Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Shannon Danitz is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Shannon Danitz and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Shannon Danitz is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Shannon Danitz and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
I’m an avid newspaper reader. Sitting down with a cup of coffee and the newspaper is one of my favorite times of the day, but I think I am one of the last of a dying breed of print newspaper readers. More and more people are turning to the Internet for information rather then their daily newspaper.
A Pew Research study found that 40 percent of Americans get most of their national and international news from the Internet, up from just 24 percent in 2007.
The days where the newspaper was the primary source of news for people has passed.
Not only are people getting their information in new ways but the demise of the newspaper industry continues. Denver recently became a one newspaper town when the Rocky Mountain News ceased circulation on February 27. Newspapers in Tuscon and Seattle are up for sale and the San Francico Chronicle may be headed this direction as well. As traditional newspapers continue to struggle to stay relevant, will they be successful? In 10 years, will we be reading a digital version of the newspaper rather than a print version?
Media NewsGroup seems to think that a digital newspaper may be the answer to the newspaper industry’s challenges. They are currently working to develop an “individuated newspaper” or “I-news” with customized content. Readers select the info they want to read about (e.g. fashion, Denver Broncos or technology) and each day they receive a digital newspaper in their inbox containing only the content they want. Even the ads would be customized to your preference. You can then read it on your computer or cellphone or print it off on your home printer. The concept will be tested this summer and depending on its success, full roll out in certain markets could occur within a year.
While only time will tell if this concept resonates with readers, I can tell you one thing: I may be the last of a dying breed but I’m not ready to give up my morning coffee and print newspaper (newsprint fingers and all). So I hope the newspaper industry finds a way to stay relevant (and in print form) in a digital world. And, I don’t think “I-News” is the answer.
~S
I'm curious if there's anything beyond nostalgia that makes you want newspapers to stick around? I too enjoy buying a paper once in a blue moon with a cup of coffee at Starbucks... but in the face of digital media, newspapers are woefully inadequate as providers of news. By the time the paper hits your doorstep, a significant number of the stories found therein have been updated and expanded upon online -- enough to make the dead tree in your lawn fairly out of fate before you've even opened it. When you look at newspaper companies' books and see how oppressive the cost of printing and distribution is on them, it just doesn't make sense. It won't be an easy transition (significant layoffs, lost investments, etc.), but it's a necessary one for their survival. When people have better (free) alternatives online, newspapers are going to have to either evolve or go the way of the Rocky Mountain News.
Shannon, I wrote about this EXACT topic on Monday over at my blog. I heard Mike and Mike discussing it this morning on ESPN and they shared the same sentiments that you did on this. The 'routine' and 'tradition' a newspaper can bring. But beyond that nostalgia, is there anything else we are holding on to? I do not think we are seeing th overall death of newspapers, rather, as with other medias (and this is something I've discussed all week: newspapers, movies, books, and music - and the effect technology has on each) there has to be some adaptation and integration with an online format. People want more immediate reporting of news stories, and more importantly, people WANT TO BE INVOLVED in what they are reading. Online news outlets provide a forum of discussion for instantaneous response and reaction - something people are desperately hungry for in this day and age.
At the core, bloggers and online journalists still draw much of their inspiration from printed resources, at least at the root of it all. So I don't think we will see them become entirely obsolete (as it would appear physical CD's will be eventually thanks to MP3 downloads. But, it will be crucial for survival that newspapers integrate and develop online presences in order to stay afloat.
I encourage you to check out my blog, I've highlighted this all week - would love to hear more of your thoughts!
As sad as it is to say I think newspapers are slowly but surely going to be eliminated. Probably not the same with magazines or with books, but I think it's become too easy and efficient to get news on the internet, and keeping it in print is just wasteful. Especially since I can get the news on my phone pretty much whenever I want it then it doesn't make sense, at least to me, to keep it in print.
Here's an article that I came across the other day that talks about 10 major newspapers that will either disappear or go completely digital - http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090309/us_time/08599188378500
I agree with the commenters above. My parents still order a newspaper or two every day - they like to read it at the breakfast table for a bit before going to work, and they take it with them to read on the bus ride to work. My parents aren't necessarily internet savvy yet. But our generation? We're entirely digital. When I wake up, the first thing I'm going to check for news is my google reader, twitter feed, and online newspapers I like. I don't have a Blackberry/iphone but if I did, I could read all the news on my phone. I don't even order newspapers anymore because I get so much great information online. As time passes, the internet is going to take over the news. And I just don't think it makes sense for newspapers to spend so much money on print news - it just isn't efficient for them. They'll have to figure out new and better ways of making money online.
Books and magazines probably are going to stay for quite a while..but newspapers? I'm not so sure.
While I definitely see what the commenters above are saying, I'd like to suggest that nostalgia is not the reason why people still read newspapers, or at least for me it isn't.
I also love my cup of coffee and the paper and the reason why I love them is because I prefer to read things in print form. I of course read blogs and other forms of web media online but I find staring at a screen reading things like books and newspaper articles very uncomfortable. I've also found that when I read the news in paper format it is more engaging, I tend to read moer and notice more and feel a lot more engaged.
When I read articles online I find I'm much more distracted by other things going on on my screen and I just generally feel a lot less relaxed.
