Back to the 16th Century

We could all see it coming, we just never expected it to come this quickly. Ink and paper news dailies are disappearing at an alarming rate, and the scramble to come up with the "what's next" has taken on a greater urgency for those of us who care about newspapers, journalism and democracy.

Clay Shirky, who is an expert on the economic effect of the web, decentralized technologies and is an adjunct professor at NYU's Interactive Telecommunications Program, writes that a model will likely emerge, but in our chaotic grasping for answers, and our immersion in the decline of the legacy press, we are simply not able to see what's next yet.

His remarkably cogent argument reaches back to the 16th century just after Gutenberg unleashed the printing press on an unprepared society. The reverberations were stunning, but it took decades before the new model of information, power, social structure and community emerged.

Shirky doesn't believe that any of the models being touted today are realistic, and that the new model will be something totally unpredictable. He points to Craigslist that began as something minor and turned into "a critical piece of the infrastructure."

Shirky doesn't pretend to have the answers. "Nothing will work, but everything might," he writes.

Like many other, Shirky is worried that journalism will be tossed out with the news.

Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.

When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.

Sweating ink

Almost as ubiquitous as gloomy talk about the economy is gloomy talk about the demise of newspapers. You can read it in Time Magazine. You can hear it on NPR.

I've spewed my share of electronic words here about the way in which a combination of forces - corporate ownership, financial constraints, an aging readership, competition from electronic media - have pushed newspapers to, and over the brink.

As a c0-founder of a local newsblog (The Middletown Eye), I'm acutely aware of the failure of the legacy media, and the difficult, if not impossible task, of filling the gap with volunteer community journalists.

I bridle at the accusations, hurled by media analysts, that the news can only be delivered by trained journalists, and that the resulting loss of "objectivity," depth and grasp of the "truth" will doom us to a hobbled democracy.

In fact, objectivity and the truth are slippery concepts which reporters and editors have rarely grasped firmly.

Certainly, "untrained" reporters ought to be aware of the difference between reporting news, and opinion. They should understand that checking facts, and having two (ideally three) sources before printing a fact, is the time-honored path to approaching the "truth." They should know that the facts will save them, and having those facts reported accurately in a notebook and on tape are the way to protect them from accusations of inaccuracy, libel and slander. They should know that there are at least two sides to every story. Reporters should be aware that sophisticated sources will try to spin them, and unsophisticated sources may be so lost in a passionate argument that accuracy falls by the wayside.

Unfortunately, if those rules were followed by the legacy media, we might not be in this mess.

The New York Times bought into the administration selling points prior to the Iraq war. The White House Press was cowed into allowing the Bush administration to lie for eight years. Here at home The Hartford Courant the editorial board endorsed Joe Lieberman, John Rowland and Eddie Perez, even as intrepid reporters were working to reveal the vile political manipulations of these politicians. In my hometown, which the Courant has abandoned, the Middletown Press doesn't even have the horses to cover the basic stories.

All this, to point you to one of the best essays I've read recently on the topic.

In a truly thought-provoking Salon essay, Gary Kamiya posits that it's not only the death of newspapers we should worry about, but the death of reporting.

We need to remember that our founding fathers understood the importance of a free press to a well-regulated democracy. At its most desperate juncture, our local state paper, The Hartford Courant, is focusing a microscope on crooked politicians, venal appointees and incompetent corporations.

We can't afford to lose that microscope, even if all it reveals are the viruses which are making our communities sick.

Life without newspapers

David Folkenflik's two part series on NPR's Morning Edition is well worth listening to.

Part one namechecks The Oldest Continually Published Newpaper in America, the Hartford Courant.

Part two namechecks The New Haven Independent.

Will tomorrow's newspaper be the last?

The future does not look bright for journalism, but at least one analyst, Paul Fahri, thinks journalists are shouldering too much of the blame.

Burning the newspaper

Buried on the inside page of the Business Section of the Hartford Courant this morning is a story about upcoming layoffs at OCPNC (the oldest continuing published newpaper in the country). The Courant is obviously not interested in boasting about their plan.

In several conversations with Courant reporters past and present, there is a pessimism about the future of the paper, and their own futures. And reporters continue to flee, pursuing jobs at foundations, universities, and in local PR and media positions.

"The writing's on the wall," one reporter said to me. When of course, it should be on the pages.

If reporters and editors aren't demoralized, this article will surely pull their morale to a new low.

The article, euphemistically talks about "right-sizing" the paper, and chief operating officer Randy Michaels, expressing doubts about the "efficiency" of reporters has this to say:

"You can eliminate a fair number of people while not eliminating a lot of content."

Which is in line with the Courant's plan of increasing the advertising to editorial content ratio from the current 50-50 to 75-25.

So, in order to make the Courant more vibrant, the Courant is cutting news, cutting reporters and increasing advertising. And that will attract readers in what way?

The Courant, and all US newspapers have been getting their asses kicked by TV for decades, and now the internet has increased the encroachment significantly by providing content nearly instantly, with immediate access. So, how in God's name do publishers feel that by weakening the news content of the paper that they'll increase readership. They may as well do away with all editorial, and follow the model of the Penny Saver advertising supplements. Give the ink and paper away for free at rack in the supermarket.

And don't get the mistaken impression that The Courant is not profitable. It is, and hugely so, but after Sam Zell's structured purchase, which includes "employee ownership," millions of dollars are shipped away every year to pay down debt.

Hint to Courant: take a look at the Register chain of papers and see your future if you keep cutting your own throat to donate blood to advertisers.

So get ready for the "new Courant," so easy to use because you won't have to read it.