Visionaries should crunch numbers.

Quiet Babylon

I care about the news, not the paper

Thursday December 18, 2008 || by Tim Maly

belatedNews You Can Lose: Financial Page: The New Yorker.

Surowiecki opens with some interesting ruminations about why newspapers are going down. Then, he goes crazy and lays the blame at the feet of the greedy consumer who wants it all for free! The bastards! Soon we’ll get what we pay for!

Here’s the dirty secret of newspapers: For a very long time, most of the content has been crap. Read your local newspaper lately? Remember why you stopped?

Most papers are a strange mix of not-that-great local reporting and columnists mixed with repackaged wire feeds and syndicated content, paid for by bundled advertising. Most of the news in local papers isn’t. At least, isn’t worth paying for. It’s nice that you won the county fair, but it probably doesn’t need to be in my paper. A newsletter for people who care about fairs would be better.

We’re not losing original reporting, we’re losing the middle men that bundled all the content together. Good riddance.

We don’t need to worry about the future of newspapers, we need to worry about the future of reporters. Will there be business models that allow individual or small teams of quality investigative journalists to earn a decent living while also breaking important stories? Will the class of amateur and semi-pro reporters be able to fill in any gaps?

So many redundancies in reporting and news. Do we need dozens of variations on the sports page? How many film critics do we need? How many reporters does it take to cover a press conference? More than zero, but probably less than we have right now.

Content creators in most other industries are going through the painful process of changing the way that they charge for their content, finding some equilibrium between giving a way their stuff for free to attract fans and charging for specialized, related or premium versions. Here’s my non-bold prediction: News reporters will have to do the same.

Cartoonists can survive the death of paid syndication, surely the important content can as well.

Creative Commons License photo credit: striatic


Filed under: business, complaining ||
  • Eden, I think that you'd like this posting from Ebert about newspapers.
  • The internet and 24-hour television has indeed affected the way we get the news. I am heartened to see you champion the actual reporters, as opposed to the behemoth corporations that pass themselves off as do-gooding "community' newspapers. After working at The AP in Dallas for ten years I saw news from the inside out. Everyone who reads the news should intern at a news organization for some time. We must learn to listen to the news more intelligently, to question the unsubstantiated blather that makes up most of what is called news nowadays. Unless you are given the who, what, when, where, why and how of a situation you have an incomplete story, and an incomplete truth. The 24-hour news cycle means that every Tom, Dick and Harry sees the sausage getting made. CNN declares the opening of a bag of peanuts "Breaking News." I don't think the days of getting your news at noon, 6 and 11 were so bad. When you got the news, it was presented thoughtfully, factually and neatly. CNN is the biggest contributor to depression in the world, I think. Bring back the 3x a day news. Okay okay end of rant. You put up a thoughtful post, thanks for sharing it.
  • Eden
    I think I'm the opposite - I care about the paper, not the news. I mean, not that I don't care about the news, but I read the paper for the aesthetic and physical act of reading the paper. This reminds me of the discussion you and Michael had about the death of books!
blog comments powered by Disqus