Relaxation is important to me which is why I will choose to read papers in print and books in non-e-book format for as long as I possibly can... with my coffee... in my favourite cafe.
I'd also like to point out that I don't think the slow update really matters that much. I mean it does on some things but on many others it doesn't which explains the continuing popularity of magazines like the Economist and TIME(which are printed on a weekly basis). I'd say 90% of news stories do not change on an hourly basis and newspapers also contain very interesting opinion pieces and editorials that are still just as valid 5, 10, even 20 hours after having been written.
Also the sports results stay the same :P
I think Alexander is the exception and agree with the other commenters. More importantly I think it's a structural issue. Right now, newspaper columnists get paid a good salary to write maybe one column a week with possibly a few other miscellaneous tasks. They tend to get great benefits, can work flexible hours or work from home, and often retire with a pension. I think much like people complain about the UAW dragging down the auto industry, this class of newspaper employee is dragging down the newspaper industry. I think in the future you'll see an employment model where people have multiple "jobs" and one of them might be writing/blogging for major news outlets on a contract basis. I think many of us who enjoy writing about things we are passionate about or knowledgeable about would leap at the opportunity to do that, I think it would give news sources a better sense of community, and more importantly lower the operating costs significantly to the actual NEWS news (where on the street reporting is necessary) and editors with other sections taken up my freelancers. I think there will still be some form of print newspapers around for a while, and part of what we're going through now might just be a consolidation. They say there were too many banks, maybe there were too many newspapers. After local markets get cut down to a reasonable amount of competition again that will help.
I side with the majority here - Akhila, I agree with you here 100%. Our parents are still (for the most part) who appreciate and read a printed newspaper daily. But our generation and future generations will be so intertwined with the web that eventually the newspaper will become obsolete. Anything I can find in a newspaper I can find online - and who's to say it isn't relaxing to sit down with your laptop and read some news stories - and then, on top of that, get involved with the story, comment, discuss, etc. Technology is paving the way for fully integrated and interactive involvement and discussion. The way we receive information is constantly changing, adapting, and getting to us faster and faster. It will be a while, but eventually I believe printed newspapers will cease to exist.
There 3 differences between online news and print news:
1. The medium - print vs electronic. I think that print has the edge right now, but with the advent of e-paper, electronic will win out. Cheap e-readers (think $20 or less) with large displays will be as easy to read as paper.
2. The immediacy - online wins this one. You can't print breaking news on paper.
3. In-depth - newspapers win this one. How often do you see in-depth stories on MSNBC.com? Rarely. How about in-depth local stories? Never. Newspapers take the time to do the research, something that bloggers and online services rarely, if ever, do.
I'm a nerd and I love technology, but I still keep my subscription to the Dallas Morning News.
I beg to differ on your third point. Yes, it might not all be in one central place as is with a newspaper, but news on the web has much more of an ability to go in-depth. Multiple sources, plus adding in the factor of commenting and interactivity - I believe you can get a much more in depth and 'complete' story on the web.
Thank you to everyone for their responses to my blog post. When I wrote this, it was sort of a personal rant that I never thought would elicit the intelligent conversation that it did. I'm glad that this issue really resonates with others out there. As a member of Gen Y, I know that I am the minority. While I get a lot of my news online, I still want to have the option to read the paper. Call me greedy, but I want the best of both worlds.
Unfortunately, I think most that those of you that are predicting the demise of the newspaper industry are correct. The newspaper business model is simply outdated and unsustainable for the future. The New York Times even wrote an article on it yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/media/12papers.html?pagewante...).
I guess I am going to have to get used to getting all my news online but until then, I am going to enjoy my good ol' print newspaper!
Thanks again for all the great thoughts.
I agree with Scott, when it comes to covering stories in-depth, newspapers win. Breaking news, sure online wins, but frankly I'll tune to CNN for that--online or TV. In any case, there is much more to news than what's breaking--a heck of a lot more. Faster is faster, but not always better.
Newspapers are much better for reflection and deeper thought--it's quieter. Now that may seem funny to you, but once you think about it, it's true. I also find that by going through a newspaper I discover stories I wouldn't find by going to places like NYTimes.com or sites like Yahoo. Turning the pages, going slowly over the headlines and articles, etc., I get a much broader view of the world--all in one place.
This is not to say, of course, that I don't go online for news. I do, a lot. Again, there are some things that online can do that newspapers can't touch.
The bigger question, it seems, is who is going to pay for the news. There has to come a point where Online newspapers are going to have to charge. Someone has to pay for the reporting, the research and the editing that's being done--locally, nationally and internationally. Blogs are fine for opinion, but not always for facts. In any case, most bloggers get their news from places like NYTimes.com & LATimes.com. Even broadcast news, because they don't have the staff, get most of their news leads from newspapers.
I'm wondering, if all the newspapers started charging for online content--let's say on a normal subscription basis, would you pay for it?
@DC : Yes I would pay for it online, but that's easy to say because I'm already paying for a subscription to the paper.
Don’t judge based on popularity or blind reciprocity, instead make sure they “get it” and just as importantly, that their followers “get it”. More...
3 people have recommended this.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Email
Print
