Michael Moore Says "Good Riddance" to Newspapers

For whatever reason, while at the Toronto International Film Festival Michael Moore departed briefly from promoting his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, to hold forth on the demise of newspapers in the U.S. Elsewhere in the world, he said, newspapers are supported first by the readers, then by advertising. Not in the U.S. Here, he complained, newspapers have allowed their greed for advertising revenue to trump quality journalism dedicated to a core audience willing to pay. The result: inflated newspaper enterprises with unsustainable distribution and too many customers that don't care. And, then, the death spiral that starts with chopping-off reporting arms and legs, which leads to newspapers that are less relevant and valuable, etc, etc.

Says Michael Moore, "Anytime you say that the people who read your newspaper are secondary to the business community, you've lost."

"Good riddance", he says.

Well, minus the "Good riddance," I'd have to agree, at least with the proposition that newspapers lost track of their core customer. But don't stop with newspapers. It's true about most media, which have permitted the substitution of advertisers for consumers as the most important customer in their business model. It has led, in turn, to the steady erosion of relevancy in pursuit of lower common denominators in order to maximize reach.

There is something about all businesses that compels them to want to grow and that almost always, eventually, leads them away from core competencies and over the edge. That's for another time and place. Media-wise, while I'm not in love with his stuff as a film maker, Michael Moore cuts close to the truth: fundamentally, newspapers (I'd say, all media) have lost track of their most important customer: the audience.

Moore goes on about Republicans and the Department of Education and my eyes glaze over. We all must recognize that illiteracy is a serious problem, but newspapers aren't suffering because of an illiterate population. There are still plenty of people to buy, read and comprehend newspapers. Newspapers and media are suffering from a habitual desire to stuff themselves. They are, simply, overweight - another greedy, cultural phenomenon of America to which Mr. Moore could have drawn parallels, but did not.

Never mind. His point is well-taken. Please watch Mr. Moore's press conference and before his arguments fade please then point to TechCrunch.com to catch-up on the discussions that went on at the Tech Crunch 50 Conference (TC50) in San Francisco this week, specifically the panel called, "'Creating scarcity, value and brand protection as we face limitless ad inventory."

Nearly a continent away, panelist Ross Levinsohn of 5 to 1 channels the thoughts of Michael Moore and connects the dots: "In many ways", he is quoted as saying on the panel, "I think the Internet has killed itself to a degree because there was a notion that I will just add another page without maximizing the premium spots."

I think we've seen this movie.

Follow Jarvis Coffin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GJC3

Comments

[susankhbelen]

newspapers use to be an interesting read. now they are only a skimmable read.
when they 'trimmed' the reporters (or arms and legs as referenced above) they also trimmed a great many of us who read that paper
Add that to most local papers being afraid of controversy...might loose an advertiser and, well
there you are
good bye!

[Luvial]

Good riddance. Save the trees. I stopped buying newspapers 15 years ago. Why should I pay for government­/corporate propaganda aimed against my own interests?

[RevBookburn]

Greed is the core of the problem. Toward that end, prioritzing the advertizers and aiming for the lowest common denominator means the loss of substance. I would agree with good riddance. Independent media is needed more than ever. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[LMPE]

Who needs the regular media anymore? The Internet is perfectly accessible, and we don't have to pay for it.

[NHBill]

Gee I think Comcast is nailing me for $50 a month

[Luvial]

That is why government will move to control the Internet for their propaganda purposes.

[urnumbersix]

Why would I pay to read AP wire stories-pr­inted-out-­from-the-n­ight-befor­e? And "he-said/she said" opinion pieces? That's what newspapers have become.

Give me some real investigative reporting, some real analysis, and now you have a product with value that I would buy. Give me something I want to buy!

[Hajji]

...and still we pay DOUBLE for the Sunday Edition, more fluff, more advertising...less actual "NEWS"....WTF?!

[BlackRabbit]

People love that word greed. Greed, greed, greed. It's an epitaph than can be used to explain away any and every ill of the business community. But I've never been happy with the word "greed". It's too easy - almost intellectually lazy. After all, we are all primarily driven by self interest. Where's the line between self interest and greed?

If newspapers make themselves non-profitable, perhaps greed isn't the right word. In fact, one might accuse them of not being greedy enough. Had they been REALLY GREEDY, they would have done what needs to be done to haul in big fat profits.

A better word, I think, is short-sightedness. We've come to believe that MBAs are equipped to run a business. They don't really need to understand the business cause good managment skills are supposed to have universal applicability.They can just be parchuted in and voila - profits.

Horse feathers. The best managers I've seen had a profound understanding of their businesses. They avoid serious mistakes because they have many years experience in the industry.

The problems with MBAs is compounded by boards of directors who do their job poorly at best. These baboons cheer on their managers as they improve next quarter's numbers at the expense of next year's. Directors are supposed to represent the long-term interests of the shareholders. When they fail to do this, the business - and ultimately the country - is in trouble.