The Death of Newspapers

By Michael Willard

The important word in newspaper is not "paper" but "news", and the sooner publishers realize this, the sooner the angst over a dying industry can be brought to an end.

It is not about killing trees. It is about presenting news, but newspapers are retreating from the battlefield without really fighting, cutting the size of their product in terms of quality, coverage and pages.  It makes former reporters like me teary.

By way of background, I love newspapers. I love the touch and the smell and the glorious wonderment of picking up the bulky Sunday New York Times and turning it into a two-hour read over and after breakfast.

But that was long ago. Today I live abroad - and have for the last 15 years - but I still read the Times, the Washington Post and my hometown newspaper, the Charleston (WV) Gazette on line. It is the only economical way-both in money and time - I can enjoy those publications.

I grew up a reporter. My first job was working city desk for the Orlando Sentinel when I was 19, and later the Tampa Times. I eventually graduated to United Press International. In fact, I own the rights to the oldest newspaper in America, the Potomac Guardian. Times change.

The Sentinel is a shadow of its former self. The Tampa Times went from a nickel to a dime many years ago and promptly folded. The wire service exists, but is a laugh-line to old "Unipressers" like me. It's run by a church where members are called "Moonies."

As for the Potomac Guardian, it was an unfulfilled dream of being a small town weekly newspaper publisher. I found it would eventually leave me, as the Ukrainian saying goes, without socks. The remnants of it, old microfiche of the original and a few rusty news stands are scattered somewhere in my past.

While you are reading this printed magazine, both you and I know that it is not economically feasible, and so decisions to continue it are based on strictly aspirational whims and, perhaps, emotional dotage. Its reason for being is not to make money through advertising or sales.

However, we also have an online version that I suspect will be better read-even by a local audience-than the printed version once it is more known which it will be through the technology of search engines.

But daily and weekly newspapers in much of the world have a different problem. They hang on to the ghost of the past. They seem to have forgotten that paper doesn't have to be relevant to the delivery of news, just as in a mobile world the desk telephone is fast becoming an anachronism. Both might be considered the equivalent of "horseless carriages."

It is certainly true that most newspapers today have mirror websites that contain most if not all the stories in the printed version. They need to concentrate their energies of making those sites economic powerhouses.

If someone is willing to pay for a printed newspaper, wouldn't that same person, interested in local or international news with a local slant, also pay for the right to view the website? Wouldn't local advertisers also find benefit in selling their wares on a well-viewed site?

I admit that this is a great big boat to turn around. The vast majority of newspaper websites have given away content for years. The problem I have with newspapers is that they seem to have already surrendered the day, cutting back on quality coverage as they slim down the newspaper package.

This is wrong. The public deserves quality and full coverage by legitimate professional news gatherers. It deserves insightful commentary and not blog blather from armchair pundits.

It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to conclude that newspapers can still have a profitable life in another, more convenient, more cost-effective form. It does take commitment, however.

That commitment begins with the industry acknowledging that the word "paper" is nowhere near as important as the word "news". It hasn't done that yet.