of page-views for your advertisers.

People who don't like ads can be fooled by hiding ads inside so-called news stories.

Re:Slashdot Lessons

[Hogwash McFly]

For some reason I hear Dr Nick Riviera when I read the parent's post; probably because it's advice for achieving results by implementing lazy and inane ideas. You can almost picture the Simpsons episode where Dr Nick is hosting an 'Increase your news site traffic' class at the adult education centre.

It's especially funny when you get to the line:

Posting the same stories again can make your site twice as newsy.

Ahh, brings back memories of the Juice Loosener! It's whisper quiet!

I'm not sure I buy these arguments

[AEton]

So in short, you're saying

1) Newspapers should all have Web sites that run something like Slashcode.
Have you considered that Slashdot, where people come for the comments and not the stories, is the exception and not the rule?

2) Newspapers should run Slashvertisements.
One thing newspapers have which Slashdot does not is journalistic integrity.

3) Local newspapers should not ignore their audience.
Sure, I'll buy that. But this is just a way of saying that customer service is important to a business.

4) Rumors of the New York Times's death have been greatly exaggerated.
But times are tight. Layoffs at the Times and the Journal, KRT looking to sell itself -- yuck.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You missed a key ingredient...

[lbrandy]

Ego and arrogance. Newspapers need to let go of the idea that they are the harbinger and gateway of all information. The lofty self-appointed (and aritificial) perch they've created for themselves is obvious. What kind of self-respecting person would get news from any of these simpletons when they can get it from us. Blogs have been more successful as a news source exactly because of the print medias long and constant arrogant approach to them. Now, some are finally starting to catch up, but for the most part, vast and entire new media entities are taking huge market share from newspaper because of their elitism causing a massive delay in switching to web.

Your "recipe" assumes that newspaper editors are of the correct mindset, already. I think alot of them have a long way to go. The entire concept of an editorial, in print form, as the golden platonic representation of "opinion" is going to be nothing more than a quaint idea of yesteryear...

Re:You missed a key ingredient...

[drsquare]

Ego and arrogance

You mean the arrogance of a Slashdot editor telling editors of more professional and more successful sites how to do their jobs? Maybe he should concentrate on fixing duplicates, moderation-abuse and spelling and grammar errors before criticising others.

Newspapers need to let go of the idea that they are the harbinger and gateway of all information.

You mean like when Slashdot editors merge their own opinions into the article summaries, arrogantly assuming that their biased opinion is hard fact, and arrogantly assuming that anyone cares what they think?

vast and entire new media entities are taking huge market share from newspaper because of their elitism causing a massive delay in switching to web.

Most people not buying newspapers are instead getting their news from TV or the Internet. When they use the Internet it's for convenience, not because of a lack of 'elitism'.

How can you have the audacity to criticise newspapers for arrogance and elitism, and then hold blogs up as an alternative? Blogs have all the problems newspapers have, multiplied by a thousand. Blog editors are even more egotistical, even more elitist, even more biased and even more unprofessional.

Survival is unlikely

[dada21]

There is no survival of defunct and obsolete media.

Television advertisers will return to product placement, billboards and bus advertisements. DVR's are becoming so prevalent that the TV ad is dead. I ran tens of thousands of dollars over advertising in TV and radio over the years and this year my ads cost almost $2000 per customer gained (versus $20 just a few years ago). My newspaper ads are never read any longer.

The "Everything" newspapers will be the first to die -- they are at least 6 hours and at most 18 hours late on the news. The TV news channels are dying as well as the information that is read is obviously of no concern to the talking heads, and the information is so generic that it likely affects no one.

I still see room for opinion media forms -- preaching to the choir is a great income source.

The commentary of the editor is interesting:

Much of the Chron's circulation decrease was because it stopped giving away free papers.

How do you give away a paper for free when the advertisers pull out en masse? I will never advertise in a newspaper or magazine or coupon clipper ever again. More and more advertisers are pulling out as well.

Achenblog and The Debate, prominently displayed on the Opinions page that almost always draw 100+ comments per post.

100 comments out of a paper that used to reach millions is piss-poor sorry. If I was an advertiser and saw only 100 comments, I'd dump that paper in seconds. No thanks.

With RSS feeds and the number of specific blogs with actually decent information growing every day, classic news on the web is as ancient as the newspaper idea. Consumers can now create their own content papers. I'd rather find a decent RSS-Newspaper portal that helps me formulate my own daily paper than go to Washpost.com.

Print-them-yourself coupons.

I like this idea, and I have tried it in many avenues and I have never seen a coupon come in that was generated online. Not one (and my customer is usually a 13-31 year old male). I've tried e-mail coupons, too, and I believe we received one customer out of it. Coupons are dead when you have Froogle and Amazon already telling your customer that your store is too expensive.

Online ad circulars

Again, dead. Froogle and Amazon make this idea bunk. "Hey I can save $5 on the Widget at Dada's Shop, oh but wait it's $15 cheaper at Amazon with free shipping!"

Selling sponsorships for community calendars and other "public interest" sections that should be on every newspaper's Web site

And as the web grows bigger, I see more people ignoring their communities of people dissimilar to them and gain respect for their web communities of people similar to themselves. More geeks on /. know others here than they do their own real life neighbors.

