Newspapers: Shut 'em Down

"Journalism largely consists of saying 'Lord Jones is dead' to people that never knew Lord Jones was alive." - G. K. Chesterton

There comes a time to stop fretting and make a decision. The great angst over the future of newspaper journalism has become an unnecessary expenditure of energy. Choices have been eliminated by the marketplace. Certain eventualities are going to unfold and they cannot be stopped. The only option is to act now and take control and help the future get here ahead of schedule. Do the obvious: shut down the printing presses.

Maybe that's dramatic, but it is going to happen, eventually, anyway. And the reasons to do it now are compelling. As long as there is a print version of the local paper or the New York Times or L.A. Times, advertisers will keep buying space in the paper. If it goes away, they have nowhere to purchase those ads other than on the paper's web site. Sure, some of them may try radio or TV or another internet site but not enough to ruin a paper's finances.

Readers will have nowhere else to go, either, if they want to go to their old reliable source of news and information. The numbers of unique visitors to a newspaper's web site will go up dramatically, if the print version disappears. And as those numbers rise the rates charged for ads can also increase. Of course, the web also offers a definitive method for tracking metrics, too. An advertiser can see how many people have clicked on their ad and then executed the "call to action" that was promoted. There is no more precise measurement for assessing the value of an advertising dollar. Calculating the impact of a full page ad in a newspaper is a slightly more complex and imprecise process.

The numbers already show that printed newspapers are becoming dinosaurs too blind and dumb to find a tar pit to stumble into and die. The mighty NYT sells about a million newsstand copies per day and under 1.4 million on Sunday. The downward trend will not be reversed in the wireless economy. Ad revenue keeps dropping every quarter and that is not just a result of the economy. The NYT can probably continue to print and deliver the Sunday version because it has become such a cultural icon and ritual for many Americans, but the rest of the newspapers need to cease and desist.

Corporate accountants will argue that even the declining circulation figures are still providing a nice cash flow to the bottom line but no one wants to acknowledge the fact that such revenues are coming at the expense of growth for the web site. There is considerably more profit potential on newspaper web sites when the print versions die off. All of those car dealerships in your hometown that buy those Thursday ads in the paper can now spend that money on the website and drive visitors to their own site for interactive views and info on cars and trucks. Duh........

How hard can this be? The future of journalism is already manifesting itself on this web site as you are reading the Huffington Post. News won't just be generated by proprietary staff reporters. The process of delivering quality journalism will involve aggregation. Major metro and national papers like the NYT will lose some reporters and bureaus in the transition but their partnerships with reliable outside sources can supplement any shortcomings in coverage. Does a paper need a full time correspondent in India or can it rely on a stringer relationship or a wire service with a good reputation in the event of a Mumbai attack? The answer is obvious.

Papers and their publishers and editors have a fond affection for their bylines and datelines but, with rare exception, the public is oblivious. We didn't know Judy Miller until she began to let her perspective distort her reportage. And we don't know most of the other reporters at any paper, either. Just give your readers the news and make sure the source is reliable. This has already been happening in TV news at the local level for a number of years. In the heady days of big ad bucks, local news directors used to love to send their anchors and correspondents to cover big events. Hardly any station can still afford this luxury. They increasingly rely on affiliate services to give them a taped or live story with a custom outcue and viewers do not know the difference. In fact, the journalism tends to have more quality since the person working the locale on a daily basis generally has more nuanced information about the topic than the guy from Des Moines who showed up in his new London Fog to do a live remote broadcast.

Instead of delaying this transition to a full digital world and seeing how long they can sustain their print versions, media companies need to plan a full stop of printing presses and turn their web sites into their solitary news products. They can execute this strategy now or they can keep feeding money and intellectual energy into the already dead carcasses of their papers until they realize, too late, the paper is rancid with decay and the readers they might have captured on their web site have already gone elsewhere. Seems a simple choice.

Turn off the printing presses.

Comments

[montemalone]

2 words

Crossword Puzzle

[DuPageDem]

A few more: Obits, weddings and birth announcements. Printouts just don't cut it on the fridge door or in a scrapbook.

[mightbesane]

No, No and No.

There is a new model for the way people receive 'content'. I agree. But that model does not and should not preclude the printed word.

"Instead of delaying this transition to a full digital world..."

You mean, the way that we've delayed the paperless office and our commuter helicopters and jet packs? OK. So high percentage wireless penetration is not too far off...but it ain't here yet. And while we're all waiting, I'll enjoy sitting on the john first thing in the morning, my cup of coffee balanced on the sink, reading the sports page. In that situation, a laptop just doesn't make it.

