Newspaper Editors To Generation Y: Drop Dead

Wait a minute... isn't today National Buy A Newspaper Day? Why would an industry on life support tell a generation of potentially new customers to drop dead? I'm no Ben Stein, but even I know that's bad for business.

"It makes no sense, but newspapers aren't targeting Generation Y," Chris Freiberg told Huffington Post. "They aren't really trying to understand the lifestyle of young people today, or how integral websites like Facebook and MySpace are to their daily lives. I believe the younger generation would learn to love newspapers, if newspapers would talk directly to them."

What a bunch of malarkey. How old is Freiberg...85? Probably just another old geezer who habitually thumbs the morning newspaper along with his breakfast of oatmeal and whipped prunes. At least that's what I thought before I phoned Freiberg.

Whoops, scrape the egg off my face. Freiberg is just 24 years old, and a reporter for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner in Alaska. He so fervently believes in newspapers, the Indiana University grad declared National Buy A Newspaper Day on Facebook.

"For one day, Monday, Feb. 2, please make it a point to pick up your local newspaper," implored Freiberg. "Reading it online doesn't count."

Over 5,000 New Facebook Friends Promise They'll Try To Read A Newspaper Today

"If this is what the newspaper industry has come down to, fer chrissakes, then the end is near," blogger John Tomasic told me in an email.

Sadly, Tomasic is right. Five thousand new readers won't save the newspaper business. Still, I'm charmed by Freiberg's Don Quixote-like quest. And so is former Forbes staffer Peter Kafka, who told me, "I don't think the problems facing the newspaper industry are going to be solved by this Facebook event. But I do admire Freiberg's passion and energy." These days Kafka is senior editor at All Things Digital.

Here's a sampling of what the Facebook crowd said about newspapers:

Can I engage with a newspaper? Can I filter it to send me only what I find useful? Can I easily add my reviews and discuss articles with fellow readers? Times are a changing. Newspapers should change, too. -- Nick Wolf

With everyone trying to "go green" these days, why should we encourage newspapers? Besides, my local paper posts their news stories online -- free, environmentally friendly, and convenient.
-- Rosemarie Hudak

Buy a newspaper every day. Buy a couple! Get some different perspectives, and maybe we'll all be better informed.
-- Mark Rosen

I worked as a graphic artist for a newspaper for 13 years. Then they sent my job (and 90 others) to India. Maybe newspapers should reach out to India for new subscribers.
-- Lana Hornyak

Blogging in Singapore, Daryl Tay posted this Emperor-has-no-clothes explanation of why there is nothing newspapers can do to make him turn back to print:

News finds me. I don't mean it's offered to me on a platter, but if it's a particularly relevant piece of news, someone is going to blog about it, send me an email with the URL, or just tell me about it on MSN.

Touche, Mr. Tay. But doesn't the best online journalism still depend on old media outlets? What happens if we lose all those print reporters, the ones who file history's first draft? For the answer, I turned to Tim Luckhurst, who blogs for the Guardian:

If George Steer had worked for a website he would not have had the budget to travel to Guernica. William Howard Russell would not have witnessed the Charge of the Light Brigade. Woodward and Bernstein would not have investigated the Watergate scandal. It is simply not possible to cover the costs of significant scoops from what online publishers currently pay. If you believe journalism's core purpose is to hold power to account...to see that truth prevails...then this is a grave crisis.

My D.C. neighbor Andrew Sullivan, who writes the popular blog "The Daily Dish" at The Atlantic, was more optimistic about the future of newspapers:

For all the intense gloom surrounding the newspaper and magazine business, this is actually a golden era for journalism. The blogosphere has enabled writers to write out loud in ways never seen or understood before. And in some ways, blogging's gifts to our discourse make the skills of a good traditional writer much more valuable, not less. The torrent of blogospheric insights, ideas, and arguments places a greater premium on the person who can finally make sense of it all, turning it into something more solid, and lasting, and rewarding.

There is, after all, something simply irreplaceable about reading a piece of writing at length on paper, in a chair or on a couch or in bed. The message dictates the medium. And each medium has its place -- as long as one is not mistaken for the other.

Save The Whales, Save The Newspapers?

The only way to save this endangered industry is to offer newspapers solely online, right? Wrong. That is still not a viable business model, according to Peter Kafka. "An online newspaper with 2.6 million unique views could attract enough advertising to keep a handful of writers afloat only if it had a specific niche like, say, technology news. But a generalized news site for a local audience? No one's figured out how to do it yet, and a recession probably isn't the time to solve that riddle."

