The New York Times came out with an article on Sunday discussing the recent ugly stretch produced by newspapers. Essentially, the report cites troubles had by the New Orleans Times-Picayune and its layoffs, as well as embarrassingly brutal errors such as fake bylines and, yes, even the presentation of old news on a paper’s front page.
You can read the article here.
This is not going to go away, reporter David Carr implies. It’s the continuation of a quick downfall that has plagued the newspaper industry, which is known for little more than hemorrhaging money and cutting jobs left and right. It’s the end result of papers’ unwillingness to adapt to the digital age in the late 90’s, almost mocking the concept of the internet by choosing to do, well, nothing. We know who’s had the last laugh, and now people are paying for it. Even now, newspapers seem to not completely understand just how to adapt. It’s a whole lot of “throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks.” There’s no game plan, no purpose, and there is certainly no execution.
As I’ve endured a rigged job search this summer, articles like Carr’s have been at the back of my mind. The bottom line is that the bottom line sucks for newspapers. It’s utterly awful for this business I’ve called a career since 2005. During the last 18 months or so of my tenure as sports editor in Laredo, I rearranged my priorities and focused primarily on developing my department’s online initiatives (which had been nonexistent) and diving head first into my own weekly sports tabloid project as a way to not only bring in additional revenue to the paper, but to also experiment in producing more unique content for the readership. I found the project to be a success, and perhaps in a later blog post I’ll go deeper into what it all entailed. But what I have seen since I’ve left the paper in early January is that the department has ceased with what I started. The website is dead, the Twitter and Facebook pages for the department no longer exist, and if it weren’t for the forward-thinking efforts of reporter Kenny Ryan, the YouTube page would be dead as well. It figures. To be committed to the future, newspapers have to be open to new ideas and more creative thinking. They have to try. More than ever, they have to go above and beyond, determining successes and failures through trial and error.
Even with all that said – even with all the plethora of evidence that the industry in all likelihood cannot be salvaged this late in the game – I still believe. I have not quit on newspapers, and I am stubbornly determined to go to a paper and make all my ideas and innovations work; I am determined to work with a team that thinks three steps ahead, not one. There’s a few out there. Not all newspapers are hopeless. Unfortunately, they are the exception, not the majority. I’m not claiming to have all the answers, but I do know the print product needs to be the core of a newspaper (there has not been a way yet to generate consistent revenue via online); HOWEVER, the online product needs to complement. In my opinion, this is where things get off track for newspapers. They don’t know how to complement. And no, there is no generic how-to in regard to how to go about it. It depends on audience and circumstance. Also, they don’t have the time or resources with cut costs and fewer people to do the work. Every newspaper should have online editors. And the thinking should be that it’s not what you cover, it’s how you cover it.
Carr’s reporting is nothing new. Just another reminder that newspapers are not headed for a happy ending. The most important thing that I got from the article was how many prominent staffers at the Times-Picayune who were offered jobs to stay and work within the digital operation turned down the opportunity, simply because they’re tired of the uncertainty. After all, if things clearly did not work before, how can anyone say they’re going to work out now or going forward?
Silva On Sports 