DISQUS

Rob Hyndman · 3 years ago

Some interesting comments from Antonia today:

http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/01/this_one...

Does all of this have anything to do with "the demise of tough and independent journalism"? I'm not sure, as far as newspapers are concerned. For my part, a good part of it is preferring the alternative forms of information delivery out there now. But I do think the point is relevant to TV journalism - now a vaste wasteland.

Mathew · 3 years ago

I agree, Rob. But at the same time, I think Antonia's post is a bit of a red herring, or a straw man (choose your favourite metaphor). We all love tough, independent journalism -- but I don't think it has to come only from the traditional media (I can't stand the term mainstream media).

I think bloggers have done a pretty good job digging out the facts on the Bush government and with the war -- better in many cases than the traditional media. And they've also done a pretty good job of monitoring the failings of one of the shining examples of traditional media, the New York Times, which has failed in several different ways to uphold those principles, from Jayson Blair to Judith Miller.

As for feeding off the traditional media, some blogs do that -- and some newspapers feed off the wire services, and blogs, and even television for that matter. It's not like newspapers are the lions and blogs are the parasites -- there are plenty of lion blogs and newspaper parasites, and everything in between. And that's a good thing.

Stuart MacDonald · 3 years ago

After he wrote a column on the future of newspapers (which, ironically I read online), I had a brief exchange with David Olive at The Star on the topic (you might say, "gee, Stuie, you must have a lot of time on your hands" to which I would have to say "uh huh"). Let me just quote from what I wrote to him:

"...the change to digital, anywhere, anytime publishing can mean a very bright future for those publishers who choose to really work at it and adapt. The combination of editorial oversight, quality writing and depth of coverage, wrapped in a brand name people know and trust, should be a recipe for success.

That is, if the publishing companies are willing to make the changes necessary to make that future happen. Publishing in the future will be a very different beast than it has been historically.

The real question is whether they *will* adapt. It surely gives new meaning to the phrase “publish or perish�."

So will they adapt? Mathew, you'd have the insight here. I think they have their work cut out for them. From my limited knowledge on the topic, newsrooms are meant to be political, ego-driven places steeped in the gravitas that is the burden of the truth (yada yada ;-)). So Stike One is lack of organizational openness to change. Then, you have reduced ad revenue where it really counts, classifieds, kindness of Craig and Meg. Not to mention display ads and reduced paid circulation. Strike Two.

I wouldn't have to dig far to propose Strike Three (new media broadly, blogs, RSS, wireless da da da...). Am I wrong?

-- Stuart

Mathew · 3 years ago

I wish I could say -- or at least argue persuasively -- that you are wrong on any of those points, but I'm afraid I can't. Perhaps the hardest one to overcome is Strike One -- the cultural rigor (as in rigor mortis) that tends to keep newspapers and the managers of same doing the same things in pretty much the same old way, despite their repeated protests that they really want to change.

Change is easy to talk about but harder to do -- and you can't just say you believe in it, you have to feel it, deep down in your bones, like a condemned man feels the threat of the noose. I'm not sure papers are there yet (although some are closer than others). That would be enough on its own, but as you point out there are also Strikes Two and Three, which are bleeding away readers and financial resources where it counts. The clock on the bomb is ticking, but we're still trying to figure out what time it is.