Newspapers Thinking They're Above the Web Will Be Sorry

I showed up a little bleary early last Sunday morning on Howie Kurtz' DC-based CNN show, "Reliable Sources," to talk about -- what else? -- struggling newspapers. If we're going to re-plough that graveyard topic, it'd be so much more convenient to do it on West Coast time. But it's a good show for some press introspection and, as another essentially unregulated institution (we're the ones losing money, not stealing it), we probably never can have enough of that.

Howie asked one guest, his former boss, retired Washington Post editor Len Downie, a great question: why hadn't newspapers started a Huffington Post or Politico-style popular web site before Arianna and the folks at Politico?

Mr. Downie, also the editor who refused to vote or even, as he's said, "(have) private opinions about politicians or issues" because he thought it might compromise his neutrality as a newspaper editor, answered:

"In fact the Washington Post, the New York Times and many other newspapers have created very popular web sites. The Huffington Post and Politico don't come near us in page views. We have much, much larger audiences. The top 10 news sites on the web are dominated by the so-called old media companies."

In other words, we don't have to worry about HuffPo because we're bigger than they are. At the moment.

I think the "I-don't-allow-myself-opinions" thing is silly and reflects a higher calling disease newsroom attitude that separates us even further from the public we're supposed to be serving. I mean what reasonable, normal person even believes self-imposed thought discipline of that kind is possible? (I WON'T have a political thought. I WON'T have a political thought. LALALALALA.)

His god-like deprivations notwithstanding, Len Downie is a highly respected editor who oversaw big journalistic talent and steered the Post through shelfloads of Pulitzers and many great pieces of reporting that did serve the public interest (deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, for instance.)

But the notion that we old media institutions are still the big boys, so much more important and, well, HEFTIER than these pesky digital newcomers sounds familiar: we had the exact same view of things when CraigsList started cranking up at the beginning of the 2000s.

We were up to important things then, too important to worry about this quirky little community, sell-your-bicycle site. Weren't we? Hundreds of millions of dollars in lost classified revenues later, newspapers no longer feel that way. Too late for crying.

Howie Kurtz asked the right thing. Generally we need to consider right now: what else should we be doing to use the clout we still have to serve the public in ways we're not serving them at the moment. If we ignore the possibilities and limit ourselves with blinders of tradition, Craig and Arianna and an army of others will be there to spank us for it.

Vote/don't vote. That's your choice. But editors shouldn't consign their concerned and talented staffs of journalists to the deathwish air of superiority.

For more, read Bronstein at Large.

Comments

[stillfresh]

Objectivity is a myth.

[MetryJen]

I'm inclined to give him this one. Yes, I read Huffpo every day, and Politico most. But I also read the Washington Post online every day, and the NY Times, and the local paper's website NOLA.com. Huffpo boomed because society needed a frankly liberal news compiler after so many years of conservative policies. The odds of that happening again for other small news sites is slim. People default to what they've heard of - Wapo and NY Times.

[Terypat]

Why run out to buy a newspaper that will most likely give me a biased slant when I can go online and have unlimited choices of news and opinions? Internet news is updated throughout the day. What was news at print time, is not always the case at noontime! Give me the internet anyday!

[MFreebass]

As a recovering ink-stained wretch, I retain a fondness for dead-tree journalism. Yet I have to agree with the folks who argue that the industry has seen this coming long before the Internet. Readership and penetration was declining in the 1980s, but there was still lots of money to be made. Most of the major decisions -- efforts to drive out competing newspapers by bankruptcy or consolidation, shrinking news holes, and reducing staff -- have only served to increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term health of the industry.

The political economy of classified advertising illustrates the trend long before Craigslist. I recall how the Houston Chronicle once was the third-leading newspaper in circulation in Detroit because folks were reading the want ads. Then came the free classified publications like Green Sheet and others. Alternative weeklies used to fill columns of personal ads that would rival anything online and would parlay the revenue from that and advertising from clubs and bars to support often lively coverage of local politics the monopoly dailies avoided.

No one really knows what the new business model will involve. Still if newspapers have somehow survived their own mistakes so far, there may be hope yet for these dinosaurs.

[WilliePilgrim]

I regularly read the Chronicle on line and consider it one of the best papers from which to percieve what's happening in the Bay Area and so the rest of the country and the world; San Francisco being unique that way. Thanks for that, but one thing the Chron does even better than the rest are the vastly entertaining and sometimes even profoundly enlightening comments that the online edition hosts, and that's something Craig doesn't do and is unlikely to. The Chron should get a pulitzer for keeping it real. I've become particularly fond of the Willie Brown perspectives. Cheers.

[Dukedraven]

As Jon Stewart said, the newspapers lost revenue by stubbornly refusing to run CraigsList ads like this: "Middle-age man into bondage and S&M, seeks young lady for discreet, fun gang bangs on weekends." I don't think the newspapers can compete against the internet, quite frankly.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

If there was ONE newspaper that could be counted to do research, and to investigate, and to point out when politicians are lying, and which never needed to print retractions, I'd buy that paper. But these days it's all "an anonymous source said" and "it is alleged that" and typesetting White House talking points. HuffPo and Google News give me better information, and don't cost me a dime.

[caphillprof]

Newspapers are to media what Republicans are to politics. The world changed but they just don't get it.