The Printer’s Devil

Jump to Comments

A couple of computer experts I respect very much collared me recently and painted a fantastic version of the future of American newspapers and how news gathering and news dissemination would be transformed by the Internet.

They noted that now, with a flick of few buttons, you can read nearly any newspaper in the nation from a computer.

They described a dazzling future of instant news and paperless papers, and immediate contact between news organization and new consumer.

They were somewhat startled and a bit disappointed by my reaction.

“It won’t happen,” I replied in both cases. I then tried to explain the most recent trends in newspapering. They couldn’t believe it and dropped the subject, figuring me for an old dinosaur.

Perhaps I’m an old dinosaur. But I’ve also been around the trade long enough to know the way CorpsNews works.

As I’ve mentioned frequently, to hold down costs and to jack up their obscene profits, CorpsNews is unwilling to hire or keep the brightest and best nor are they willing to give their writers any respect. And because ultimately, people buy newspapers to read the writing, when the writing is mediocre to bad and people do their own cost-cutting, newspapers are the first to get kicked out of the family budget.

Why CorpsNews can’t make the connection between cheap news and falling numbers of subscribers is another article.

Because most CorpsNews publishers are stupid they‘ll keep doing the same stupid things. But because most of those stupid CorpsNews publishers are also busy (see my column on stupid and busy publishers for an explanation), they’re always trying ever more gimmicks to try to hold onto their readers.

I’ve been around long enough to see a merry-go-round of gimmicks, breathlessly trumpeted as the next new thing, be it imitating television or magazines, “hyperlocal news,” “community journalism” or “Newspaper Hext.”

And being stupid, CorpsNews publishers ignore newspapers’ strengths and adopt the weaknesses of the newest thing they’re imitating — and they continue the long, slow death spiral of reader losses.

More than one CorpsNews publisher has said “Internet is just another form of information like newspapers.:

I’ll be the first to admit there are some advantages for newspapers to get on the Internet. I’ll talk about that later.

However, that most of the loudest and most fervent supporters of newspapers on the Web are also some of the stupidest and busiest publishers in the CorpsNews world and who can’t tie their shoelaces when it comes to running newspapers tells me this is another gimmick that’s going to flame-out.

Indeed, I think the Internet will accelerate newspapers’ death spiral.

As you know, the Internet remains a highly competitive environment, and big, dumb and fat CorpsNews newspapers, which have survived only because they have no competition in their home cities, happily assume they’re going to swim in the turbulent Internet waters with some of the biggest and most competitive sharks around.

The fact is, if there’s money to be made in Internet-based news, the big sharks will move in and CorpsNews will end up in tuna cans. There’s some signs that’s already happening. I see that some editors are squawking because Associated Press, which is owned by member papers, has signed contracts to dispense AP news on Yahoo’s
own news service, which is scenting bloo.

The Internet thrives on sound and fury. Raw emotion. Strong opinion. The Drudge Report, Truthout or The Smirking Chimp, news Web sites which mix pronounced views with their news.

Big, dumb and fat Corps News, which has made a religion of “objective news” and “fair and balanced” with mild views designed not to irritate big advertisers or upset the powers that be, is going to waltz into this controversy carousel and daintily take a seat for a nice ride.

Small-town newspapers are one of the few community institutions that glues a community and serves as one of the few common reference points for a community. The Internet’s strength is that it serves smaller groups with particular interests, political or otherwise, not broad-based groups.

Even the mantra of local news really doesn’t fly on the Internet — there are a surprising number of local Web sites even in the smallest towns with pronounced views on local politics and events and are much better — or at least more colorful — than the copy in the local CorpsNews publication. And most cities, counties and other public and semi-public entities purvey their own filtered news on the Web and are often among the first sites that Websters consult for information. If you want poorly-written information why get it second-hand?

Most towns with small dailies or large weeklies also have radio stations. And even most of those radio stations are on the Web. I’ve seen several radio reporters carrying cameras for their Web sites. In many cases the radio stations do their Web sites better than most local newspapers.

I’m sure most stupid and busy publishers have dreams of moving entirely on the Web — and cutting out the newsprint makers (one of the few parts of their businesses they haven’t been able to dictate their cost-cutting fantasies to), as well as cutting away surly printers who deliver too much reality to stupid but busy publishers.

I heard of a few papers who have tried to be “all on-line.” I haven’t heard of them succeeding.

Over the years, I’ve subscribed to the New York Times’ daily e-mail news service, which offers many examples of superior writing and reporting. Over the years, I’ve watched the Times try several ways to generating cash from their Web editions, including charging for the e-mail service to charging for a few marquee writers and columnists. Judging from the many shifts and turns, the Times hasn’t been really succeeded. They’ve ended up with a version similar to their print edition — ads tacked along side their news.

I would suspect it’s not as lucrative — or will it ever be — as their print edition. Other than the prestige of being America’s national paper on a national Web stage, I wonder if it’s even worth it to the Times.

And if the Times can’t make any significant money from their on-line stuff, stupid publishers aren’t going to.

The final word on the wonders of the Web has to come from a couple of young upwardly-mobile professionals, the kind that publishers lust to have on their subscription rolls.

“Why should I subscribe to the paper?” they’ve asked me. “I can go on the Web and get it for free.”