[Lulliloo]

Good article Mr. Moore. You left out two more compelling reasons for the printed newspaper to go away:
1) the saving in paper/trees must be tremendous. I would think there are some stats on this already. I would like to see the adds shoved through my letterbox also go away to web advertising. Actually I would like to see the adds go away period.
2) In the pre-internet days everyone was hostage to the newspaper's slant leading back to one or a rew individuals: the newspaper editor(s) and owner(s). The web allows instant challenge and debate by anyone to whatever the newspaper/web site claims. This is of huge advantage all around.
3) But what about the X millions who do not have that web access, plus the skills to nagivate wisely? This is a much more difficult problem, I believe, than the economics taking their inevitable course of assigning printed news to the historical dustbin.

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

The problem is mainly the content of the newspapers has drastically gone down over the years. That's why a lot of people aren't reading them.

I go to the Net for news simply because it's better....

[hmargret]

absolutely true. i work on a newspaper & can tell you it is one of the most rigid industries. it's all top down economics. they don't care about their product anymore.

[torrrep]

No need to worry folks. The government will bail them out.

[TommyMcCarthy]

'I'm surprised that Jim Moore would come down on the side of suppressing the flow of information according to class and economic status.

Of course, Mr. Moore may not think of it in those terms, but that in part is exactly what he is proposing.

Personally, I hope a print version of the news hangs on "till the last dog dies".

I wonder if Jim has considered what will happen to our history when "original sources" are fully comprised of all-too-fungible and all-too-MALEABLE collections of digital ones and zeros? (one of Dick Cheney's fondest dreams, I'm sure)

The "memory hole" of Orwell's 1984 is already too close for MY comfort.

Regards
tm

[larry278]

I live at an assisted living facility. The local blute is much worse than lousy. But die alte cocker here can't live without looking at the local blute. It think use of newspapers is age & class related. If you were working class you read a paper. Since I'm not a native of this town & was a professional, papers bore me. I used to subscribe to the WSJ before I got a computer. The WSJ is/was more interesting than the local blute. When my generation dies off, the newspapers which have managed to survive will die too. Papers will continue to die because advertisers aren't aiming at working class, elderly. If a paper's circulation & advertising drop, the paper dies.
Younger people live without papers. Either they have access to a computer or are apathetic to everything. Young people don't have time for papers & don't trust papers.
Newspapers are dying like flies. Newspapers are not going to missed when they fold.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Ironic, after so many papers, just a few short years ago, were preaching and trumpeting the infallible ways of market forces.

Now the market is done with them, but they won't let go!

Into the tar pit with them. And thanks so much for the Iraq war.

[Dukedraven]

I used to get 2 newspapers everyday for years until I decided I was wasting money. Things change. In the olden days, reporters had typewriters on their desks and carried a bottle of whiskey in the drawers. Those are gone. If you don't adapt, you don't survive.

[thewho77]

I bought a 50 cent Daily Oklahoman yesterday. The first one I bought in about a year. It had a picture of the Palestinian protests on the front page. It is "the worst newspaper in the United States" according to the Columbia School of Journalism circa 1999. I agree. SHUT THAT IDIOTIC NEWSPAPER DOWN!

[Elderlady]

Do what you will with the newspapers.

I subscribed, and I tried, and couldn't find time to sit down and read one.

Just don't mess with my books.

I WILL find time to sit and read a book.

Don't mess with printed books.

[peggygeorge]

I could hardly stand my morning commute without a newspaper, though sadly it is shrinking. The editorial page that used to be two or three pages is now one page most days. I don't want to spend every minute of my life staring at a screen until my eyes vibrate. It's much easier to read long editorials in print than on a screen - easier for the brain to keep focused and not multi-task, flipping around until we are all attention-deficient. Also, newspapers go so well with Sunday breakfasts.

[Contributed]

First paper that should go New York Times a piece of trash

[ATFIllinois]

Ladies and gentleman, definitely a r.e.p.u.b.l.i.c.a.n. We'll give you the Times if we can kill Fox Noise. Deal?

[tvlandman]

Agreed!

And btw, to you liberals. Have you thought about how the poor and lower class in this country will get their news? Are you willing to suppress your very own constituency of their right to information. Let me guess, free laptops and internet service will be provided to them through welfare programs?

[Kinker]

No internet access at my work. No reading the paper at lunch? What about Diners? Do all the Greek joints have wireless access, and do I need to buy a laptop to go out for Breakfast and read the news? This was written by someone used to constant internet access. On my jobsite, a dozen of us take break and lunch together, and share no less than 3 different papers, with multiple copies of most. After I get the coffee going in the morning, 1st thing I do is go out and look for the paper. If it hasn't been delivered, I'm back out every 4-5 minutes till it comes. I'm not looking forward to a future with no papers. Let's hope it never happens.

[vote-obama]

whats next 'political websites; shut'em down' because number of visitors is declining...common mister.