Vlad Jecan

At the 2006 Nieman conference themed “Newspaper’s Survival” at Harvard University, editors, print and online journalists have discussed the future of newspapers and traditional newsrooms. Almost all speakers have started their presentation with the following statement: newspapers are in big trouble. Indeed, it is known that that print has lost considerable terrain due to the rise of the Internet. However, this may be the most serious crisis newspapers find themselves in, but it is not the first. In the 60s “the television began eroding their audience”[1].

Nevertheless, newspapers have survived. Back then, original journalistic genres have emerged and offered the audience a complete new experience. For example, the introduction of the factual fiction current, better known as narrative journalism, gave newspaper readers a whole new experience. Thanks to the fine writings of innovators like Martha Gellhorn, Truman Capote and others, readers have successfully received the new in news reporting. In other words, and to put it short, print journalism has adapted to the new.

Today, it seems that every solution proposed by editors and scholars of journalism is or becomes at some point superfluous. Still, whose fault is it? Why do newspapers decline? Various reasons are invoked in this matter. However, as Tim Porter said during the Nieman conference, it may very well be that editors and newsroom managers “are as responsible for the decline in readership and relevance of newspapers as any of the other bugaboos cited routinely as contributing causes – the Internet, pesky bloggers, disinterested youth, and that Craig guy from San Francisco.”[2] Perhaps editors and writers alike do no longer understand the core principles of journalism, which are, as everyone knows, truth and objectivity. By assuming these principles, a journalist will earn the trust of the reader. Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., doesn’t see a grey future for journalism, but acknowledges that it is “limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers.”[3]

I have to agree with both Murdoch and Porter. With the first because a journalist fights for credibility and in time may have his or her own experience. This also goes for newspapers, especially. I agree with Tim Porter because during my line of work, I was ordered, despite my protests, to update the newspaper’s website with the same news that was available in the print version. It is silly to offer the same thing both free and paid. Who in the world would pay for something that can also have for free? Nobody, or at least nobody who knows that the same product is also available for free. In consequence and as more people began reading news on the web, sales have fallen dramatically and so did the number of advertisers interested in the newspaper. The other question is: didn’t the website’s number of visitors increase? It did, of course, but as Rupert Murdoch said during an interview, “No websites make serious money.”[4]

As the newspaper may not adapt to the new, some voices appeared in the American press saying that the government should subsidize failing print publications. Former LA Time columnist and now adviser to the U.S. undersecretary of Defense for policy, Rosa Brooks wrote in her last piece for the aforementioned publication that “if we’re willing to use taxpayer money to build roads, pay teachers and maintain a military; if we’re willing to bail out banks and insurance companies and failing automakers, we should be willing to part with some public funds to keep journalism alive too”[5] This statement unveils one interesting issue. Just like Steve Buttry wrote on his blog “journalists must be watchdogs and no dog bites the hand that feeds it.”[6] Indeed, how can journalists remain loyal to truth and objectivity when they cannot keep in check the government’s activities?

No tax payer money can save newspapers or, at a higher level, journalism. Only the editors, writers and media personnel can offer changes to adapt to the new. For example, Foreign Policy Magazine has two different versions for online and print issue. The first is composed of a series of blogs written by individuals with authority in the field, it also offers exclusive materials to loyal online readers while the print edition hasn’t changed that much in the last years. It offers completely different content, it is thematic and, of course, has built trust with its readers. There are other similar examples, Wired, The Christian Science Monitor among others, all of which publish exclusive material for either the print or online (it must be mentioned that The Christian Science Monitor no longer has a print edition).

Therefore, if newspapers are to survive, they need to adapt in such a way that enhances the reader’s experience while reading the print or the online edition. The journalist must once again focus on the reader and trust building.

It may also be just a matter of trend settings. Perhaps there is a general view among news consumers of different age that newspapers are outmoded or outdated. However, if all newspapers are to vanish would we miss them eventually? Personally I would, and I was never seriously interested in newspapers – I have no newspaper subscriptions for that matter, but for time to time I feel the need to buy one just to read “the real thing”. Of course, buying newspapers occasionally won’t save the industry but may keep it outside the journalism museum.

---

[1] Porter, Tim, If Newspapers Are to Rise Again, Nieman Reports, Vol. 60, No. 1, Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 4

[2] Ibidem, p. 4

[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574570191223415268.html January 7th. 2:34 PM

[4] The interview is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI

[5] http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,1,4863536.column January 7 – 3:01 PM

[6] http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/five-reasons-government-shouldnt-subsidize-journalism/ January 7 – 3:20 PM