Death of Newspapers? Save the Press! (Opinion, Analysis)

by PEP | July 3, 2008 at 08:58 am | 302 views | 7 comments | 19 recommendations
Death of Newspapers? Save the Press! (Opinion, Analysis)
by PEP

This morning I awoke to learn that the "big city" newspaper that gave me some of my finest training and greatest challenges, one of the dearest memories of my career, is slashing a large portion of its staff.  The first response was visceral and acutely personal--with vibrant, vivid recollections  of the rickety old building we worked in, copy boys, manual typewriters (yes, manual typewriters), pneumatic tubes used to send copy from the editors' desk down to the printers, those marvelous magicians who set type manually, and the memories, always green, of hard-driving, over-stressed reporters and editors who cared, who believed in getting it right.

Who believed in journalism, up close, personal, real--the thing that many today would have you believe is a dinosaur, a laughable old creaking monstrosity replaced by the internet. But does copying and pasting others' work, or snarking around, actually replace say, a good investigative reporter with a huge reach in readership, or an excellent, real editor who edits objectively, for actual news value, rather than for personal or political agendas?

There are some who think that journalism is well dead, Banquo's ghost, fluttering about ineffectually. But, as one commentator points out in the discussion accompanying this article--"Newspapers are a vital source of literacy."

Yes, they are. Perhaps at some point, historians in a later era will point to a time when texting became conversation, and when anyone who could manage to type in woefully mis-spelled words and clattering non-grammatical phrases, without either substance or facts, could fancy themselves journalists, movers and shakers, makers of this brave new world.

It's a fad, you see, this poseur belief that real journalism is no longer needed, because (strike a pose, modeled, cyberly, after an Edwardian fop) you see, all the truly au courant simply chat on the internet. If you know what's up at Huff or any of many other websites, then, my dear, you are in among the latest of fashions.

Once upon a time, the fad for beaver hats for men and feathered hats for ladies led to the carnage of animals and birds, literally wiping out species. Is journalism the latest feather to pluck from a dying carcass, to wear proudly in a new age?

I think not. It will, no doubt, be a contrarian view, but long-term, I have this belief that one day, people will look up and discover two things. The first is that there's a huge population out there that doesn't live on the internet and simply doesn't care what en vogue chatty websites have to say.

The second is that when real crisis is at hand, as witnessed in the Iowa floods, nobody does it better than a real, committed, trained newspaper staff. You can fly in sleekly shining TV reporters for the stand-up. You can talk about it on the web.

But the real news comes from the dirty, tired reporter from that area, the one who knows how to interview, how to get the news and present it quickly and in a readable format. The real news comes from photographers who are trained to consistently, day after day, get good shots, and who know how to frame the shots to go with the story. The real news comes from editors, sometimes at odds with the reporters and photographers in the dynamic tension that builds a great newsroom, who carefully edit and select the stories and the photos.

Real journalism isn't yet dead, although there are many who would have you think so. There are business models out there for getting rich quick on the internet, without investing the time and money in building well, a solid journalistic package. And the existing newspapers that transition to the web are often scoffed at by the new gold rush kids.

As Timothy Egan points out in his poignant piece: "But on its best days, a newspaper is a marvel of style and wit, of small-type discoveries and large-type overstatements, a diary of our deeds.

We may still prove Jefferson’s preference wrong: perhaps a nation can function without newspapers. But it would be a confederacy of dunces."


On the lobby wall of the newspaper where I got my first reporting job are the Thomas Jefferson words that journalists like to trot out as Independence Day nears:

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, Jefferson also said the only reliable truths in newspapers were the advertisements, and that he was happiest when not reading the papers.

But as to his iconic quote, it’s no secret that we’re trending toward the former. And anyone who cheers the collapse of the newspaper industry should consider why Jefferson put aside his distaste for the vitriol and nonsense of the press for the larger principle of healthy democracies needing informed citizens.