Sponsored, "free to individuals and small businesses," local classifieds.

Great idea. Advertise to 500 readers for free, or sell it on ebay to 5M readers for $1. Hmm, I think I'll take option 2.

'Local' is the Key Word

I wish that was the case. When I attempted to create some local scenes over the years online, as more of my customer base jumped on the internet, more of the local scenes online fell way to the nationally-oriented scenes. The punks that used to stick to our punk rock forum (we sold punk music) dropped us for the national scene. The paintballers that used to frequent our paintball forum (we sell paintball equipment) dumped us for the national scene. The skateboards that used to frequent our skate spot forum (we sell skate equipment) did the same. Why? 5 messages a day from the same 100 people is boring compared to hundreds of opinions.

It's time for local newspapers to become truly local

And attempt to sell itself to 500 people? I think it is more important for newspaper to face reality -- you can't please all of the people all of the time if the group is small. It is bet

Re:Survival is unlikely

[cellocgw]

Do a simplistic case study instead:
and
Simplistic, since it covers sales and not profits, but the point is staving off readership drops.

In true /. form: You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

Clue: "simplistic"is not a synonym for "simple."

Don't use fancy words when a simpler one will do, especially when you don't know what the word means.

Re:You'd think, with all the smart people working

[NineNine]

Well, journalism isn't concerned with knowing the industry you're writing about. That's like getting a comp sci degree and learning how to use Visual Studio. All of the subject matter can be learned pretty easily. What people (bloggers and their fans) don't understand is that journalism deals with being able to write coherently, using facts, and as little bias as possible. Journalism is a real skill/profession that people such as yourself just don't understand. That doesn't mean that they don't provide society a very valuable service.

The NYT

[locutus2k]

Robin,

Pretty well written, and looking at papers like the NY Times that are distributed all over the damn world, you'd think they would know how to leverage the internet to augment the lack of interest by most people under the age of 50 who are not in the financial business.

I work for a company in the financial industry and we ge the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal every day. Oddly, its only read by one person... maybe two. For the most part, our staff goes to their web sites to read what is in the papers.

By far, the complaint i get the most is that a registration is required. this isn't a money problem, its a logistical one. My users are quite lazy and don't want to have to be bothered to log into another web site to read the news. Thankfully, they're finding that they can get the same articles, and often from those papers from Google News, and Yahoo Finance.

If these papers want to avoid the fate of the dinosaur, as you said, they need to focus on advertising are an income source, not charging the people that actually would like to read what they have to say.

Re:The NYT

[SalMoriarty]

If these papers want to avoid the fate of the dinosaur, as you said, they need to focus on advertising [as] an income source, not charging the people that actually would like to read what they have to say.

That's a valid argument, but to defend registration on newspaper sites, though intrusive as they may be, most registration is free and is only used to help focus the advertising efforts.

WOW - Great writeup Rob

[xmas2003]

But I wonder how many mainstream journalists will read what you wrote ... or perhaps even more importantly, the business people associated with those operations.

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[dada21]

I've been reading news "online" since 1984 when I received my first Hayes 300 baud full length internal ISA modem.

I am so accustomed to online news that I only read the news on my PDA phone (on the go, on the throne, in the plane). I will read zines and some opinion ed newsletters in paper form, but that's about it.

One of my businesses is a retail store with the customers being generally 13-31 year old males. The younger ones (under 25) don't read the paper at all, in fact, more news gets passed through SMS than even e-mail or web forum. I can't believe how many kids have AIM on their phones.

Old people are also transitioning to online and simple message information sharing. My father is legally blind yet he uses the Microsoft magnifying lens and his wife to read his news online rather than deal with the paper (he's retired).

Fear of change just like the big auto makers

[gasmonso]

When I look at the big newpapers out there, I am reminded of the big auto makers of the past like GM, Ford, etc. They are so used to doing business the way they did decades ago and are hesitant to change. This is somewhat understandable because it worked for so long. Now look at GM, they are hurting bad because they haven't adapted to the changing times. Back in the 70's when gas was expensive for a period, America kept making gas guzzlers, while Japan focused on fuel efficient designs. Gas prices eased up and the American auto makers start cranking out minivans and SUVs that are just as bad as the cars in the 60's. Once again Japan comes through and put a lot of effort into hybrids and alternative energy sources. American auto companies are feeling the sting once again. Now as for newspapers, the tone is similar. Many smaller bloggers and independent reporters are gathering a large following because they give the public what they want... important news easily available online for free. The big papers like the New York Times still insist on stupid registration which pushed potential readers away. They should be focusing on getting as many readers as possible and the advertising revenue will flow. Just look at Google.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/

The Internet is not the real problem.

[CDPatten]

"You'd think, with all the smart people working for newspapers, that by now most of them would have figured out how to use the Internet effectively enough that it would produce a significant percentage of their profits."

Well that's just it. There aren't allot of "smart people" working for newspapers. Don't get me wrong, the writers and editors (as we just saw) think they are smart, but they are the only ones who believe that. As the internet has developed society has started to hold them more accountable, and as it turns out they plagiarize continually, make up facts, or outright lie/misquote people. Jason Blaire anyone? Dan Rather?
I'd say the mainstream newspaper's biggest problem (e.g. new York Times) is they are reporting OPIOIN more then news (I'm talking about in the news section not just the op-ed). A bigger problem for them is that most people in the country disagree with those opinions.

