Printed media malaise makes my Major malfunction

[Blake Noble]

Chances are you don't keep tabs on the financial shape of the newspaper industry. Newspapers have literally been around for centuries so it's only sort of natural to assume that they'll never go away, that if you're somehow left as the lone survivor of a nuclear holocaust in the year 2061 you'll easily find a paper copy of the New York Times laying around amidst all of the cockroaches and Volkswagen Beetles. Since the newspaper is somehow the most resilient form of media, there's no need to really worry about it going anywhere and therefore no one should give a damn about what shape the newspaper industry is in financially.

I personally have a reason to give a damn since I recently decided to try for a degree in journalism. It seems, though, that I might be giving a damn just a little too late and going for this degree at exactly the wrong time.

Before I go any further let me say that I do understand that the digital and internet age is sparking a revolutionary change to come about in the news industry as whole, not just with the newspaper industry. I actually became aware of some form of change coming about not from an interest in journalism, but from my short time studying Graphic Design (because, let's face it, journalists typically don't care what layouts or fonts are used to print what they write). Regarding what would come about, I was personally thinking that someone within the newspaper industry would adapt and cook up a bold, new business model that would somehow fully integrate traditional, possibly purchased print media with the various internet channels we have today. The industry would remain secure and true journalism would continue on and I could find a honest career doing something I like.

Well, I'm starting to think was wrong. Dead friggin' wrong. Dead friggin' wrong about everything. I'm also wondering if I've somehow been living under a huge ass rock as well.

Why the sudden pessimism? Reuters wrote up and handed out an article yesterday that printed media giant Lee Enterprises (owners of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after racking up a billion bucks in debt. This news is also coming right on the heels of the news that The Tribune Company (owners of the LA Times) filed for bankruptcy only six days ago.

Hear that? That's the sound of my goddamn head repeatedly bouncing off of a brick wall.

While that might almost be the coup-de-grace of me working towards a journalism degree, I also recently discovered that no one really wants to advertise in a newspaper and, as a result, there's an increased likelihood that a newspaper will have to cut a journalist's pay -- even a journalist's job -- to make up for it's lack in liquid funds. That last article is from September, too. How big was that rock again and why do my eyes hurt from the light?

The more I've educated myself about this industry, the more I've learned that it and, ostensibly, the field of journalism are actually both afraid of change and reluctant to at least accept it. Instead, everyone has been running around with their fingers shoved in their ears to the point where they could almost tickle their own brains, disregarding the various internet and digital news channels as nothing more than fads. It's the same f@#king malaise the music industry has been gorging itself on for over a decade now. And it's screwing me out of making a living at something I'm actually decent at doing, actually making me feel ashamed I wanted to have anything to do with it.

I think I feel my forehead bleeding, but I don't think I'm going to stop.

"What about magazines?" you might ask. "That industry is probably still doing okay and journalists can still get jobs there, right?" Nope. It's just more of the same since, of course, newspapers and magazines are pretty much tied to one another. As with a newspaper, a magazine is printed media. You have to buy a magazine the same way you have to buy a newspaper: with money. And no one's going to pay for it when it's online for free and it offers no major or instantaneous benefits over its digital counterpart.

This is also not to mention that digital sources of news are always far more current and up-to-date on what's going in the world. Magazines are only good for a weekly to monthly span of time. Newspapers are usually good only for the day you bought them and are always a day behind on current events. After that it's clutter, only good enough to burn in your fireplace. Forget about a hard copy of anything as a source of backup.

So, no, there's little chance the newspaper industry is going to revolutionize itself with enough time to get out of the fire. Classified ads have been replaced by Craigslist. The Local Times is being replaced with blog after blog after blog. The industry and profession refused to change and now it's paying the price, literally. The coming year will only bring about more bad news for journalists and aspiring journalists alike. Expect more bankruptcies for the main course with big lay-offs for the side dish.

It's only a matter of time before the 6 o'clock news is replaced with a YouTube channel.