Last week, almost 1,000 jobs were eliminated in the American newspaper industry, perhaps the bloodiest week yet of a year where many papers are fighting for their lives. You read about the great names — the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, the San Jose Mercury News — as if reading the obituary page. Rich cities like San Francisco can no longer support a profitable daily paper.

.....And here’s the great paradox: all of this bad news is coming at a time when the audience and reach of many newspapers has never been greater. The Internet may kill the daily newspaper as we know it, but it’s allowed some papers to increase their readership by tenfold.

....

Besides, there’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post — even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists, and a search engine is no replacement for a curious reporter.

And just how much do most contributors at the The Huffington Post make? Nothing! “Not our financial model,” as the co-founder, Ken Lerer famously said. From low pay to no pay — the New Journalism at a place that calls itself an Internet newspaper.

Yes, the Brentwood bold-face types who grace HuffPo’s home page can afford to work for free, but it’s un-American, to say the least.

Long ago, I was a member of the steelworkers union, and also a longshoreman. If any of those guys on the docks heard that I was now part of a profession that asked people to labor for nothing, they’d laugh in their lunch buckets — then probably shut The Huffington Post down. Doesn’t the “progressive” agenda, much touted on their pages, include a living wage?

We could be left with a national snark brigade, sniping at the remaining dailies in their pajamas, never rubbing shoulders with a cop, a defense attorney or a distressed family in a Red Cross shelter after a flood.

recommend Add a comment
Caoimhin1
Caoimhin1
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 09:09 on July 3rd, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
PEP

I suspect that those hoping to be the Brutus to journalism are going to be sadly mistaken.      ;}  Thanks for the read and the flag.

BigT
BigT
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:06 on July 3rd, 2008

Whoever thought that the chattering class of "journalists" on the Internet would/could replace real journalists is insane. But I have to say that the papers themselves are largely to blame for their current problems.

Many of the big papers have an obvious slant, mostly to the left. That has cut into their readership. And they didn't evolve with the times - people are moving to the web for their news.

Papers that can migrate more to the web, creating an interesting and informative site for their readers, will still survive.

That's where I think our news is going. It is just no longer OK to get yesterday's news in the morning. Customers demand their news in real time. A daily paper cannot keep up with this type of demand.

But PEP, you are right, we will always need journalists who try to be fair. Without them what do we have? Rumor and innuendo, that's it. But, then again, we also had a big helping of that when we just had papers.

0
James Pate

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, 2006


Kidding aside, it really depends on the paper, BigT. I agree that bias has no place in a news article. It's a difficult thing to accomplish and has to be at the forefront of the journalist's mind when writing. However, there will always be a market for the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and others, and on the other side, Hunter S. Thompson, Franken, et al., I find them all entertaining to various degrees ;)

Although I don't want to see newspapers go completely, I am quite glad for the opportunity a lot of people have now to discuss issues on the 'net. The downside is that people will tend to box themselves into niches with other like-minded people and never challenge their minds, but I don't think you can exist in a bubble, even in the net. If anything, it allows you to research things and either solidify or change your opinion.

Things never change, our understanding of them changes. Hence why Pluto is no longer classified a "planet"


0
PEP

As always, well said, Big T. I was trained to be objective when reporting. Editorials, that was the place for opinions. But then you get the newer "me" generations of narcissism and mis-placed political bent, and you get degradation of basic journalistic standards, in some areas.


It's like anything else--there's always that great, mostly-hidden segment of the "silent majority" and that's true in the world of journalism too. The noisiest portions are just the skim on the surface. Thanks for the flag!

Paschen
  • news wrangler
Paschen
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 11:20 on July 3rd, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.

iboncimino
iboncimino
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 00:10 on July 4th, 2008

PEP, I like this story. Good stuff.


This story scares me, not only because I'm an aspiring journalist myself, but because I know how vital journalism (in a traditional sense) is to democracy and the ability of the people to make intelligent, knowledge-based decisions concerning their government.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

July 3, 2008 at 08:58 am by PEP, 302 views, 7 comments

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from