Is change always good?

John Morton. Facing the Future. American Journalism Review, April/May, 2007, p. 68.

The Internet has rocked the newspaper industry in many ways, and in the process, has triggered a reevaluation of everything newspapers do-from gathering and reporting news to the reduction of print circulation, to increasing local news coverage, reducing staff, merging departments and increasing interaction with readers. Yet, a concern remains about how national and international news will be gathered and distributed-not to mention relevant.

The author presents a double-barreled argument of concerns. As examples, he looks to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Gannett chain of newspapers that he shows are moving on similar paths. One feature of the metamorphosis is in the emergence of “hyperlocal” coverage- the over-serving of “very, very” local news coverage. Along with this new style of coverage is an interactive communication with readers that results in major portions of content becoming blogs, reader polls and message boards that are not news in the traditional sense at all. Going further, there is now encouragement for readers to become news-gatherers by sending in photos and observations of breaking events.

Coupled with the change in news coverage is the deliberate lessening of print circulation, with a resulting loss of professional news staff. This leads to a concern that there are not enough professional journalists for comprehensive news-gathering. Most galling to the author is his perception of how journalistic standards and quality have declined. Overall, he concludes that while change is inevitable, the change newspapers have experienced is not good.

Here’s what I think: the author quotes all the right facts and comes to all the wrong conclusions.

Newspapers have been under siege for over a generation and the strongest have survived. Looking back to the 1950s, most metropolitan areas had at least two daily papers-and many had more than two. By the 1980s, competition from television, coupled with the emergence of two-income households that limited the time available to read more than one daily paper started the decline in circulation, which lead to the demise of some papers and the combination of others (at least from a business, or “back-office” perspective). The 90s brought fresh competition at the beginning of the decade from the newly respectable cable news outlets, and the resulting emergence of the 24 hour news cycle. Newspapers were technologically incapable of keeping up. Late in the decade the quick public acceptance of the World Wide Web with its virtually unlimited supply of information made newspapers look like an anachronism.

In commerce, like life, there is a basic mechanism of nature called survival of the fittest. This was seen to a degree after the introduction of television, and it is being seen even more clearly today. The idea is not providing news and advertising printed on broadsheets. The idea is providing news and advertising that meets the needs of the news consumer. That means providing the information the consumer wants, in the detail, form, and fashion the consumer wants it, when the consumer wants it. The problem is that no-one has yet figured out what this means. Certainly, no one has developed a model that achieves the holy grail of attracting both consumers and paying advertisers.

That could change soon. For some reason (there are lots of speculations as to why), interest in the presidential campaign is higher than it has been for many election cycles. It may be that this renewed interest in news will attract more advertising to the new on-line offerings, which will allow them to afford more people to do more things to improve the product, thus beginning a new cycle of news-gathering and innovation.

There is one thing that author Morton and I agree on. The web will rule the future of newspapers. Succeeding at their web offerings is critical to their future.

Reference:
Morton, John. Facing the Future. American Journalism Review, April/May, 2007, p. 68.