Blogs have become so popular because people are getting to see some insightful commentary other then the dribble we get from the self proclaimed "smart people" in the media. The problem for the newspapers is their staff, not the internet.

Re:The Internet is not the real problem.

[mOoZik]

Are you telling me that there aren't infinitely more bloggers who publish questionable, unverifiable material online almost as fact? You just described the internet, friend!

Long Article and Attention Span

[Alien54]

that's one long recipe

It's called an "in depth" article. Actually, it is typical for the length of article you saw in a major newspaper on a regular basis before the days of the internet.

Compare this with common blogs, and other similar media since the dawn of the television age.

yes there is more information about more things, but I think you could make an argument that the breadth of content has expanded at the cost of depth. Much content has become more shallow, because of the length of time it takes to type up, say, as a comment to slashdot, when you are rushing to get your thoughts online early in the chain of comments.

it takes time to develop an in depth knowledge of something, time that people are less willing to develop, blaming it on ADHD or whatever, when a summer without electronic technology in a library of dead tree edition books would be a start to a good cure.

I can pay a buck for the Sunday paper

[theurge14]

I can pay a buck for the Sunday paper and get a tree trunk's worth of printed ads.

Or, I can browse to a website for free and nuke the ads with Adblock.

I guess someone's definition of a "relaxing read" is purely generational.

Re:I can pay a buck for the Sunday paper

[mshiltonj]

I can pay a buck for the Sunday paper and get a tree trunk's worth of printed ads.

And the *only* circular I look through is Best Buy's. My wife looks through Michael's (arts and crafts chain store). That's it.

The giant phone-book-sized Sunday paper is 90% unread/untouched in my house.

Also being discussed at TPMCafe

[sphealey]

This issue is also being discussed at TPMCafe, a politics blog.

sPh

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[SlashSquatch]

Bill Watterson had the right idea. I used to go straight for the comics when I had the newspaper. Not any more. They took the funny out of the funnies. Oh well, I'll just get my jollies online. It's so much more fun.

My problem with them is

[cyberbob2010]

They all seem to have some major backer that I don't feel I can trust to give me honest, unbiased news.
Oh, and before you start, I know that they aren't the most reliable source ever to get information but to be entirely honest with you, I would rather get my news from 100 blogs of different positions than from the New York Times, The Wallstreet Journal, or any of my local papers.
At least then I can pick through the crap, mix together the different points of view and come out with a fairly wellrounded understanding of things.
(That is also why I don't watch television news, but they have a whole other type of corruption going on there!!! *coughs..fox *coughs*)

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[Shakrai]

d

I used to have a subscription to the local newspaper, but after a while I cancelled it because I felt guilty for using so much paper and never really reading it, even though I recycled it.

I don't feel too hostile towards our local paper even though they sold out to a souless conglomerate that brings in most of the reporters from out of town. I would still have a subscription if it wasn't for the fact that my paper always seemed to be missing, four hours late, or soaking wet.

Instead of charging $3.75 a week for that "service" why don't they charge $2.50 and make everything available on a subscriber version of the website? I would pay for that -- access to local news is something that people should have, imho.

The altruistic side of me also thinks that they should release all news that is no longer economically viable (older then three months?) into the public domain and keep archives on their website. Of course they don't have much incentive to do this because they can sell "archive access", but it would be a public service. Between the money they originally made and the advertising dollars on the website I doubt it would be a losing game for them.

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[rovingeyes]

May be just may be we need to rethink what Newspapers are essentially meant for in this modern age. Certainly the "news" in newspapers is old by the time they go to print. So what is the benefit to the consumer to subscribe to a newspaper? Your reasoning could be valid - relaxing. But how many people feel that way? I do enjoy a lazy sunny afternoon break where I can catch my breath and get a cup of coffee and read newspaper. Its certainly relaxing, but at the same time I am not looking for "news". I already know it by then. In fact, by the time I am done reading the first paragraph I am bored. So may be newspapers need to shift focus.

Just telling me what happened might not be enough. It is all over the TV channels, online blogs and even if you missed all that, your know-it-all cubicle neighbor will make sure that you know about it. Now that means the obvious solution might be opinion or editorials etc. But there is already a section for that. But I think they should occupy front page headlines. How about editorials on the current events on front page? Since people already know what has happened, how about giving people an in-depth story about it. Going local is a key concept that the author discussed. How about editorials on local stuff? Forget about war on Iraq and ID. They are being beten to death on news channels and national newspapers.

I am not trying to provide a solution, I am just saying to that just "news" in newspaper will mean zero circulation eventually.

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[MojoRilla]

As long as there are "old people" there will always be newspapers.

Newspaper circulation is in decline. Evening newspapers (popular for closing stock information) have declined the fastest, but the overall trend is not encouraging. Since 1970 the number of us households has approximately doubled, but newspaper circulation has decreased slightly. This coupled with recent drops of 2.6 percent in the last six months paint a bleak picture.

It is naive to say that there will always be newspapers. It is like saying there will always be record players. Digital technology will eventually destroy newspapers. Even if someday they get replaced by high res flexible digital "paper", the traditional model of a printed paper that has to be distributed is doomed. It is simply too expensive.

