Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism
I do have to disagree on this- there is a market, but as of yet, nobody is willing to find a way to cater to the relatively small market. Right now, we are getting a free (yes FREE) paper weekly covering local stuff. Where I would agree is that there's little hope in just local stuff for a daily. But qaulity always finds buyers.
While I understand that there are fanatics (the origin of the word Fan) who write blogs, the quality can be spotty- I forgot how good the coverage was on Mgoblog, and I did note in my previous post that sports CAN be covered better on line with the use of multi-media. The issue that I have with blogs is that it's normally one person, not reporting to anyone- so content doesn't need to be even partially ballanced, and one never knows if the information is real or not- blogs tend to be opinions. Again mgoblog is a good one, as far as I know, with facts and examples. I do expect a higher standard in print, though, since the fact that you PRINT it should make you put more effort in quality, and balance of information. And I do recognize that papers always have their slant- conservative vs liberal, UM vs. OSU, etc etc etc- but most of the time, there's at least an attempt to show information from the other side.
And no way am I blaming the consumer- it's the lazy papers who are abandoning the readers who want paper and print.
I do have another perspecitve, BTW- as a member of a small national club, and have sat on the BOD, I know the overall issue of print vs. on line. For our club, there has been multiple tries to do on line only content, and each time, it's failed. Readers did not want web content, and many of the older members don't want to rely on computers to read. Basically, this web-revolution is leaving a significant part of the consumers with nothing, and they have no real intention of changing. So now they fully rely on TV and Radio, which is becoming far more entertainment than news.
Well, I'm not concerned with older readers, to be brutally honest. They're a shrinking market, and the people that aren't quite old but will be there soon will be far better immersed in new technologies.
That's not to say it's not a legit concern - it is, but it's hardly issue #1 in the grand scheme of things.
As far as blogs go, there's a lot of crap out there, but that same thing applies to newspapers - where there's a lot of the same crap out there. The same AP wire story, the same this, the same that.
Why not? Who's going to provide this low-cost information when the newspapers collapse? Most people who get news online still get it from sites affiliated with newspapers (or, at the least, the AP). Even if they hear about it from an aggregator like Fark, Slash-dot, etc.
At least with subscriptions, newspapers could provide solid numbers to advertisers. "hits per day" and the like don't pay the bills.
When the newspapers fold, that's a huge gap to fill. And the TV stations sure as hell won't fill it - TV news is like the Highlights Magazine version of what you'll find in all but the worst of newspapers. Blogs will fill the editorial segment, sure, but not the in-depth coverage.
Frankly, I think ultimately the main news sites will have to go to a fee-based system at some point, either on a per article or per month system. The early adopters will get hurt, but those who don't will go out of business, period.
I'm not saying I have the answer - far from it. I am asking why the consumer should be blamed for a structural shift in the news economy.
I think a fee-based system is death for any traditional newspaper. Any place that's tried it online has seen it fail miserably. I do think subscription based services can work at the current time in niche markets, based either on location or on subject matter, but I don't think anyone's going to subscribe.
It always annoys me to hear newspaper men talking about how they need to have fees for articles. I think they're trying to find some way to finance their old, outdated economic model in the current environment. I don't blame them for doing so, but their solutions aren't exactly cutting edge. Will they go out of business without payments? Maybe. But that's the reality of the marketplace these days. The world's changed, and simply trying to elongate the lifespan of organizations tailored to the old model isn't going to help.
If we're looking to sustain those cultural and informational assets, then we need to reconsider what kind of economy we're working with.
Personally, I think MinnPost has an interesting idea with non-profit, predominantly web-based news organization.
http://www.minnpost.com/about/
MinnPost.com provides news and analysis Monday through Friday, based on reporting by professional journalists, most of whom have decades of experience in the Twin Cities media. The site features high-quality video and audio, as well as written stories. It also includes commentary pieces from the community, and comments from readers on individual stories. The site will not endorse candidates for office or publish unsigned editorials representing an institutional position. We encourage broad-ranging, civil discussion from many points of view.
Our goal is to create a sustainable business model for this kind of journalism, supported by corporate sponsors, advertisers, and members who make annual donations. High-quality journalism is a community asset that sustains democracy and quality of life, so we are asking people who believe in it to support our work.
MinnPost's initial funding of $850,000 came from four families: John and Sage Cowles, Lee Lynch and Terry Saario, Joel and Laurie Kramer, and David and Vicki Cox. Roy Karon became a fifth founding donor. Major foundation support has come from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (start-up funding, 2007 and 2008) and the Blandin Foundation (funding to launch the Greater Minnesota Project, 2008-2010). As of June 30, 2008, MinnPost had 904 member-donors contributing amounts ranging from $10 to $10,000.
When Walter Cronkite passed away, people noted how he was not just a great newsman, but also a product of a unique time and place - he rose to prominence right as TV took hold, but before the current proliferation of 500 channels and whatnot. No single person will likely hold a position of that much influence ever again - it was a product of the era.
Likewise, newspapers as we know them are a product of the era. The sooner we recognize that and are willing to try new, sustainable economic models, the better off we'll be.