Edited December 13, 2011 by black-knight

[FAPTurbo]

Your first mistake is thinking that journalism is narrowly limited to newspapers and printed media. At least mainstream outlets. Every hobby, every trade, every business has a 'trade publication.' They're lucrative.

Your second mistake is not remembering that people need information. It's a commodity. People require news to conduct their lives. Journalists are always needed.

Mistake number three... is 'free.' News outlets made the mistake of putting their material online for free. That's now changing with 'pay-walls.' People will pay for news, even those accustomed to free news.

Blogs are generally not journalism. Most are run by so-called 'citizen journalists' that don't adhere to journalism's tenets. Who has more credibility? Some blogger? Or a proper news organization? People respect journalists because we provide (in most cases) informed, unbiased articles, structured in an easy to digest way.

Ad revenues are down due to the economy. Fewer people spending equals fewer retail ads. But newspaper advertising is far more effective than web advertising which does NOT generate money. Web services lose money.

Finally, journalism is not just limited to media. It can be applied to: PR agenices for corporations, and advertising. Even government relations with public/private sectors.

TL:DR - Journalists are gatekeepers of information. We sift through the chaff and we tell the public what they need to know. Journalism will never go away - it has existed since early Chinese/Roman Empires and has been a necessity to anyone wishing to conduct their life effectively since the shipping news. Don't panic.

Edit: We spent a lot of time on these subjects in the program I was in. I am scanning my material over the winter, and I will send you some PDF's on this very topic. The points of view are from journalists themselves.

[Blake Noble]

Your first mistake is thinking that journalism is narrowly limited to newspapers and printed media.

Thinking in the parameters of major outlets (i.e. employers) for journalists outside of television, that's all I'm seeing. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Is it radio, maybe? I have reasons to not be optimistic about radio.

I must be missing something, or at least I hope.

Your second mistake is not remembering that people need information. It's a commodity. People require news to conduct their lives. Journalists are always needed.

I can't argue that fact, but I wasn't trying to argue it in the first place. If I did, it was a byproduct of whatever the hell it was that I just wrote (a yellow musing?).

That said, I will say this: journalists are needed, but who's going to hire them? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I've said it before, I don't want to graduate with a degree only to wind up flipping burgers. I'd rank that fear right up there with something like dying alone.

Mistake number three... is 'free.' News outlets made the mistake of putting their material online for free. That's now changing with 'pay-walls.' People will pay for news, even those accustomed to free news.

I wouldn't count on pay-walls being all that successful. They're to news outlets what the iTunes store is to the music industry (I hate to keep making that comparison, but the parallels are too strong for me to ignore). Sure, you'll have people who will still buy it digitally given the option, but I think the number of people who will seek it out for free in comparison will still be larger.

[Blake Noble]

Blogs are generally not journalism. Most are run by so-called 'citizen journalists' that don't adhere to journalism's tenets. Who has more credibility? Some blogger? Or a proper news organization? People respect journalists because we provide (in most cases) informed, unbiased articles, structured in an easy to digest way.

I can't respond to this one without opening up another can of worms: where can you find pure journalism? Pure journalism for the masses that the masses will actually read?

What journalism that people mainly come in contact with anymore all seems so diluted and very little of it anymore adheres to any of the basic guidelines. It's all biased anymore to a degree, sometimes larger rather than smaller. It all has to reach out and rip the reader's nuts off so that they'll pay enough attention to what you've wrote to keep reading it and keep coming back to read it. Sometimes you have to do that by whatever means you can. The undiluted facts bore people to tears unless you find some angle, some sort of jive that you can use to spice them up with. That's why more idiots tune into Faux News than CSPAN. That's why people would rather hear something from Reuters or the Associated Press from a source other than Reuters or the AP.

Honestly, what I see these "citizen-journalists" write over on Autoblog isn't much different than what I've seen actual journalists over at Car and Driver write, just as an example.

The lines have all blurred.

Then there's churnalism on top of all of that, which has become nearly unavoidable in the digital age.

Ad revenues are down due to the economy. Fewer people spending equals fewer retail ads. But newspaper advertising is far more effective than web advertising which does NOT generate money. Web services lose money.

Declining readership also has to play a role.

TL:DR - Journalists are gatekeepers of information. We sift through the chaff and we tell the public what they need to know. Journalism will never go away - it has existed since early Chinese/Roman Empires and has been a necessity to anyone wishing to conduct their life effectively since the shipping news. Don't panic.

TL;DR - While I don't disagree with anything you wrote, I still have doubts and my head is still spinning. It's late, too, so maybe I can regroup and be more level headed in the morning after a night's rest.

[FAPTurbo]

You're thinking small. Let's cut out the newspapers and weekly magazines. You still have monthly mainstream magazines, but also trade publications. Every industry from mining to milking cattle has a publication. Government requires people with journalism experience for PR, research, and advice. Private corporations need PR, as well as advertising and product promotion - who better to interact with journalists, than a person trained in journalism? These are just off the top of my head at 1:30am.

Media companies will not go away. Journalists will get work. What journalists need to do is adapt. Move to a job, or find a different career in the meantime. You'll be happy to know that many small towns have their own daily papers and often need employees. But you may need to move for that to happen.

My capital city has an outlet entirely owned by the journalists. It's essentially a co-operative. Chicago has a co-op that do their own stories then sell them to the major outlets. In both situationsm people get paid but there are no corporate overseers. Those may soon be the future.

Remember, piracy has shrunk with the advent of iTunes and other services. People will pay for their news. Unlike iTunes' music, news is necessary. Anyone who turns 25 needs to know about the world around them. They'll pay for information if it can't be had for free. Imagine conducting your life without information? It'd be impossible.

I can't speak for America's media institutions. But my country's media outlets, save for a couple small ones, are gray. There is no bias in good journalism. There is bad journalism, where one side of a story is ignored but that is due to sloppiness or lack of time. We aim to be objective.

Autoblog isn't journalism. They rely on snark, and outlets like C&D have realized that is what's needed to get hits. Plus, I would bet most of their writers have had no formal journalistic training. Much of their writing is terrible.

But the lines are not blurred when it comes to proper media. At BBC you will see a reporter try to get every angle as possible. Then, they will fact-check. Then, they will consult an editor. Then, their editor will fact-check, then the article is sent to copy-editing, and so on. Contrast that with a blog by some numbnuts who regurgitates what he hears and overdramatizes it.

When I get those documents scanned, I will send them to you as PDF's. They will help bring another perspective. I can try to get some of them done by tomorrow.

[Robert Hall]

Printed media has been dying for over a decade...nothing new...newspaper content has moved to the web, magazines have been moving to the web and PDF or eBook formats. This will continue to grow. Newspaper organizations will still need journalists to write the articles for the websites, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

I am not in any way a journalist... nor am I in print media, I work for a large energy firm during the day... yet here I am with press credentials.

[Camino LS6]

It's all a case of transition - in this case a transition to something largely unknown.

What you have interpreted as being "too late", may in fact be very early. How journalism will adapt to the realities of today and tomorrow is still being sorted out. But, as Fappy has pointed out, the need will always be there.

The panic and confusion you are feeling today is simply a reflection of changing times in the face of new realities. Yes, it is likley to be messy for some time yet. However, if you dedicate yourself to the discipline of journalism now, you may get to see all of the changes from the inside.

What better position to be in when things solidify?

[Drew Dowdell]

I just want to point out that this is the PERFECT time to be an independent journalist. You can self publish in many ways and make good money doing so.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Newspapers will still exist, but it'll be on a community level.

And that's where thy need o 'seize the day' and establish themselves before it's too late.