Meanwhile, the U.S. will continue to say goodbye to its newspapers, one by one, because there will be no industry bailout. I tip my fedora to Chris Freiberg, who "felt the need to do something."

On second thought, maybe there's one more event worth trying: America's newspaper and wire-service reporters could all leave for a month's vacation at the same time -- kinda like a strike. If all the traditional reporters suddenly disappeared for four weeks, what would the rest of us do -- the bloggers and pundits and other media types who write "on top" of the news? Seriously, what would Huffington Post put on its homepage for a month? Just askin'...

Comments

[dadw5boys]

Well why did the Newpaper Media not think about this when they decided to provide unquestioned support of the Bush Adminstration.

Personally I think we need to lose that generation of reporters who did not have the guts to report, dig, and investiage to find the real truth.

They did the USA a wrong the will not be forgiven easily. They broke the faith. I stopped buy a news paper after the first white wash.

[LibbyLoon]

This Chris guy has his head on straight...that Ernie Pyle J-School degree certainly paid off for him. I'm glad to see that despite being a newspaper guy he sees the flaws in the system. Even here in Austin, the Austin-Statesman (who's parent company is bankrupt, apparently) doesn't really come after my demo, but their rival, the free Austin Chronicle, which is a weekly publication, does way more to get to us - with a better online presence, plus free distribution in all the coffee shops, bars, everywhere Gen Y hangs. The Chronicle knows where to find us...like The Onion!!

[davedave]

its not the readers, the journalists, the blah, blah, blah.

its the revenue stream.

follow the money...

d

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

Today on National Buy A Newspaper Day, the stock price of the New York Times reached a record low -- $4.68 a share -- before rebounding slightly in after-hours trading.

Also, two big credit rating firms are thinking about downgrading Gannet Co. stock into junk territory, where it would join the New York Times. Gannet is the largest newspaper chain in the U.S.

No matter how you parse the numbers, our leading old media companies are in very deep trouble.

[davedave]

is tomorrow "flush a twenty down the toilet day"?

do we honor spats and buggy whips on the same day or group them together?

d

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

Somebody on Wonkette said instead of buying a newspaper, they were going to go out and chop down a tree. Ha!

[MonkeyBusinessIU]

Three things:
For starters, I knew Chris from an internet forum he used to frequent while a student at Indiana University. Although I can't speak to his present condition, I recall him being something of a pompous windbag more interested in self-promotion and being a malcontent than crusading for any kind of higher cause.

Secondly, most of the people I know from my own generation that have degrees in journalism that find themselves working for a traditional newspaper publisher find that they are laying off staff in record numbers. This is assuming that they can even find work at one. Is it any surprise that someone that makes their living from the selling of print newspapers would encourage one of the larger demographics in America to continue to buy them?

Finally, I believe that newspapers are something of an anachronism for Generation Y. Where so many of us have BlackBerry's, iPhone's, laptops, Kindle's, etc. where our news is delivered as soon as it happens, print just isn't fast enough. I read today's headlines in today's New York Times yesterday evening.

Newspapers will continue to have a dedicated following from older generations, but like so many industries before them they'll have to adapt to utilize new technology. If that means establishing a greater online presence, and developing rich applications for mobile devices to deliver their content, perhaps on a subscription basis, then so be it.

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

(One thing I've noticed about Hoosiers: you all write well. Kuddos.)

I spoke with Freiberg on the phone and in his present incarnation he seems both reasonable and well-spoken. I share his belief that newspapers just don't get Gen-Y. Here's an example from my own life. About a year ago I pitched both the NYTimes and the WashPost on an article called "Hey Young Bloggers, This Writing Guide Is For You." (Basically "how to blog.") Both newspapers said they "didn't think the topic was right for their newspaper." Now, compare that to my experience a month ago, when I was asked to speak to marketing professors at Georgetown U on the topic "how to blog." "Why on earth?" I asked them. "Because it's all our students talk about," they answered, "And there's no textbook we can turn to." (Of course, now they have HuffPost's Complete Guide to Blogging, available on Amazon for $10.20) Anyway, by popular demand I spoke for 45 minutes on how to blog. (Talk about a pompous windbag.)

Bottom line: newspapers haven't given you a reason to love them (with the possible exception of The Onion). Old-media editors should stop looking in the mirror and start looking out the window.

Thanks for commenting!