Re:You'd think, with all the smart people working

[BewireNomali]

agreed. Movie critics who did not go to film school, et al.

I have a similar problem with teachers. New teachers are usually in my age range, and don't have much real world experience, are probably not mature enough to teach, et al. But they teach because they were in the lower range of their graduating class with generic degrees and as thus are willing to take meager salaries (this is my general experience with my friends who teach; no offense to those of you who teach on /., are competent, and love it). My solution: so many people are retiring younger and healthier than ever before. These people should teach. They've already led successful lives, have loads of life experience and thus have loads of things to teach that aren't in textbooks. More importantly, they have nest eggs so the meager salary isn't an issue to them because they're secure financially. They can afford to do it and are the most suited to do it. It's actually a program here in NY - where the school system is actively recruiting young retirees. This way you dramatically increase the quality of the school system with marginal cost increases.

My experience is that many of my friends in journalism are similar. They face similar issues: meager salaries, low barriers to entry, etc. I propose a similar solution - young retirees move into the journalism space. They've worked in the industry - have decades of perspective. With telecommuting what it is - they can perpetually report from the field... which would be where they choose to retire, etc. They can take the meager salaries because they have nest eggs, etc.

The secondary issue is that modern journalism is vertically integrated with political agendas in large politically vested corporations. I can imagine that the general public often feels hoodwinked and manipulated by the media - coerced into groupthink. That mistrust and the ease with which a motivated individual can self publish will continue a dramatic shift in the power dynamic. There will no longer be a monopoly on information (unless you're google).

The only time I pick up a paper is because an enterprising drug dealer disguises ads for pot in the classified section of the village voice. And they deliver.

Re:Slashdot as a newspaper model?

[pastpolls]

Keep in mind journalistic integrity only applies to the article and not those commenting. Just because a comment is wrong does not make it un-informative. People are being informed, just incorrectly. Remember, these are comments (see peanut gallery) and should be taken as such. I bet that the inaccuracy rates of "real" newspapers are about the same as Slashdot. Have you really read a newspaper and checked it for fact and objectivity recently.

Slashdot, and other user moderated sites have an unwritten "social contract." We except some mis-information in order to get some good stuff. We have words like Flaimbait and Troll to describe posts. I wish newspapers had such things, I would love to have gotten the opportunity to moderate the "missing white girl" stories as flaimbait... and most things political as trolls.

Re:Newspapers are dead. Long live newspapers.

[dada21]

The decline percentage is misleading as well. The MORE important figure to go with (IMHO) is advertiser decline, which is not readily published.

In the last 6 months, I have received more phone calls from my ad people at the local radio station, cable network, newspaper, coupon clipper and movie theaters that I used to advertise in. One of the ladies earned mid 6 figures just 5 years ago, this year she's considering bankruptcy.

I feel a little responsible in hurting the ad industry in my region. When I found out that most of my ad sales people bought through the Internet the same items I sell, I thought twice about what they were selling me. I asked myself this basic question: What do I do with the product I am advertising through?

TV ADS: PVR skip. RADIO ADS: Change station. COUPON CLIPPER: Throw in trash. NEWSPAPER: Never buy. MOVIE THEATER ADS: Show up 10 minutes after start.

I started to tell this to other businesses in my area. Now, when new sales people come through the store, I tell my managers to tell the sales people we only buy advertising from sales people who shop at our store for at least a year. Guess how many ads we run now?

If you think newspapers are dying, try the periodicals industry. More and more periodicals I used to read seem to have become strictly advertising for one massive dotcom. One "trade" magazine I used to read had 70% of its ads from one megadistributer that owns about 100 brand names.

Re:Advertising model won't die

[dada21]

They have no other choice but to try.

Yet the best form of advertising today is not advertising at all. It is an amazing free market resource that can never be regulated nor disturbed, and the Internet allowed it to come to complete fruition.

Consumer Rating.

Yes, you can find out about products from a TV commercial (or skip it). You can find out about products in a mailer (or throw them out). The future is to just make quality products, and let the new huge version of "word of mouth" carry you to success. Have you seen how many products on Amazon's top 100,000 are not actually massively advertised? It blows my mind.

The best advertising for any product is word of mouth, and that only comes through providing a great product or a great service. When you treat your customers with respect, you can always ask them to "write a review if you were happy or unhappy." Don't be shy about.

Will this allow someone to sell millions of a certain product? In time, yes.

To expand on your comment

[Shivetya]

The problem with newspapers is similar to broadcast television. They have gotten this idea in their head that their reports should never be challenged and what they decide to print will BE the truth.

The internet has allowed individuals to challenge the accuracy and fairness of the newspaper and broadcast television industry. No longer do people just blindly accept what they read in their local paper or see on the nightly news. They are now exposed to many views and many sources of information. This brings about higher scrutiny of what the newspaper or nightly news tells them.

Another problem with newspapers is they tend to be based in big cities and have a big city mindset which is does not always connect to those who might work in the city but live outside of it. Local small town papers are viable until the larger neighbor city buys it up and shuts it down (the Atlanta Journal Constitution has done this where I live). This action alone forces more people to look elsewhere for information.

Still I think the key is the egotistical outlook of papers and broadcast media that they control what the truth is has come to and end. They just don't accept it.

