Word is out that the San Francisco Chronicle is in "big trouble" and looking at layoffs. That's no big surprise in today's difficult environment for newspapers.
However, a quote at O'Reilly Radar attributed to the paper's editor should raise red flags across the news business:
I hate to play Valleywag, but I'm hearing rumors that the San Francisco Chronicle is in big trouble. Apparently, Phil Bronstein, the editor-in-chief, told staff in a recent "emergency meeting" that the news business "is broken, and no one knows how to fix it." ("And if any other paper says they do, they're lying.") Reportedly, the paper plans to announce more layoffs before the year is out.
It's clear that the news business as we knew it is in trouble. Bringing it home, Peter Lewis and Phil Elmer Dewitt, both well-known tech journalists, were both part of layoffs at Time Warner in January (they worked for Fortune and Time, respectively), and John Markoff remarked to me recently that "every time I talk to my colleagues in print journalism it feels like a wake."
"No one knows how to fix it." That's a stunning revelation. The rise of the blogosphere and other disruptive Web 2.0 technologies like podcasting and RSS have dazed and confused the traditional media.
I'm not arguing these things are easy to handle. But there must be opportunity in all this for news providers if handled right. I can feel it. The key is going to be a willingness to embrace the new technologies and -- most difficult -- let go to old notions and models.
News has never been more compelling as a medium: It's multimedia. It's instantaneous. It can be subscribed to and delivered in new and exciting ways. In short, the product has never been better -- only the business is broken.
Technorati Tags: san francisco chronicle, news, media, newspaper
Let's hope for the newspapers' survival
Frontline had an excellent report on this topic. It's available online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/
Sure, blogs can be entertaining and informative and also serve as excellent PR tools -- but only if they provide unique and credible content that is of value to the reader. But creating such high-quality content takes time, effort and journalistic skill.
It seems that for every good blog, there are hundreds of useless blogs. I call this -- The Blogosphere's Ozonhole-- and it's getting bigger and bigger. I'm afraid it will cause a climate change in journalistic standards. Writers and readers alike are already getting used to short-lived five sentence --articles -- that could eventually completely replace in-depth reporting. Let's hope that newspapers will not become like blogs, because they have to compete with them for readers and advertising dollars. Who will investigate an issue for days or months if there's no audience left for real journalism, which is absolutely indispensable for a democratic society.
Bloggers have a responsibility to fight this erosion of credibility by applying proven journalistic ethics and standards!
Kai, I do agree with you
Kai,
I do agree with you about the need to continue to do in-depth reporting, and upholding journalistic standards of accuracy and honesty are critical.
My gut tells me the issue we face is really one of journalistic delivery, if here is such a term. I've spoken before about the old newspaper story format of:
Now, this is just boring, right? I think TV, radio, newspapers, magazines need to take a step back and ask whether their stories are in sync with what readers and listeners are expecting today. What can be done with the new mediums available now to really enhance the reporting and news consumption experience?
This, I think, is the key to the survivial of the news industry.
BTW, thanks for the Frontline link. I started to look through that report and it's very interesting.
I believe that it is the
I believe that it is the news media's purpose to inform and educate people and to investigate abuse of power by government and businesses. Therefore, the media should stay independent of what readers (and advertisers) are expecting. But I agree that news delivery shouldn't be boring and should take advantage of new technology. I'm mostly concerned that new technology will change reading and reporting habits.
Here's something I came across today:
"No matter how many times Dan Rather screws up, I’m betting on his reporting every time over the blogosphere. The news organizations of the world have facts, data, evidence, copy, budgets, salaries, experts, and most importantly, trust. What does the blogosphere have? Opinions, virtual information, link bait, buddy lists, spam, and the freedom to grab stories from mainstream media and make it their own."
Click for link
In an ideal world, the blogosphere's main purpose would be to check the accuracy of the media's reporting. (That's certainly even more important in countries with state-controlled media.)
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
In an ideal world, the
I'd say opinion, criticism and analysis are also very good roles for the blogosphere.
Importantly, though, there's the potential for great original newsgathering and reporting from the blogosphere. Take a look at Alive in Baghdad, specifically the site's video archive.
This is stuff that just would not make it onto the network news, yet it is real, powerful reporting and tells an important part of the story.
I don't know where this all ends. But anything that can increase the marketplace of ideas is OK by me. Agreed, there's far more potential for bad blogging since the barrier to entry is lower...
However, it also counters the old saw: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses."