Journalist Tells Journalists It's Their Moral Duty To Read Newspapers
from the this-is-what's-known-as-desperation dept
We’re seeing all sorts of desperation plays from journalists unwilling to adapt to the changing marketplace. These seem to go through weird stages of grief that either involve blaming others for their inability to change with the times or making bizarre moral arguments, that sites like Google and Craigslist (or even the government!) should fund newspapers out of an obligation to support the news. Falling into that latter category, comes the suggestion of one newspaper man, telling other journalists that they need to keep buying and reading newsprint newspapers in order to keep the industry alive. That’s just great. The industry will end up with only journalists buying each others papers for moral reasons. That seems like a real strategy for success. Appealing to moral claims rarely, if ever, works — and it’s certainly not going to work in this case. As Steve Yelvington puts it in his response to this bizarre request, that moral plea will only hasten the problems newspapers face. Rather than sitting around pining about the old days of print, reporters should “Get out of the office. Start talking to real people. Discover that we entered the 21st century more than seven years ago…. Quit blaming the Internet. There’s nothing wrong with paper. It’s your journalism that isn’t relevant.” And if journalists are only writing for other journalists, that content is only going to get less and less relevant. There are lots of good ideas for how to rethink the news business and make it useful again — but giving moral reasons for reading newsprint doesn’t help. It just comes across as someone unwilling to adapt and pretending there’s a way to hold back the tide.
Filed Under: newspapers
Comments on “Journalist Tells Journalists It's Their Moral Duty To Read Newspapers”
Quick, this NewsPaper is coding! We need 100cc of farcial readership STAT!
Re: Cost of Newspapers
Here is the major question I have regarding the whole newspaper uprising. Don’t the get the same amount of ads on a website (if not more) than they do on a printed copy?
If this is true, where are they losing money on the internet, the cost of the newspaper (50 cents a copy) and wait now they don’t have delivery costs, printing costs?
I am just confused on where the newspaper companies are losing money because the papers are online instead of printed. Can someone fill me in.
Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
in print, they get paid for the ad up front. on the web, they get paid per click. you’re not guaranteed the same amount of money for an ad.
Re: Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
you said: in print, they get paid for the ad up front. on the web, they get paid per click. you’re not guaranteed the same amount of money for an ad.
couldn’t they just put static adds on their site for a fixed price, just like they do on the print version? even if that ad doesn’t take you to another website and just says, “Come eat at the Hot Dog Shoppe” it’s still ad space and people will see it.
Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
Newspapers make money from subscriptions. If no one is subscribing to the paper then they don’t make money. The internet is free and noboby pays for reading the paper online.
Re: Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
You are in idiot! Sorry for the direct attack, but ads pay for newspapers and the internet. You think your 35 cents (th cost of the Washington Post) is paying for that paper.
Re: Re: Re: Cost of Newspapers
Sorry, most newspapers break even or lose money from the cost of a subscription. They make money on advertising.
cost of newspapers
maybe the news people finally got smart like the airline or the oil/energy companies and realized that if they bitch & moan enough about losing money then maybe they can also squeeze some $$$’s out of the “taxpayers fund ” from the govt… what do i know .. it’s just my opinion but maybe better “truth” unlike the crap they print in newspapers these days
Newsprint vs. Online
I have been online for almost a decade but I still find that reading a printed newspaper is superior to reading the news online.
The Internet is good for finding a specific story or reading breaking news, but to sit and read the news of the day the best way is to open up a newspaper, scan each page, read all or bits of stories, instantly move from one article to the next, one page to the next, and go from start to finish.
It’s much faster and more efficient. And it’s much easier to do while eating lunch.
If newspapers move completely online we will become a nation of headline readers. We’ll all know the top national stories, but we won’t know about the robbery at the gas station up the street.
And we’ll all have Big Mac sauce all over our newsreading-devices.
Maybe the video “Epic” is coming true. News comes to the Internet, papers shut down and everything is personalized. Of course, less “news” actually is reported, and few of it is true.
Maybe what newspapers are concerned about is having to create those headlines that get people to buy their newspaper. Maybe they don’t want to run stories of Britney Spears or whose couch Tom Cruise is jumping on, but they know that just won’t cut it.
Maybe the New York Times will be the only publication left that is print only. Personally, I hope not, because I am not a big fan of the Times.
So he posts the article on the web…
Like – it’s your moral duty to use a horse and buggy, and heat with a fireplace?
I still do read the newspaper commonly at lunch, but in reality – it’s the same thing – printed words. Just in a new format.
He should be more accurate and say ‘It’s your moral duty to give the newspaper company 50 cents’ – because, in reality, that argument is the same.
It sounds to me like he’s trying to rationalize why it’s still good to have a paper copy. And for shame!! Environmentalists have been telling us for years not to waste paper!!! Of course, we burn more coal keeping web servers up. So again, no difference I guess. Using new trees for paper, or very, very old trees for coal.
Perhaps – since communications are so much faster now, and it’s easier to assimilate massive amounts of information much faster – we just don’t need as many journalists?
