The Separation Of News From The Newspaper
from the about-time dept
For the last few years, we’ve heard so much whining about how newspapers are in trouble that the whole thing is getting silly. Over at Slate there’s an article getting some attention about how newspapers are shrinking, but our thirst for news continues to increase. The author doesn’t just blame this on the internet, noting how many other alternatives there are for news these days as well. The article has some suggestions for how newspapers might change to try to keep up with the times — noting that being all things to all people increasingly doesn’t make sense. Two other recent stories relate back to this as well. A survey found that the age of readers for the online sites of newspapers keeps rising — suggesting that, against what many people believe, online newspaper sites aren’t doing much to attract the younger generation. This could just be a function of an older generation getting online, while the youngsters were already online. More interesting, though is the mini-trend of independent news sites (usually in blog form) raising money to keep doing what they do — at the same exact time that Wall Street financial types are trying to get big newspapers to sell out. It’s not clear that these independent sites can really replace the newspapers in any way (or whether or not they can survive long term), but the fact that at least a few investors are looking for ways to fund what are essentially news organizations suggests that there is going to be some more innovation on the in the news business. New upstarts, money and competition may represent a bubble to some — but it’s also a good way to get a lot of innovative ideas tested quickly. While many will die off (sometimes in huge flameouts), a few good ideas should emerge to rescue the “news” industry — even if it leaves the newspapers behind.
Comments on “The Separation Of News From The Newspaper”
Yesterday's News
My biggest issue (no pun intended) with newspapers is that they give us yesterday’s news today. I think there is still just as much demand for news and information as ever before, it’s just that people want the news as it happens or immediately afterwards and don’t want to wait until the next day to read about it. So people turn to the internet, and usually the websites for TV channels or blogs. The more well-written, hand crafted opinions and articles can be delegated to weekly magazines. So yes, the newspapers are caught in the middle, but it’s because of their adherence to a dying medium, not because of any lack of interest on the reader’s part. When the CD came out, what did the turn table manufacturers do? Now that digital cameras are the rage, do people think there’s less interest in photography because the film companies are dead?
Or it could be that everyone who registers for news sites is a 102 year old woman from Angola.
Make a distinction
Between the ORIGINATORS of news, and the REGURGITATORS of news.
Sorry TechDirt, your a regurgitator.
Newspapers have to learn to be a realtime originator of news in the online world. Stop trying to figure out what to print tomorrow, nobody cares by the time your paper hits the streets. Changing to a realtime originator of news is how they need to operate.
Then, perhaps, create a premium news content stream, where regurgitators must pay a licensing fee in order to drop all their links and make all their snide comments on the original article.
If you could get continued quality news in realtime from a quality source, then why should all the regurgiators simply leach off the originators without paying for it. It may be a new business model that newspapers should look into.
The bottom line is, readers don’t want to have to pay for news, so if its the choice of paying for a newspaper with yesterdays news, or picking your favourte free online new regurgitator service for up to the minute news links, who do you think is going to be the online winner?
Re: Make a distinction
Sorry TechDirt, your a regurgitator.
That’s one way of looking at it. We have never, ever, suggested that we are journalists. We are, very much, an opinion site — and we make it abundantly clear that we write opinions based on what’s in the news. So, there’s nothing to “apologize” about — because we never suggested otherwise.
There are certainly, however, some of these other sites that do view themselves as journalists — and good for them.
Then, perhaps, create a premium news content stream, where regurgitators must pay a licensing fee in order to drop all their links and make all their snide comments on the original article.
Yeah, I’m not quite sure how you stop someone from commenting on your news. We do still believe in free speech in these parts (most of the time).
If you could get continued quality news in realtime from a quality source, then why should all the regurgiators simply leach off the originators without paying for it.
“Leach” is an interesting choice of words. We feel that we add value to the news. We drive people to the source, giving that source more attention. We add value in our commentary and opinions in digging deeper into that news story.
We don’t see that as the equivalent of leaching — which is a case where all of the benefit goes in one direction.
The bottom line is, readers don’t want to have to pay for news, so if its the choice of paying for a newspaper with yesterdays news, or picking your favourte free online new regurgitator service for up to the minute news links, who do you think is going to be the online winner?
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about fee-vs-free. It’s about whose adding value and what the right business models are. There are plenty of business models that don’t bother with the fee-vs-free debate, and have nothing to do with leaching.
Re: Make a distinction
Newspapers used to be close to realtime. In most major cities, when there were multiple newspapers, some would print the morning edition, some printed the afternoon or “bulldog” edition. That practice died years ago due to costs and TV news providing faster coverage. There’s no chance of the printed paper going back to that model. If the papers become a true online source, then yes, they could do real time. But, it seems the management of many of the newspapers are the last to hear about this internet thing.
As for your comment no one cares about yesterday’s news, that’s not true either. Newspapers were supposed to be able to do more in depth reporting of events, not just headlines. Many papers are doing just that – headlines – and don’t even bother checking facts.
Newpapers are a dying business, but only because they refuse to change with the times.
Yeah...
I work for a college newspaper, and we just had a meeting about exactly this. Our two top editors just went to a conference where they learned about what some newspapers are doing to try and drag themselves out of the slump that is taking newspapers all over the country down.
Basically what we decided is that our target is a generation raised on the internet and glossy magazines. If a newspaper is ever going to compete with that, we have to up the ante visually. In the end though, competing with them visually will bring us out on top, because a newspaper with fancy visual design is still a newspaper with (theoretically) real journalistic ethics.
Sometimes, though, I can’t help but think that a lot of newspapers hide behind their obligation to be fair and balanced. They sometimes use it as an excuse to not offend anyone, even those with obviously, proveably wrong ideas.
But that’s why I’m a news designer, and not a news reporter.
Joby
Since when are newspapers journalistically ethical? Newspapers and their reporting are skewed toward whatever political and/or cultural ideals the editorial staff wants to be put forth. It may not work that way on your college paper, but get into the real world and there’s no longer any objectivity when it comes to the big issues.
And they don’t strive to be fair and balanced. That’s just ridiculous. Fair and balanced doesn’t sell, hype sells.
And don’t worry, as long as they keep printing the crossword, the comics and the TV guide, most people will keep at least their weekend subscription.
Re: Joby
Since when are newspapers journalistically ethical? Newspapers and their reporting are skewed toward whatever political and/or cultural ideals the editorial staff wants to be put forth. It may not work that way on your college paper, but get into the real world and there’s no longer any objectivity when it comes to the big issues.
I’m not saying all newspapers are journalistically ethical, or that all newspapers stive to be fair and balanced. I’m just saying that an ideal newspaper should be that way. As for the dig at our paper not being “the real world,” I’ll have you know that we cleaned house at the AP awards this year, and won more awards than any other paper in our state. We kicked the asses of the “real world” in pretty much every way. It might also help you see where I’m coming from to know that our circulation hovers around 30,000 copies a day, five new issues a week.
And they don’t strive to be fair and balanced. That’s just ridiculous. Fair and balanced doesn’t sell, hype sells.
Why do you think newspaper readerships are plummeting?
And don’t worry, as long as they keep printing the crossword, the comics and the TV guide, most people will keep at least their weekend subscription.
That’s what everybody involved with newspapers is counting on 😉