People now are much better picking out when a story is more opinion/editorial than factual compared to the editors of the same.

Re:You'd think, with all the smart people working

[SatanicPuppy]

In college journalism students are taught how to write badly.

Got any facts on your assumption? Doubt it.

You miss the whole point of reporting. They're not supposed to be experts. They're not supposed to put their own knowledge in the article at all. They're supposed to go out and find experts, and put their knowledge in the article. By your logic, a random guy who can write and knows some physics is more qualified to write than a person who can write well (and they can, despite what you seem to think), and gets their information from an expert in the field.

Not there are not problems with modern journalism...When everything is owned by a corporation, then they're priting stuff that they think will increase their sales, and not offend their subscribers. Not anywhere near as bad as TV, but still.

Nutjobs with blinders

[A nonymous Coward]

Liberals ruined newspapers? Liberals need to cheer up? Good god, you better take your blinders off, buddy boy. You have an extreme case of right wing glasses. FYI, stupidity knows no bounds, whether political, spiritual, moral, or any other type.

Re:You'd think, with all the smart people working

[longwalker]

True Journalists are important, however they are extremely rare. Some would say they no longer exist. Newspapers push a particular (and currently unpopular) political point of view (hence declining sales). One recent example is that the possible releasing of the name of a former CIA agent is a crime worthy of a congressional investigation, but when a paper published a lie about Gitmo concerning the treatment of the Koran, people rioted and died. The newspaper simply said, "Ooops." Obviously, their own point of view was more important to them then the lives of a few dozen people. Papers make up stories all of the time. This means that true Journalists and real Editors no longer exist. They have been replaced by people who can (barely) string together a sentence embellishing "facts" they agree with (or fabricating them as needed) and ignoring those they do not want to admit. Most "newspapers" are essentially huge editorial pages. Respect follows Integrity. If you lie in print you should be subject to the same punishment of any professional who lies, otherwise you admit you are not a real professional. You have no Intergity, you have no Respect. You have no real reporters, you have no newspaper. The Internet "Journalists" may not be any better, but the Newspapers have taken their stand and ex-newspaper Readers have decided that "Internet Journalists" are worth a try.

Re:You'd think, with all the smart people working

[gordguide]

Can't say about other colleges, but at the time I was in college, at either Universitiy that offered degrees Journalism in Canada, students must take 2 years of undergraduate work, and must take briefer versions of what students with majors in the subject take, similar to what, say, other students might take outside their Majors. They won't even let you in to the College of Journalism and Communications (you're a Pre-Journalism student).

Specific classes in subjects: PoliSci, History, Art, English, Engineering, Commerce, a second Language, and Agriculture [one University had Ag as mandatory, the other had Comp Sci] are mandatory. For electives as a Pre-Journalism student, you can take any class from any college and provided you either have prerequisites, have permission from the prof, or it's a 100-level class, they must admit you, even if that means some other student in that college has to wait a semester. At the University I went to, that meant choosing from:
Agriculture; Arts & Science; Commerce; Dentistry; Education; Engineering; Kinesiology; Law; Medicine; Physical Therapy; Nursing; Pharmacy & Nutrition; and Veterinary Medicine; with affiliated colleges (on campus, credits transfer automatically) of Theology (Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal), Metis Studies; and Biotechnology.

The emphasis is gathering as much general knowledge as possible. If you do that, and pass with Honors on every class (no exceptions; you have to beg to retake if you get a non-Honors grade) then it's two years of learning how to write badly, produce TV and radio shows, etc. However, you still have to pass all those classes with Honors, or else fish around for some other degree your prerequisites might make you eligible for.

Re:Liberals ruined the newspapers.

[jkauzlar]

Memo to conservatives: Cheer up. Enjoy life. Write about fun people doing fun stuff who experience a little success in life.

Believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy our lives every now and then.

I'm glad your enjoying all of this.

Same thinking as record companies

[amelith]

Newspaper publishers seem to be making the same kind of errors as the record industry. They seem to be overvaluing their product and treating obvious benefits of digital distribution as something people have to pay extra for, if possible multiple times.

Take the UK national papers, they want the same money for a years subscription than buying a physical product. E.g: http://www.guardian.co.uk/digitaledition/subscribe will cost you £130 for a year. There's only a 2 week searchable archive available for the hefty cost.

Once again I bet they're all scratching their heads wondering why people aren't rushing to sign up.

The original article talked about local papers, which at least in the UK are of poor to laughable quality. A paper containing 90% advertising with a couple of articles making a mountain of some local molehill (with a heavy political bias) is no more appealing online than it is in print.

Ame

Why I stopped reading

[digitalhermit]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know why I stopped reading the paper and listening to the radio.

1) Internet -- news is a lot more timely and a lot better customized for me. I can customize my content so that topics which interest me are readily available on a single page. I don't have to wade through dozens of pages of advertisement and tear-stained human interest stories that are irrelevant to me.

2) Credibility -- My local newspaper (the Miami Herald) has often run glowing articles when some big company is in the area. E.g., when Microsoft visited some local schools, the Herald ran front page articles full of press releases from Microsoft, yet ignored stories about the issues they were having with schools and donated computers. Not to mention the tech reporter's parroting of Microsoft press releases.

3) Irrelevance -- the newspapers have added to so many special-interest sections that it's largely irrelevant to me, a typical geek who was once a multi-newspaper subscriber.

4) Bland -- They try to appeal to everyone and end up making themselves bland. In some cases it's because they write to a 5th grade level. In others, it's that they are so afraid of alienating a portion of their readership that they won't print anything edgy. I'm not saying that they should become a bigger "New Times" (an alternative area newspaper), but at least cover something else besides the same pseudo-controversial topics... There's an old adage that you're doing a bad job as a journalist if the readership on one side of an issue thinks you're biased. You're doing a great job if people on both sides think you're biased.

Misleading article.

[DerekLyons]

When I saw the headline, I expected an article about newspaper survival in the internet age, but what I got was an article about website survival in the internet age. There is a difference between the two topics. Like most of the ultra-wired generation the author fails to realize that the market encompasses much more than their self-centered world. (Furthermore he suggests the failed Slashdot and wiki concepts as being the replacement.)

Jim Lileks has been touting the solution for a couple of years now - and it's not (as the slashdot article proposes) by attempting to compete where your strengths are not. (We have a newish local paper that's been following that advice for a couple of years now... And it's circulation is growing, at the current rates of growth in that paper and decline of the 'traditional' paper, they'll cross in another few years.) The author of the slashdot article eventually gets around to this point but again confuses newspapers and web boards.

MSM as Content-Providers

[sielwolf]

I read this with an arched eyebrow as /. (and much of the web-based/blog journalism) is one thing above all else: not a content provider. In fact they can be considered content-parasitic as /. makes advertising dollars over people reading content from somewhere else and comments provided for free by unpaid users. If one were to work in the hyperlinking of mainstream media providers by blogs or aggregators like /. we'd probably get a different picture: MSM readership has probably grown but has now been forced into a long-tail economy. Of course the problem is that they are shouldering the bulk of the cost (i.e. the actual reporting and maintenance of foreign bureaus) while sites like /. pay only for basic bandwidth and site-costs and use their content for free.

In the old 80/20 economy newspapers could offset this by having control of the market: to get any news, consumers had to pay for all of the news they deemed to print. Now users are just as able to find their news elsewhere, specialized down to just what they're looking for (the sport's score, the stock-tip, the local police blotter).

And the long-tail doesn't meant he death of the newspaper either, it just means a change in scope. A short, intelligent article on the East Flagstaff Chronicle might get linked up by thousands of blogs and register hundreds of thousand hits from an international audience that might have never read the paper (and probably won't ever again). Smart advertising (Google Ads, Slashvertisements) could customize to the suddenly exponentially larger (and divergent) readership. Local content and editorial that is easily aggregatable and paid via micropayment (or by targetted advertisement) would satisfy the consistent local demand and the papers would thrive (i.e. I'm not going to read the Baltimore Sun for analysis of my Cleveland Browns). This is how the wire services have always been (the only difference being that the papers would no longer be middlemen between wire reports and the readers).

There will always be a demand for international news/editorial and the well-worn names (NYT, WaPo, WSJ) can provide a similar service for news of national and international content. And as much as we like to think our opinions are ours alone, most of them are driven by these very MSM sources we read. Remove that and the content quality of these blog/web communities would drop off savagely from its already debateable level of quality. The only lethal fallacy would be to assume things have never changed, that they can still charge for the whole cow when we just want the milk.

Blogs repurpose, they don't report

[snowwrestler]

Blogs are editorial, not reporting. How many bloggers actually go out and gather news--hard facts that were not know previously? Hardly. The basis for the vast majority of blog posts is a link to a news story, and then the commentary begins.

BTW you've somehow missed the most essential architecture element of any newspaper--the wall between reporting and editorial. I agree that a blogger's editorial is not inherently any better or worse than a newspaper editors. But as I said above, pretty much no bloggers compete with the reporting side of newspapers. And reporting is the lifeblood and essence of newspapers, not editorial. Without reporting there is not editorial or blogging. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.

richer content, increased community buy-in, etc.

[ediron2]

Great column, Roblimo. I've got 3 colleagues who're nth-generation newsies and my local paper's online subscription plan is essentially 'pay again for the same content' that even *I* won't buy (and I'd say I'm their prime demographic). Wanting to help 'em with constructive criticism, I had thought things through to answer this same question and many of my ideas were in my remarks. I'll be printing your column out and handing it to them.

I probably overlooked a few overlaps, but here are some ideas that I don't see you mentioning, tied to your 'community news' theme:

Take advantage of the web-news' ability to add color, and take advantage of locals carrying digital cameras everywhere. Don't be afraid to let your online edition gradually become indistinguishable from a streaming-content-enriched website for CNN or some TV station, even. After all, large color photos on newsprint is expensive and paper-based A/V streams are impossible -- but online, it becomes stupid-cheap. Rather than just web-publishing the same single-best image from last night's high-school game, have the best shot in the paper and then link to your website's five, ten or twenty best photos. Let readers write captions (to identify players, etc). Content-overload should be your motto everywhere: include edited highlights, unedited footage, streaming-audio archives of town meetings, etc. Embrace coral-cache and bittorrent, whereever possible. To use a business cliche, try to eat local TV's lunch!

