You can comment on this post at my blogspot page http://kaitelug.blogspot.com
I like to think that my journalism professors didn't try to shelter me from the ugly truth about the industry. They let us know up front: this isn't going to be easy. You really have to love it. I don't know how many times I heard that last sentence. You really have to love it. For a couple of reasons: it's low-paid, stressful, and nowadays you could lose your job at any moment.
But I came out of J-school still believing in the value of reporting, whatever form it may take. And that's what I think is
encouraging about the way the industry is going - we're being forced to tell stories through various media at once and to find ways of actively engaging information consumers.
I do understand that there is a financial aspect to all of this. I won't pretend to understand much about it, like how to fix it, but I do think it can be fixed, if only because economists and newspaper people seem to agree.
Google Public Policy just released a
report about the newspaper dilemma. The following is the excerpt that I found the most enlightening:
"...the fact of the matter is that newspapers have never made much money from news. They’ve made money from the special interest sections on topics such as Automotive, Travel, Home & Garden, Food & Drink, and so on."
I never thought about it in this way, but it makes sense. First there were niche magazines, now there are thousands of niche websites for any particular interest you may have, and they're free to access. Why pick up a paper for the Lifestyle section when you can find exactly what you're looking for online? Here's an explanation of how this hurts the papers:
"Traditionally, the ad revenue from these special sections has been used to cross-subsidize the core news production. Nowadays internet users go directly to websites like Edmunds, Orbitz, Epicurious, and Amazon to look for products and services in specialized areas. Not surprisingly, advertisers follow those eyeballs, which makes the traditional cross-subsidization model that newspapers have used far more difficult."
Again, I'm not an economist or a marketing expert or anything, but I am a journalist and I know that we will somehow find a way to keep newspapers relevant, even if they aren't technically on paper anymore. In a world where anyone can say anything they want and someone will believe them, there will always be a need for trained writers and producers with editors backing them up and cross-checking their facts.
