Death of the Newspapers
Good God. As a son of the print biz -- both literally and figuratively -- these are frightening days....
No further proof of that was needed, but the latest newspaper circulation numbers are out. Only two papers have reported increased runs in the comparative period from last year -- The New York Times with a .46% increase, and The (Newark) Star-Ledger with a .01% increase, which literally acounts for the addition of 40 papers a day on average. A 40-paper daily add could stock half a Wawa here. Half a Wawa, i.e. not much in the grand scheme of things.
I'm terribly aggrieved to report that the divine San Francisco Chronicle's magic number dropped a shocking 16.4%. That's just horrific. Solution: Send modern-day Evangelist Mark Morford into the newsroom to be the phoenix that takes the Chronapple from the ashes.
As for the Philly papers, well, the Inky's down 3.16%. And the future of our beloved Daily News -- now down to 105 newsroom staffers -- hinges on ongoing negotiations for union contracts to take effect in October, 2006. Regarding the Inky, grand jury aside, there's no point in spending 65 cents a day to read 12-hour old AP Wire stories when one can get them up-to-the-minute and for free on the web. It's just pointless. At least the Daily has character, and a better pulse of its readership while having the cred to challenge its readers to think broader.
Now that's a damn good paper.
All this leads me back to one of my favorite threads of conversation when speaking with my print folk, some of whom have either taken or are considering the buyout packages which have returned to haunt the industry with a vengeance: In sum, the news conglomerates have blown it. Between decreasing the newshole, axing reporters at a merciless clip while adding salespeople, and filling what little space remains for news with inane wire stories, the newspaper has become redundant by its own hand.
We hear a lot of talk these days about "being relevant to younger readers." You know how you do that? By bulking up coverage, giving better, deeper, fuller analysis, not by paring everything down -- a school of thought based on the bunk assumption that Generation Y is a bunch of nebulous pinheads, a theory which is offensive and patronizing.
I'm a hard-core news consumer, partially because it's part of my job, but also because I just thrive on solid news coverage, which I don't mind seeking out. And despite being poorer than poor, I still invest in a satellite radio, a hefty amount of time scanning various outlets and I buy the NYTimes most days -- and The Atlantic, The Economist and sometimes The New Yorker. Because my local papers just don't cut it. Because Who? What? When? Where? How? and Why? is usually just the entry-level element of the story, not the whole enchilada. And because good news judgment and enriching context deserves affirmation in this world where the reading level for stories is seeming to creep ever more ominously toward "My Dog Spot," because that's "where the people are."
God help us.
American journalism, in the mainstream print press, has stuck to the same recipe of bland objectivity and sparse news-gathering while pursuing everything from new theories of suburban zoning to changing sheet format. And for all that ephemera, which has let a thousand consulting firms bloom at the expense of the journalistic enterprise itself, all the cosmetics and driver re-routings in the world make no difference whatsoever when the lion's share of the substance remains the same -- in one word, shit.
(Case in point: Just ask people in St. Louis how they like the revamped Post-Dispatch.)
To think of journalism as a business is akin to perceiving the political process as one big cash-register. Not only are both theories beneficial to Republican interests, they show no regard for the well-being of society and exhibit a depraved attitude toward the greater good for which their respective institutions exist. Just last week, it was revealed that Knight-Ridder's biggest shareholder (a corp which holds 19% of the company's stock) was demanding that the company be sold as its profit margin wasn't high enough. And this after yet another buyout spree.
With a state of affairs like this, it's hoping against hope to expect a resurgence of the good.
-30-
No further proof of that was needed, but the latest newspaper circulation numbers are out. Only two papers have reported increased runs in the comparative period from last year -- The New York Times with a .46% increase, and The (Newark) Star-Ledger with a .01% increase, which literally acounts for the addition of 40 papers a day on average. A 40-paper daily add could stock half a Wawa here. Half a Wawa, i.e. not much in the grand scheme of things.
I'm terribly aggrieved to report that the divine San Francisco Chronicle's magic number dropped a shocking 16.4%. That's just horrific. Solution: Send modern-day Evangelist Mark Morford into the newsroom to be the phoenix that takes the Chronapple from the ashes.
As for the Philly papers, well, the Inky's down 3.16%. And the future of our beloved Daily News -- now down to 105 newsroom staffers -- hinges on ongoing negotiations for union contracts to take effect in October, 2006. Regarding the Inky, grand jury aside, there's no point in spending 65 cents a day to read 12-hour old AP Wire stories when one can get them up-to-the-minute and for free on the web. It's just pointless. At least the Daily has character, and a better pulse of its readership while having the cred to challenge its readers to think broader.
Now that's a damn good paper.
All this leads me back to one of my favorite threads of conversation when speaking with my print folk, some of whom have either taken or are considering the buyout packages which have returned to haunt the industry with a vengeance: In sum, the news conglomerates have blown it. Between decreasing the newshole, axing reporters at a merciless clip while adding salespeople, and filling what little space remains for news with inane wire stories, the newspaper has become redundant by its own hand.
We hear a lot of talk these days about "being relevant to younger readers." You know how you do that? By bulking up coverage, giving better, deeper, fuller analysis, not by paring everything down -- a school of thought based on the bunk assumption that Generation Y is a bunch of nebulous pinheads, a theory which is offensive and patronizing.
I'm a hard-core news consumer, partially because it's part of my job, but also because I just thrive on solid news coverage, which I don't mind seeking out. And despite being poorer than poor, I still invest in a satellite radio, a hefty amount of time scanning various outlets and I buy the NYTimes most days -- and The Atlantic, The Economist and sometimes The New Yorker. Because my local papers just don't cut it. Because Who? What? When? Where? How? and Why? is usually just the entry-level element of the story, not the whole enchilada. And because good news judgment and enriching context deserves affirmation in this world where the reading level for stories is seeming to creep ever more ominously toward "My Dog Spot," because that's "where the people are."
God help us.
American journalism, in the mainstream print press, has stuck to the same recipe of bland objectivity and sparse news-gathering while pursuing everything from new theories of suburban zoning to changing sheet format. And for all that ephemera, which has let a thousand consulting firms bloom at the expense of the journalistic enterprise itself, all the cosmetics and driver re-routings in the world make no difference whatsoever when the lion's share of the substance remains the same -- in one word, shit.
(Case in point: Just ask people in St. Louis how they like the revamped Post-Dispatch.)
To think of journalism as a business is akin to perceiving the political process as one big cash-register. Not only are both theories beneficial to Republican interests, they show no regard for the well-being of society and exhibit a depraved attitude toward the greater good for which their respective institutions exist. Just last week, it was revealed that Knight-Ridder's biggest shareholder (a corp which holds 19% of the company's stock) was demanding that the company be sold as its profit margin wasn't high enough. And this after yet another buyout spree.
With a state of affairs like this, it's hoping against hope to expect a resurgence of the good.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 18:48
1 Comments:
"I'm terribly aggrieved to report that the divine San Francisco Chronicle's magic number dropped a shocking 16.4%. That's just horrific. Solution: Send modern-day Evangelist Mark Morford into the newsroom to be the phoenix that takes the Chronapple from the ashes."
Yeah, like putting Richard McBrien in charge of implementing Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
evangelist. n. "One who brings good news, a preacher of the Gospel"
Post a Comment
<< Home