« Your new BFF | Main | Xeroxing the brain »

Thank you, Ron Rosenbaum

November 12, 2008

Our Resident Philistine receives his due.

UPDATE: Writing in the most recent issue of the American Journalism Review, Paul Farhi provided a thoughtful assessment of what's killing the newspaper trade. After reviewing the broad economic trends that are undermining the fortunes of the news business (both in print and online), he asks:

Could smarter reporting, editing and photojournalism have made a difference? Can a spiffy new Web site or paper redesign win the hearts of readers? Surely, they can't hurt. But if we, and our critics, were realistic, we'd admit that much is beyond our control, and that insisting otherwise is vain. As British media scholar and author Adrian Monck put it in an essay about the industry's troubles earlier this year: "The crops did not fail because we offended the gods."

His piece provides a good counterweight to the nostrums of ORP and his ilk, which often seem to boil down to: "If we don't kill journalism, it'll die."

UPDATE: On another related note, I thought Nick Denton's recent advice to online media outfits was revealing:

Get out of categories such as politics to which advertisers are averse. That's easier for us to say since we spun off Wonkette earlier this year. And outfits such as the Huffington Post and most big-city newspapers—defined by their political coverage—will have difficulty redefining themselves. But media groups cannot afford in the current environment to fund their most noble missions; they should leave that to public-spirited non-profits such as Pro Publica.

I sense a ruefulness under the surface - well under the surface - of Denton's words. (His advice, incidentally, illustrates my own assessment of how the new economics of news will over the long run shape what's covered.)

Posted by nick at November 12, 2008 10:43 PM

Advertisement: Are you ready for "The Big Switch"? Nicholas Carr's new book "is the best read so far about the significance of the shift to cloud computing," says the Financial Times. The Independent says it's "lucid and mind-boggling." Order now from Amazon.com.

Comments

As long as newspapers continue to alienate and ignore about half of their potential "customer base" they will continue to die. It is probably already too late.

Besides, there's virtually nobody at traditional newsrooms who has the first clue about how to accomplish this. They simply cannot imagine it. But they'll have time in the soup kitchens to work on their imagination.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 14, 2008 02:17 PM

Matthew Ingram is doing some very interesting things at the Globe & Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, that could show the old media news the way to go in the future ...

Posted by: John Koetsier at November 16, 2008 09:01 PM

Fahri's article mentions but downplays the debt issue. Many newspapers earn 10-20 percent margins (this from a recent NY Times story). Under normal circumstances, 10-20 percent margins are super. However, because so many papers have been acquired over the last decade or so via highly leveraged, high-debt deals, those profits are simply insufficient to fill the gaping debt maw. We heard this repeatedly from Sam Zell at Tribune Co., culminating with the recent bankruptcy -- which had everything to do with the debt Zell took on.

To be sure, many newspapers offer weak content. But it all comes back to the dire need to pay off the debt. The owners lay off staff to pinch a few pennies, and naturally, quality suffers. Typically, it's the most experienced editors/reporters who go first. That saves more money than laying off the newbies, but it also hurts quality more. By and large, you don't see this at newspapers free of leveraged debt.

Posted by: Peter at December 23, 2008 03:28 PM

Thank you, Ron Rosenbaum

November 12, 2008

Comments

Post a comment

Greatest hits

Other writing

Rough Type is: