Slashdot Mirror
Are Newspapers Doomed?
Ponca City, We love you writes "James Surowiecki has an interesting article in the New Yorker that crystalizes the problems facing print newspapers today and explains why we may soon be seeing more major newspapers filing for bankruptcy, as the Tribune Company did last week. 'There's no mystery as to the source of all the trouble: advertising revenue has dried up,' writes Surowiecki, but the 'peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they've arguably become more popular,' with the blogosphere piggybacking on traditional journalism's content. Surowiecki imagines many possible futures for newspapers, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to deep-pocketed patrons. 'For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime — intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on — and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.'"
Would a government-owned news reporting company be more biased than what we have now?
That really depends on how the government decides to run it. It's simplistic to think that a government will always run things in the worst way possible, even if that is often the case. Ultimately, the question is, "Who is the government afraid of, and what does that person (or those people) want?" If the government is afraid of nobody, you get a propaganda arm. If the government is afraid of the voters, then you get what the voters want, whatever that may be.
Is the BBC worse than CNN or FOX News?
Absolutely not. The BBC is miles ahead of CNN or Fox News or, as far as I can tell, any other mainstream media outlet in the US. The Beeb is known for joyfully and viciously biting the hand that feeds it. The government doesn't like it, and often there are news stories about the gov threatening to pull funding, but I think (I don't live in Britain) that people just wouldn't tolerate it.
I watched the US Election coverage on the BBC (online stream) and the difference was amazing. It was also funny to see the American talking heads taking a beating when they got called on some of their more blatant departures from reality. They simply had no idea what it was like to be interviewed by an intelligent, skeptical person who wasn't prepared to swallow any bullshit. And the BBC people were actually being nice.
Government-paid television doesn't necessarily mean government-controlled television.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
You are incorrect. There is still solid investigative news journalism going on. You just don't notice it because of the flood of other news from the limited number of places you look (many of which are likely tailored to your interests), and that is the fault of the internet.
Look at the list of "ongoing special projects" on this page describing the investigative journalism at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Each of those stories was an extensive investigation followed by a series of articles. Every one of them went through several reviews to ensure objectivity and defense-ability, because true, print journals publishing libel is easy fodder for lawsuits. In several cases, the subjects of the stories were arrested and charged after the stories were published, based in part on the research.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The big problem with "newspapers" is that, subtract the porn, what you describe is most of what you have left. Local newspapers, anyway.
As a former employee of the now-defunct Knight-Ridder newspaper chain and founder of two alternative weekly newspapers, I have some experience with the actual creation and operation of newspapers as a business. To keep it short, I'll keep it to a few points:
1) For years, the big newspaper chains have owed their problems more to shareholder expectations than to ability to actually make money. It created an environment where increased corporate profit (annually) was the only goal; when you can't charge more for product you decrease labor costs. Instead of investing in what makes their product useful (news), they rely on wire services (the AP) and use local writers for drivel. (See below.) So every year, if they did not make more money than they made the year before, their stoke prices fell. When their stock prices fell, they became more and more vulnerable to corporate takeover. Newspaper companies became more and more gobbled up into larger and larger companies. Large companies could hide the loses of inefficient newspapers with the massive profits of efficient newspapers. But when the company decides to cut employees, it doesn't say, "Paper A, you are a turd and you are going to lose all your employees, and we may shut you down. Paper B, you are the goose that lays the golden egg, and we shall not touch a feather." No, a corporate newspaper company says, "We are going to lay off 10 percent of our workforce," then everyone loses 10 percent, usually by early retirement and seniority, relatively arbitrary and simple methods of reducing workforce that don't involve anyone saying, "you suck; you're fired."
2) Some corporate idiot started asking the public what they wanted. Survey after survey showed that people "don't like bad news." Well, no kidding. But that's what they buy the paper for. It speaks to our primal need to find and avoid dangers. It scares the hell out of us so that we'll remember it, like watching your buddy get jumped by a lion on the plains. You think to yourself, "I better remember that Bob got jumped right there." And when you get back to the tribe, you don't say "Bob and I had a great day finding berries and hunting." You say, "Bob, hunter gatherer, killed in lion attack." But, 95% of the stories in your local newspapers will be about berries. Readers only remember the lions -- the other five percent -- which are bad news. Which makes you wonder why they bother with the 95 percent at all. It is a significant waste of one's resources. Those corporate tools also see statehouse reporting (for example) coverage as redundant, so save the local guy for the really local bourgeois stuff -- bake sales, feel-good ditties about toy runs and the Salvation Army, all the other things that no one complains (or cares) about. So, for years now corporately owned regional and local newspapers have been cutting back and back and back on any coverage that can be pooled. Then they wonder why nobody reads their publication to get the news. Well, because CNN had the same story from the AP posted on the web last night, you jackass. Break some news.
3) Newsprint is just a physical media. For some publications, it is perfect. Anything where you want people who are out and about to pick it up and carry it with you. But it's hella expensive. Not as expensive as people to write, but expensive. Still, the people are the really expensive part. My newspapers had almost all volunteer staffs and the newsprint was about 1/3 of the cost. But 1/3 less is 1/3 less.
Newspapers may die, but written journalism will live on. The shock to everyone is going to be that if you want to get paid for writing news then you are going to have to go out and report some new news all the time. Sorry, people aren't going to by regurgitated stories about Bob's lion attack when they've already heard it.
Local TV news is likewise doomed. Without a local newspaper to crib from, they