Editor and Publisher: SPECIAL REPORT: Turn and Face the Change -- With Newspaper Industry in Crisis, 'Everything's on the Table'

[Brad King]

The sentiments in this article pretty much sum up why I left journalism.

I worked in the industry for 13 years. I love writing, reporting and the news. The industry, though, is arrogant and unbending. Sure, there are some progressives here and there -- please don't tell me that you know someone who is really smart and gets it. I'm not talking individuals. I'm talking industry. The reality is that industry as a whole has ignored those who pushed for change, sending them off to other careers where they are now creating platforms and tools that are not competing with papers -- but supplanting them just the same.

A realization I came to the other day while finishing up the proposal (yes, it's done now!!!) is this: social media isn't competing with papers. It's an accidental fact that the rise of personal media has coincided with the absolute demise of the newspaper. Newspapers were killing themselves long before the Web even came around (when I graduated college in 1994 I was told there were no jobs -- and in fact, I had to wait 4 years before I got my first full-time staff job). The Web just tapped into our natural spirit of communication -- and that led to people finding their voice -- which is far more interesting that traditional media.

One is not related to the other, although I can see how it's easy to think they are.

Newspapers are dying because they need to.

[David Willson]

I agree with you in basic principle. However, not all newspapers are dying. Locally, the newspaper that I do editorial cartoons for, The Palm Beach Daily News is having to watch their budget, but they are making a profit as a traditional newspaper. Their much larger sibling newspaper, The Palm Beach Post just sent 300 employees packing and is in the kind of management turmoil that the Editor & Publisher article describes.

Most of the dramatic budget cutting steps that metropolitan newspapers are taking are due to a perfect storm of revenue loss caused by progressively losing large advertising concessions to the Internet (classified jobs and merchandise) over time and a massive downturn in their last remaining large market franchise ... real estate. Add to this the fact that advertising agencies have dramatically cut display advertising budgets in favor of Web advertising in the last year (also dramatically affecting magazines).

Most metropolitan newspapers are essentially big, expensive manufacturing operations that require a large steady flow of revenue, which has evaporated.

One could also note that the reader/user usually has seen or read most of the news on the front pages of every section a good 12 hours in advance of getting their daily copy of the newspaper ... and that fewer people actually read. We skim, we peruse and we click around. As you so correctly noted in your comment on Roger Black's recent blog The Newspaper Disease, the Web is about data. I like to characterize it as serving data through a communications metaphor. People are increasingly relating to their world by assimilating and compartmentalizing information (data) this way. However, for the most part, this is not as enthusiasts.

Print still reigns, in my opinion, for being able to build engaged audiences of enthusiasts. It is very hard to create a strong brand relationship on the Web, and many local advertisers compete in markets that require a strong sales pitch and significant brand awareness. So, the smaller community newspapers should be able to sell local ads and weather this latest economic dip without massive internal upheavals. In fact, this might be an opportunity for them to compete more effectively with the large metropolitan newspaper in their area.

You are correct in saying that newspapers got on the wrong track a long time ago. I remember thinking about this in 1990 when the (much worse) recession of the late '80s prompted many family-owned regional newspapers to sell to news corporations. One of the first things the new corporate owners did was hand out pink slips to the editors, reporters and artists that were pulling the highest salaries. But this was also their experience pool. And the mentoring process in a newsroom is critical to maintaining journalistic ethics, investigative and writing skills, a perspective on the relationship with readers and a definable newsroom culture.

It was at this time that larger newspapers began to forget what their true purpose was, and what really counts for journalism. Meyer Berlow did a pretty comprehensive job of describing just how they lost direction in his comment just below your on the same Roger Black blog. Since most newspapers have been thoroughly "corporatized" over the last 20 years, it is very hard to imagine that their editors and managers will be able to find their butts with both hands and a flashlight.

But I would say that community newspapers have the opportunity to continue to compete in print and the potential to thrive if they can devise the right audience relationship formula by focusing on good local journalism and including some aspects of social media as well as copious, essential community resource information on their Web sites.

And if we have an economic upturn relatively soon, don't count the larger papers out.

[Brad King]

I think I agree with your argument that smaller newspapers are in a better position, if for no other reason than they have the ability to adapt readily and quickly. Doing work with Gannett and Emmis, I am amazed at how slowly they move and how so far removed from their reader's experience they are.

Community papers have the opportunity to fight back both of those issues.

Are those the only issues? Of course not and I think you did a wonderful job articulating the challenges facing all papers. However, the more I work with people in this industry the more I'm convinced that the large corporate media types are 1) too far removed from the reality of HOW people peruse information and 2) too uneducated about the principles of interactivity to make rational decisions about what should be done.

The Web is complex and complicated -- yet my perception from the two companies I've worked with (not as a writer, mind you, as someone they've asked to help) is that they believe all there is to the Web is some audio, video, text and comments. That's it. Nothing more needed.

I walk away amazed every time.

[David Willson]

>>they believe all there is to the Web is some audio, video, text and comments<<

That's the way most people view the Web, basically because their only hands-on experience is user experience. In defense of those executives, its been my experience that epiphanies about the true nature of the Web come gradually after much trial and error, failure and disappointment.

After being involved with a number of projects which tried to coax some kind of commerce, functionality that resonates with a prescribed group of users or network effect out of the Web, I still can't say that I know a workman-like way to make it fulfill its promise. They were all, to a very large degree failures at achieving the goals we set.

You aren't going to remain CEO, CIO or COO very long without meeting goals ... especially if the ship is sinking.