Or maybe the industry’s model – like Music is moving ‘backwards’. No longer do the big corporations have such a hold on it – it’s back in the ‘little guy’s’ hands now.
And I think it’s better that way. I get much faster and more varied news, with more points of view on the web. Now it’s not just the people who the media ‘hires’ that can provide news, it’s anyone with the will and a brain.
Re: Re:
You beat me to it. I was thinking perhaps we should stop using email and go back to writing letters to one another since the skill of prose seems to be waning as well.
It is no more wacko than reading geeks postings of how everybody should boycot certain firms because thatfirm does not play by the rule book that that one particular geek believes everybody should play by.
Re: Anonymous Coward
Or even worse, some guy who obviously disagrees with that geek, yet seems to read every single post that geek makes _and_ takes the time to comment on it.
It’s like one of those crazies who submits letters-to-the-editors every week about something crazy like water-powered cars.
Newspapers will Evolve and ReInvent Themselves
It is important that we empathize with his passion. This sudden revolution in information tech has disoriented some who have dedicated their lives and dreams to a business model they have grown up with
It is not easy to refresh your entire career perspective.
Newspapers will evolve to be more competitive and to take advantage of hi tech. There are many times when it is much more preferable to transport and read a hard copy than it would be to use an electronic gadget. That is unlikely to change soon.
It will be fascinating to see how the hard copy magazines and newspapers will evolve in the next few decades and the new enhanced technologies that will revolutionize the field.
Perhaps decades from now, a hybrid model will evolve that combines hard copy with cheap, mobile technology with paper screens – and allow for social Web interactivity.
Yeah – and stop writing dumbed-down tripe where ever number has to be backed with a simile, too.
Perhaps the people want, gosh, insight? But then I would say that. I’m here, reading this. 😉
Content
I have seen the erosion of trust in newspapers ever since a second opinion about what is happening has become readily available. Newspaper publishers have always used their influence to steer public opinion to their world view. They have also decided what is and is not news. Since the internet has come into common use, fact checkers abound. Their bias is being exposed and their sphere of influence is shrinking. Journalists have always had bias and shaded the truth in order to influence the opinion of readers. Now that everyone with a computer and a search engine can do research, hard news has given way to tabloid journalism. Journalistic ethics has become an oxymoron as the panic of their irrelevancy sets in. But that’s just my opinion.
I can see their angle
If you think about it, looking at a newspaper you can see all the stories. On the internet, it is specific to that story and maybe some related stories. The thing that stinks for journalists is that they are all assigned certain stories. If your story isn’t a headline then chances are not that many people will read the story on the internet. Unless the webpage is configured to look almost exactly like a newspaper some journalists will never get any eyeballs sent in their direction.
/news/ paper
I used to read five hard copy newspapers every day.
Boston Globe, Springfield Republican, NY Times,
WSJ and Washington Post.
Now http://www.ipl.org/div/news/ replaces this for the
most part, although sometimes detail and small items are
missing from the on-line versions.
The only hard copy I buy is the local news paper partially
because I’d like them to stay in business. Surprisingly
the quality of the local paper has improved by focusing
on local news, police-blotter and other items of local
interest. It’s one way they can compete and succeed.
Their online version of the paper is not bad either.
Will the internet mean the demise of some national news
papers, yes. But the news papers that draw from local
news should continue unscathed.
Newspapers
I don’t get the newspaper because it’s already old when I get it. What is the point. I mean, why should I pay for something that is usually 12-24 hours old when I can go online and get all the news I could ever want or ever need online for free and up to date. Plus, by reading the news online, I’m saving trees because I don’t HAVE to have a paper in my hand, so it’s better for the environment. Also, newspaper print always gets on my hands and it’s disgusting.
These OLD companies need to deal with a newer and better way to distribute content. They just don’t want to give up what they have which is control over their little part of the world. Most small papers deliver to a certain area, which can mean one of two things. One they are stuck in that area, or two they can get a much larger audience online. Both these would seem daunting to me if I were in that business.
In all honesty I will be very happy the day the paper finally dies. It is a waste.
The Latest News
Getting the latest news from the web is a great benefit of the Internet age. It’s easier, faster, and people are a little bit more educated about their surroundings (politics, traffic, weather, business, etc.) for free and in less time.
News in print should continue in proportion to the demand, which is still there.
For anyone interested, I’m posting this because it’s related: Free News Website
Newspaper Profits
I recently had an interview with a newspaper for a Network Admin position, and we discussed the feasibility of Newspaper Companies in the digital age, and some of the ways that they are attempting to cope. Being a faithful daily reader of TechDirt, I was floored when the Director of IT & Operations said that they have no need to change.
Apparently newspapers (not TechDirt’s recommended mantle of ‘News Organizations’), even the bad ones, have at least a 20-30% profit margin. Yes. Profit. After paying for physical materials, facilities, utilities, salaries, benefits, taxes, (et al, ad nauseum), the shareholders divvy up AT LEAST 20-30%. For the (legitimate) business world, that’s HUGE!
Someone please point out an industry with those kinds of margins. Now, from those, point out one that’s just about claiming that their children are starving…