Whither Newspapers?

I've been hearing criticisms of the redesign of the San Francisco Chronicle, folks saying they've dumbed down to looking more like USA Today. This got me thinking again about the future of newspapers.

Yep, it's a tough call. What is a newspaper anyway - something physical, pure intellectual property, or something in between?

I've been following this topic for the last few years with great interest (not the the least of which is that the parent company of my employer is the New York Times). Even the Wall Street Journal, one of the publications to get away with a pay-for-most-of-the-content model, is starting to bleed. And that's even with Rupert Murdoch calling the shots - you may disagree with some of his policies, but he's nobody's fool, a very smart newspaperman.

One good source of news about the current media transition is the daily email blast from Romenesko, one of my favorite media sites. It has lots of "inside journalism" tidbits. You can see some very smart people struggling with the changing times, as well as some real idiots who won't ever get it. This sort of shift has taken places in many industries over the last 150 years, as technological innovations open new ways to do business, and also put the end to many once-mighty institutions. The difference here is that so much of our democracy depends on a well-informed public, and many are wary that the loss of newspapers will have an adverse effect. My feeling is that real journalists will always have a job, it just may be in a different form than they have now.

For an interesting read, take a look at this Q&A from Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times.

He definitely understands what's going on, and makes some very good points about different business models that are being tried right now. A sharp guy with a good sense of humor, and a lot of vision. But even the good folks at the Times are having a difficult time with the present situation. To their credit, they've not cut back much on the important issues, like quality journalists, good editing, and foreign bureaus. He outlines some good points about how going 100% online probably wouldn't work out very well. But with out quality, authoritative sources for news, the Huffington Posts of the world, who deal more in comment and reaction, would be a pale shell of themselves.

It's similar to the plight of the television networks; 60 years ago, there was no economic way to be in the television business without having total control of the audience. You were forced to be at a certain place at a certain time to watch something, but the Internet has changed all that. With online news, it isn't just dished out once a day, but is a continuous process. That $10 Sunday paper is obsolete in many ways. However, reading a newspaper is a different experience than reading online. The reader is much more focused on the news, and less distracted by the other aspects of being online. I find it a more satisfying experience. But that's just me - my children have little affection for the paper version, not having it ever be as an important part of their lives as it was for preceding generations.

And a philosophical question - sure the Chronicle is being chided for looking more like USA Today, but ask yourself this - who is going to be the next generation of readers who will keep it going? The small percentage of design-wise hipsters like us, or the far greater majority of those who actually like the presentation of USA Today? No matter what they do, though, physical newspapers must make sense as a business, which is increasingly difficult due to the costs of production and distribution.