While slashdot seems incapable of growing a substantial and credible trusted-expert base (sorry for the knock), it is reasonable for sub-million-population communities to grow a large, trusted group of regular readers that are recognized as impartial, interested topical experts, and grant them minor editorial powers. Rather than a 12-member reader's advisory board, aim for dozen or more such groups, each on a field of expertise or interest: town planning, public meetings, sports, crime, courts, restaurants, local politics, summarizers or aggregators of state or national political news with local impact, entertainment and music, outdoors/activities, events, technology, businesses, state news aggregators, national or international news aggregators, etc. For example, let any 'vetted' enthusiast provide any local sport stats, even if you've never covered scuba-lacrosse before. Unlike with large anonymous sites, locals face the loss of privileges and a tarnished daily reputation if they act unscrupulously or doctor things, so they usually WON'T! The goal here is twofold: you answer the locals who regularly complain you're not covering 'their' favorite news adequately, and you embrace a commonly-stated strength that newspapers have over other media: readership studies consistently show that people turn to newspapers for DETAIL and DEPTH in the stories that interest them.

Never forget: a news *website* doesn't need to restrict the quantity of news or data... you're not limited to a single page of local sports in the online edition. Find ways (like the many-advisory-boards above) to enable trusted locals to write and peer-edit or moderate things. Spend your editorial time choosing the gems that ripple up in those categories to your printed edition, rather than restricting your content because you're overworked.

I didn't see roblimo mention anything about NY Times vs. WSJ editorials: the former has deemed editorials 'premium' content, the latter gives them away freely. Early results seem to show that the WSJ got it right: pushing editorial content acts as a draw to a news website while increasing a paper's prestige and increasing their impact on public discourse. Charging for it so far has caused NYT to diminish both their ability to influence public policy and their overall readership. Recognize that anything that grabs eyeballs (and ad viewership) increases ad revenues.

Color reprints (of images or archive pages) are an income prospect (Local TV stations, the same thing goes for your news/video footage!) Whe

Newspapers refuse to accept the web for what it is

[twistedcain]

In the rural area I live in there is one major newspaper that covers the region. The paper has been around for over 100 years and must have tens of thousands of articles and could build a massive database of information and use the web to showcase this information. A hundred years of history and photos from a region could attract visitors from all over the world. The website could potentially fill 100,000+ pages.

Instead,

They started with a pretty basic website that only covered the daily headlines. They finally revamped the website a few years ago and added the ability to look up some history and read the dialy paper online. When they updated the website, they made it subscription only except for subscribers of the newspaper. Of course, if you get the newspaper, why would you want to read it online. If you enjoy reading it online, why get the physical paper. If you don't get the physical paper, then you must pay a monthly fee to view the online content.

Even with the subscription, their online paper is small, has hardly any useful information. History only goes back a few years and contains no photos. They have no image gallery, all images are very small when they even include images. They not only don't have any type of community interaction on the website, they hide their email addresses so they don't get hassled with stupid questions (I emailed them with a question and told them how difficult it was to find their email address, thats when they told me they don't like to be hassled with questions). On top of everything else their site uses flash for the main menu and looks like a 4th grade class website project.

A few years ago I applied for a webmaster job at the newspaper and was turned down without an interview. They probably hired someone with a bachelors in english who took an html class in college.

I saw an opportunity to take advantage of their completely ignorant approach to a website. I started my own local website. I started it about 3 years ago and am still going strong

1) Bought an expensive digital camera with a shitload of memory and on the weekends I travel around the region taking photos, ~25,000 so far. I then go through my photos and pick the best and photoshop them into perfection.

2) Using a public domain mapping service, I create custom maps with directions for each city, cemetery, school and so on.

3) Bought a cheap GPS and take coordinates and altitude everyplace I go to take pictures. If someone wants to go stand in the exact spot I took a picture from, they can.

4) Didn't set up a forum but more of a community message board were people promote their local business, website, event or whatever for free.

5) Searched the internet and created a database of every local website I could find. New websites can fill out a simple one line form to get their websites added.

6) I write one article a week posted on the front page with information about a place to visit in the area or a recent major event. I also include plenty of photos.

7) I built a local search using the hand picked websites for the area ~1,500. It's not as powerful as a google search but their is 0% spam in the results.

8) I just use google for the ads. If a local place wants to put ads on my website, they can deal with google. I am actually shocked at the amount of local ads through google since I am the only website I know of in the region that uses adsense. No sales staff, no dealing with customers, no haggling over prices, and no bounced checks all equals more time to add content.

So on just the weekends, with a staff of 1 and almost no budget, I have built an interactive local website with ~6,000 pages of free searchable content covering the same region as the local newspaper. They have a staff of 75+ (not including paper boys) in a large downtown office building. For non-subscribers, their website has 3 small daily photos and headlines with news that cuts off after the first paragraph.

Harks back to the newspaper death spiral study

[1369IC]

Years ago somebody did a study on newspaper consoldiation. They found that the second (and third or whatever) newspapers in cities got eaten by the bigger paper or went out of business in pretty much the same way. They dubbed it the death spiral. Basically, the newspaper business guys did the usual business thing (no matter what the editorial slant or quality of the paper): cut costs to make (or increase) profits. The problem was, they did that by cutting value -- cutting sections or reporters or whatever. The readers, seeing less value, left. The advertisers, seeing fewer readers, left too. So they business guys had to cut costs, which they did by cutting value...

