Bad news and an opportunity
Newspaper circulations are down. That’s a lot like saying “the sky is blue.”
Why should this be?
That question is not easy to answer largely because the “problem” is so complex. I assume in this case that falling circulation is a problem because good journalism–the kind that gives citizens the information they need to be free and self-governing–is nearly exclusively practiced by journalists who work for newspapers–although journalists often fail to meet this primary purpose. (Citizen efforts are becoming an effective adjunct.)
I ask “why should this be” because journalism–as a product of human effort–is such a necessary thing to acquire. But this value that I see in it is apparently not shared by the majority of my fellow Americans.
Certain things we do know: A lot of the stuff newspapers have tried to stop the bleeding has not worked. And a lot of the “bright” ideas on the horizon are probably not going to work either–seeing as how much of them are more of the same.
My interest here is not to save newspapers. That dead-tree technology will soon become marginal in the delivery of journalism (although paper isn’t going away completely). What has to happen is that newspaper journalism must find an effective new medium. I don’t think that’s as simple as moving news operations to the internet. I’m thinking the day is coming when the computer and the home-theater will become a single, interactive appliance. Americans will primarily receive (and produce) their information and entertainment with this appliance. I have no idea how the business model will (or should or could) work.
Newspapers will not go away. Some may even thrive. The ones that do thrive, I believe, will be those that use a multi-media approach to do two things: 1) Deliver serious local journalism, and 2) Create a networked community of citizens who use and produce journalism.
