The Decline of Newspapers

When I was in college we heard all about these changes happening. We are talking about the early 1990s. I don't think newspapers will ever be replaced. I, personally, read most of my news through Yahoo or Google, but, at the same time, I read dozens of magazines in search for articles and links. Our generation will be using both paper and internet. Future generations will probably rely on the internet for news reading, but The New York Times and the likes will always keep their place!

Based on my 11 years in print journalism, there is no "versus." I work for a traditional print newspaper, and fully half my time is spent online. There is no decline of newspapers, and these stories just make me crazy, because they ignore that Knight Ridder's major sale last year was with a 25-percent profit margin. No lie, no kidding, we're doing that well and people still don't think it's good enough. Newspapers aren't folding. They're trimming staff, yes, and that's because advertisers are dropping like flies. When the economy tanks, we're the canaries in the coal mine. The economy rebounds and businesses start advertising again, and we thrive. It's that simple.

The fact is, if you want good, solid news that is balanced and well-reported AND you want it immediately, you go to a newspaper web site. TV has been dumbed down for so many years they've forgotten how to write or report unless it's sweeps. We're killing them online, now that we don't have to wait until the next day to give you the rest of the story.

There are some newspapers, sure, that haven't embraced the web. They're the ones that are dying. It's very Darwinian - adapt or die. We've adapted, as have most newspapers connected with one of the chains that are supposedly so evil, while most of the pandering, ads-as-news and far-right bias I've read comes from the "family-owned" papers.

The revolution will not be televised. It's online. Don't go to CNN, don't go to your online-only news sites that basically gather up AP headlines and the latest on Britney Spears. Go to a newspaper's web site, and you'll get the whole story, reported by people who cut their teeth in traditional print, and you'll get it often before the TV truck rolls into the parking lot.

Just my humble opinion, of course. :)

Yeah, we're in some trouble. But no more than every other non-oil company in the United States, and we're in far less trouble than some. Technology naturally eliminates some jobs; in others, it's belt-trimming. Ford lays off 10,000 workers, nobody says it's the end of the automobile - it's just a sign of the economic times. McClatchy lays off 5 percent of its workforce and it's the end of journalism. Historically news corporations are extremely undervalued by Wall Street; we've never understood why.

As for the corporations, I've worked in small family-owned community papers and big corporate papers, and I'll pick the corporate paper every time. Small papers live and die by their top advertisers and therefore kowtow to them. The old-money families that control them tend to be highly conservative and the editorial page reflects that. While corporate papers have ethical codes in place, a reinforced wall between ads and news, and often have unions to protect the integrity of the newsroom and treatment of the content providers.

The corporate papers also have their eye on the new world, so while the family-owned papers turn up their nose at the 'net, the corporate papers are adapting fast and getting our news online. We all know the future is online now, and we're running to catch up. It's rare to find a newspaper that doesn't put all its articles online now.

As for the widely opposing viewpoints, I think in practice, a corporate paper is more likely to encourage a diverse newsroom - at least, I've seen far, far less of the WASP bullshit here than at any small family papers. The concept of news dictated from on high just doesn't happen. Structure, yes. How many people we can hire, whether we get money for new computers, yes. What goes in the paper today? That's decided by the same people as always: the ones right here in our newsroom, on the ground and knowing what the priorities of our communities are.

thanks for writing this. as a print journalist for 10 years, i concur.

My first thought, perhaps coz i'd just been posting about this on another board, is that while yes, _newspapers_ are dying a slow death by corporate strangulation, i don't think the PRINT medium is. Desktop publishing, access to places like Kinko's etc means its easier than ever for virtually anybody to put out some sort of publication, on anything, anywhere, at any time. Originally i was just thinking about the whole 'zine revolution; my daughter has been involved with this for years (enuf it got her featured in YM magazine about five years ago).

But then i started thinking about the little local newspaper for people of color that i was perusing while waiting for my takeout yesterday afternoon, and from there things like the local papers that were around in my hippie youth. One of these, the Scene, has survived to this day. And THAT leads to another thought: Cleveland has had two free 'entertainment'/news weeklies for a long time, but both were recently bought by one corporation that thinks its more 'efficient' to consolidate into one. a LOT of people aren't happy about this, since the one that got closed, the Free Times, was the more 'intellectual' paper - in fact, i think the only reason Scene even began running news stories was competition from the Free Times. That might sound like a victory for print death, but there's already Talk of somehow resurrecting the Free Times - which in its turn was the reincarnation of a previous paper that'd gone under, the Cleveland Edition.

Meanwhile, i haven't read the 'real' newspaper, the Plain Dealer in years, wouldn't even consider subscribing to it. It doesn't begin to interest or speak to me. Tho i'd be saddened and concerned if IT went under.

They predicted the death of newspapers when radio was invented, when newsreels began to talk, when TV was invented and when CNN launched. [monty python] We're not dead yet! :)

I took a class in Religion and the News Media, and I got into this argument all of the time regarding the value of blogs. My teacher would roll his eyes and poo-poo me every time I brought up blogging, yet, I was usually the best informed student in the class. Why? My blogger friends post links to interesting articles. I have a hundred eyes helping me find stuff. I have a ready staff of experts that I can consult on virtually any subject. Before I ever got to class, I already knew about it, talked about it, and it was old news.

Indeed! This is one of the best things that I do for myself!