Media: Save newspapers? Screw that! I’d rather save journalism
It’s something about the trees.
Maybe it’s the leaves. Maybe it’s the bark. But there is something about trees that weakens America’s fragile democracy.
That is why we must routinely cull some of the trees. Because when we cut some of them down, our democracy is strengthened and America’s otherwise inevitable slide into totalitarianism is postponed.
Or so thinks Phil Luciano.
In today’s column, Luciano asks readers for their opinion on what should be done to save newspapers. Because, as Luciano writes, newspapers — and not any other form of the news media — are the pillars of our democracy.
It’s complete bullshit. Journalism on television and the Internet would not exist without newspapers leading the way, he says. Therefore preserving newspapers is essential to preserving democracy itself. It’s big talk for a columnist who who wrote, I think, three columns during the past month about missing dogs (you see, it doesn’t matter what crap you put ON the paper, as long as those evil, anti-democracy trees are chopped down and pulped into paper).
What arrogance. If newspapers vanish, free market forces virtually guarantee that someone would start providing news in a different medium, most likely the Internet, which is a vastly less expensive way to distribute news to readers.
But members of the Big Media like things just the way they were. They want to preserve the institutions of journalism, not journalism per se. They can’t imagine journalism being done any way other than the way they do it. So all of their solutions tend to be more about propping up what already exists rather than about creating new ways commit acts of journalism. Lone writers posting news about their neighbors onto their Blogger or WordPress sites is not part of their journalism mix for these people.
One solution that’s been tossed out is to give newspaper customers some sort of tax rebate or credit. Another would let newspapers become non-profit organizations, which would keep them from endorsing candidates. Yet another would make newspapers immune to antitrust legislation. This is probably the stupidest of the many ideas being bandied about. But any solution that exists only to prop up the dying carcass that is newspaper journalism is a solution that will not work. We need to allow constructive destruction and let newspapers fail so they can evolve into online-only news organizations.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:29 am
The idea of any type of government involvement in journalism scares the crap out of me. How can you have a government-supported check on government? It may mesh with some people’s brave new world but certainly not mine. I think newspapers will survive in some form, but if the ink on paper method of news delivery goes the way of the dinosaurs, so be it. Something new will take its place.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Newspapers are like Major League Baseball. Blogging is the softball league of a local bar or church or school.
They’re both baseball… kinda. And without MLB, you could still find the sport being played in every park in every town across America.
But we sure would miss the “real” guys, out there doing it with a high level of training and professionalism.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:54 am
There will always be a need for professional journalists. The “newspaper” industry and the vehicle for the delivery of the professional journalistic message will have to evolve just like anything else.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I don’t think there is a need for a “paper” newspaper any more than there is a need for telegrams. I suspect, that the “business” would become much better without expenses of paper, ink, logging, paper boys, etc. certainly a small run of hard copies could be made available for hotels, libraries, news stands etc, but the blanketing of an area with unread, wanted, and uninteresting printed material seems … well… stupid.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Government is already involved in supporting journalism, and it’s some of the best. NPR and Public Broadcasting. I’m not arguing against Sam’s concern, which I share, just wanted to point this out. I truly believe in the not-for-profit news organization. The St. Petersburg Times, which has one a ton of Pulitzers, is probably the best example.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“We need to allow constructive destruction and let newspapers fail so they can evolve into online-only news organizations.”
I vote to let Citigroup, AIG, Chrysler and GM fail first. These businesses, unlike newspapers, are being kept alive through repeated injections of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
My bad I guess, but I listen to NPR about as often as I attend meetings of the Anti-Saloon League.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“But we sure would miss the “real” guys, out there doing it with a high level of training and professionalism.”
joe- you can’t possibly be speaking of anyone from our local paper, right? maybe someone from the nytimes, wall street journal et al? and i’m not sure i’d miss any of them either. regardless, whether i read it off a tangible product (i don’t) or on-line, the product is not the ‘paper’ its the ‘journalism,’ as billy (And the articles) state.
it is the forces tied directly to the printed product (unions) that (not surprisingly) want to preserve their jobs and are lobbying to do so. i cannot say i would do different were i in their shoes.
here are some ideas from around the globe: http://www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2009/02/could_a_government_bailout_be_a_short_te.php
while i disagree, a detailed and thoughtful approach to governmental help: http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/journalistic_practice/death_and_life_great_american_2012