There were the exceptions that proved the rule by fighting back with better writing and more value and winning.

It seems to me that the author sees a similar inability to recognize a fundamental change in the value their publication offers in a changing marketplace. Before, things changed for various reasons, but the upshot was that, in all but the biggest cities, the market would only support one newspaper per city. Now, the marketplace is changing again, and the newspaper business guys are again failing to see the change for what it is and how to operate around it or profit from it.

This reinforces my opinion that newspaper business guys may be very intelligent, but they're not very smart. It also reinforces my opinion that the term "newspaper business" should be recognized as an oxymoron. Good reporting is, or should be, antithetical to good business. The fact that somebody latched onto newspapers as an advertising vehicle is probably the worst thing to ever happen to journalism, and it might be that blogs are a return to the pre-let's-make-this-newspaper-a-business days of journalism. Which means that onlines ads in blogs are...Ah well. It was good while it lasted.

Lastly, I have a question for those who think it has to do with the political bent of today's newspapers: Why didn't you just call Rush Limbaugh? It may be that journalistic balance is gone, but that's more likely because the whole country is polarized, not because journalists are natural-born left-wingers. More and more (it seems to me) people only want to see things they know they are going to agree with. Talk radio, blogs, personalized news portals and feeds all reinforce this be allowing people to edit out the opposition before they ever see or hear any of it. The result is that much of the population seems to think that partisan politicians should be the model for intellectual honesty and balance.

I did learn one thing from Rush Limbaugh and his fellow failed wrestling announcers, though: "mega dittoes" is English for "Baaaa."

See ya,

joe f.

Toffler's "De-massification" comes home to roost.

[MtViewGuy]

I'm sure many of you have read Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave, one of his best books.

One particular chapter of that book was extraordinarily prophetic--"De-masssifying the Media." In that chapter, Toffler wrote that as communications technologies improve, the age of a few companies completely dominating the dissemination of what you read in newspapers/periodicals, what you hear on radio and sound recordings, and what you see on TV and the movies will come to an end. Since the publication of The Third Wave in 1979, look at what has happened:

1. Videocassette recorders (and increasingly digital video recorders) have pretty much made the idea of prime time meaningless, since recorders allow you to time-shift TV programming to whatever time later you want to watch the program. As a result, instead of wondering what people were saying about all the latest plot revelations in Lost, you can play back your VCR or DVR recording and find out yourself. :-)

2. Pre-recorded home videos--especially since the arrival of the DVD in 1997--has substantially altered movie theater patronage. Except for a few "event" films (e.g., The Lord of the Rings movies) and high-quality screening rooms with THX-certified sound systems and Kodak-certified projectors, who wants to fight the exorbitant price of tickets, the exorbitant price of concessions and the annoyance of other audience members when you can enjoy the movie in peace at home?

3. The development of cheap and powerful desktop computers plus cheaper printing press operations has made it possible to print more magazines for a niche audience, hence the reduction of influence of the major newsmagazines. Look at the magazine stands of any major bookstore nowadays--most of these magazines couldn't exist without today's computer and cheap printing press technology.

4. The rise of proprietary online services in the 1980's and the arrival of the public Internet in the early 1990's has really caused a major revolution in the dissemination of information. We can now disseminate information at breathtaking speeds that makes the major media outlets--even newspapers--look ultra slow in comparison. Also, the public Internet has begun to offer services that could SERIOUSLY cut into newspaper revenue; Craigslist and eBay are doing major end-runs around newspaper classified ads in a big way already, and several Realtor companies have begun to put their public listings of homes for sale online, also a major blow to newspapers.

5. The rise of high-quality cheap camcorders using the MiniDV format has been a huge boon for small-time filmmakers. Why do you think film festivals are discovering many surprisingly talented filmmakers that use these "cheap" equipment to make very good films? And the small-time filmmaker will soon get access to low-cost high-definition camcorders that (in my humble opinion!) by 2008-2009 could equal the US$150,000 digital cameras used by George Lucas for the second and third Star Wars trilogy films. In the long run, this could hurt the power of the major studios because the smaller filmmakers will incur far less overhead costs in terms of production.

All these changes have seriously buffetted the mainstream media, especially in the last ten years. In the case of newspapers, they have to recognize this and start changing their format to recognize that newspapers can be use to write longer, more thoughtful stories. Also, the powerful watchdog capability of users on the Internet from both political Right and Left will start forcing newspapers to write stories that cover both sides of the arguement equally.

Re:Smart People can spell, usually

[SatanicPuppy]

Ah, a spelling troll, how quaint. It may interest you to know that journalists are not especially good spellers. However, I am not a journalist.

I used to work at a biology lab without knowing any biology either. Worked for a glass company without learning how to make glass. Worked for a car dealership without ever touching a car. Worked for an architect without doing any architecture, worked for a pest control company without dealing with any pests (excepting people like yourself, of course). Even worked for a country club, without ever talking to a member.

In short, like everyone else here, I'm a techie. I work with computers. I write code. And despite what you seem to believe, I do this perfectly well, despite my obvious serious mental handicaps. Imagine...Having a spelling error. Gosh I hope all the journalists didn't see! My reputation will be ruined! How ever shall I go on? Clearly I am unfit to live.