[LibbyLoon]

MonkeyBusinessIU,

I think most of us as college kids were pompous windbags who thought we had the world figured out.

[RoseMerry]

This is the 21st Century. If it does not glow from it's own light, it is not worth reading!

[SonofLiberty1]

And yes, younger citizens did participate in electing President Obama.
But how old is he?

47?

He's my generation thank you!:)

[SonofLiberty1]

Just because you are 25 doesn't mean you run the world, you have to wait about 20 more years and climb the rungs...just like every one else does.

[brighterlight]

I never have the quarters to buy a newspaper. Newspapers could have put a dollar bill gadget in their machines years ago and sales would have gone up.

[larry278]

Re: buy a newspaper day, generation Y replies, newspapers?

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

Larry --
Would it help if the next generation of newspaper editors came from the online community? At the very least, newspapers might finally try some new stuff.

[RBN]

You know, I just don't trust what's written in Newspapers.

[Classof89]

But you trust everything written on the internet?

[cindysundancer]

I feel blessed to live in a city where a truly great newspaper is available. Reading The Washington Post the past 20 years has been an education in itself. Yes, I go to Huffpo or TV for breaking news, but the Post will always have more in-depth, complete coverage and thoughtful reporting. Broadcast news and internet sources feed off of the hard work and original reporting done by a shrinking stable of great newspapers. The decline of top newspapers is a loss for democracy.

[boden]

I was a avid reader of many (3) newspapers as recently as last year. Then I got broadband. The problem I have with news papers is: I sat there reading story's I had already read the day before. If you can come up with a solution to this "time lag" problem I'm sure the "papers" and the Nobel Prize people would love to hear from you.

[jbeach]

Tim Luckhurst writes for the Guardian, which is actually a good investigative paper - and notably is in the UK. Maybe that's why he can make this argument:

"If you believe journalism's core purpose is to hold power to account...to see that truth prevails...then this is a grave crisis."

That is the core purpose, sure - and US papers HAVE NOT been holding power to account, for at least the past 8 years. So why SHOULDN'T gen's x and y go the Internet instead?

I mean, what hard questioning has Bush *ever* faced, from any print journalist besides Helen Thomas? And the NY Times' Judith Miller - wtf? Her pro-Invasion warmongering at the NY Times were clear *even then* as transparently wrong and biased - but what accountability has she ever faced? And where was the coverage of the largest protests in history, against the Iraq War? Most importantly, where was the "speaking to power" about all the straight-up, documented, easily provable *lies* - not mistakes, lies - that were in nearly every single Presidential speech, Vice Presidential statement, or other Bush Administration release?

If I can figure out it's all bunk with an Internet connection, but newspapers either didn't see it or chose not to print it - what good are they?

I'll stick with Dailykos. It's like reading the newspapers ahead of time anyway - plus they let users comment on the stories, which keep them tied to reality and honest as well.

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

"What hard questioning has Bush ever faced?"

None, than I can recall. He's the most teflon president ever. But why? I'd love for someone covering that guy to log on and explain why.

Thanks!

[jbeach]

I'd love that too. But I can predict the response: "I / we were just as tough on Bush as we are on any public figure!"

If we go back and review the interviews, it's clear they were not as tough. But the person who says that probably believes they were. The late Tim Russert was an example of this. He was probably a great guy personally. But even though he himself seemed to think he was a tough questioner, he simply *did not* question Republicans as much as Democrats. His softball interview of Bush was particularly dismaying.

I think Bush was not questioned harshly, overall, because the owners of big media outlets like papers just didn't want him to be. It doesn't take a conspiracy; it's just a tendency of the very rich. Like any group, they would rather avoid things they don't see in their best interest. So it gets known all the way down the chains of command just what sort of questions will irritate the boss. Editors who want to keep their jobs make their journalists understand.

Which touches on another reason big print media is losing money: so many papers are owned by so few people, that they have a hegemonic homogeneity to them. People can find those things that better reflect their individual interests more cheaply and easily, on the Internet.

That said, let's see what a reporter says. I'm game.

[dallasdiddy]

I am stunned by the violent reaction to this story. I cannot understand why so many people HATE newspapers. And the reasons given in many of the comments here don't really explain the extreme viciousness.

The Newspaper Museum in DC opened just in time, it seems.

[jbeach]

People hate newspapers because almost all of the major ones that we are supposed to rely on, the ones that love to talk about journalistic standards, absolutely blew it and let every single member of this country down during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

That's my reason.