In today's media oligopoly, it is exceptionally hard to find local news and I (and most others IMO) would MUCH rather read about things that directly affect us as opposed to who Charlie Sheen is f*****g this week.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Olds has a point here about freelancing, and it's not just applicable to journalism either. There's a lot of meat on the bone for consultants these days as many smaller to mid-size companies are phasing out certain in-house departments and hiring consultants when they are needed to cut back on overhead.

[Blake Noble]

You're thinking small. Let's cut out the newspapers and weekly magazines. You still have monthly mainstream magazines, but also trade publications. Every industry from mining to milking cattle has a publication. Government requires people with journalism experience for PR, research, and advice. Private corporations need PR, as well as advertising and product promotion - who better to interact with journalists, than a person trained in journalism? These are just off the top of my head at 1:30am.

Media companies will not go away. Journalists will get work. What journalists need to do is adapt. Move to a job, or find a different career in the meantime. You'll be happy to know that many small towns have their own daily papers and often need employees. But you may need to move for that to happen.

My capital city has an outlet entirely owned by the journalists. It's essentially a co-operative. Chicago has a co-op that do their own stories then sell them to the major outlets. In both situations people get paid but there are no corporate overseers. Those may soon be the future.

Remember, piracy has shrunk with the advent of iTunes and other services. People will pay for their news. Unlike iTunes' music, news is necessary. Anyone who turns 25 needs to know about the world around them. They'll pay for information if it can't be had for free. Imagine conducting your life without information? It'd be impossible.

I can't speak for America's media institutions. But my country's media outlets, save for a couple small ones, are gray. There is no bias in good journalism. There is bad journalism, where one side of a story is ignored but that is due to sloppiness or lack of time. We aim to be objective.

Autoblog isn't journalism. They rely on snark, and outlets like C&D have realized that is what's needed to get hits. Plus, I would bet most of their writers have had no formal journalistic training. Much of their writing is terrible.

But the lines are not blurred when it comes to proper media. At BBC you will see a reporter try to get every angle as possible. Then, they will fact-check. Then, they will consult an editor. Then, their editor will fact-check, then the article is sent to copy-editing, and so on. Contrast that with a blog by some numbnuts who regurgitates what he hears and overdramatizes it.

When I get those documents scanned, I will send them to you as PDF's. They will help bring another perspective. I can try to get some of them done by tomorrow.

You've given me a new angle to chew on.

In fact, all of these posts in this thread since last night have given me something new to chew on.

While I'm going to proceed with caution, that still means I'm still going to proceed as planned. For now.

Regarding iTunes, though, and that strong opinion I have about about "pay-walls" and services like that ... I personally don't think piracy has shrunk that much because of them. Hell, there's a site out there now that's devoted to showing you just how much of a pirate you are (I can't remember the name of it, but I'll try to track down the url).

When you work for money that's pretty much worthless in an economy on the verge of total meltdown, people are going to look at ways to cut corners and grab as much free and discounted crap as they can possibly get their hands on.

Ninety-nine cents might buy you the hot new single from some crappy pop artist that crappy Hot 100 radio station is playing fifteen times a day, but ninety-nine cents will also buy you a Monterrey Ranch Crispy Chicken sandwich from Wendy's. People are going to spend that change on food versus spending it on iTunes, but I also know that they're going to get impatient waiting for that song to play on the radio for the billionth time.

I'd also like to read those PDFs if you have the time to send them to me.

Edited December 14, 2011 by black-knight

[FAPTurbo]

I've been busy all day today, but tomorrow should give me time to get some scans.

I will acknowledge that people will try to get free news any way they can. Even with pay walls erected. But it will be of lesser quality and value. It will not survive on advertising if nobody reads it.

Good, balanced and imformative news is worth paying for. History has shown this time and time again. Unlike that song on iTunes, a newspaper can positively influence a person's financial health or well-being.

I've sent a PM with a link to a speech from a graduate student who held a seminar that I reported on. It's over an hour but I believe her advice is excellent for any young reporter. It will give you insight into whether the job is for you.