I've made a living for two decades in the media business, and at times have subscribed to three newspapers, along with countless magazines. But now I'm wondering: Is it time to ditch the hard copy, save those trees, and avoid the weekly chore of recycling a bundle of papers?
This obviously won't help the newspaper business, which is hemorrhaging subscribers, nor my friends who still work in the ink biz, but I'm realizing I no longer need paper. Newsprint's a dinosaur.
A few years ago, I'd often plop down on the couch with two newspapers and a cup of coffee. Now I barely look at one paper, but am getting more news and analysis than ever before. My two holdouts: a full subscription to the Washington Post and the Sunday edition of The New York Times. That's deceptive, though, because I religiously read the NYT online (for free, as a print subscriber). I also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal online.
How has my reading changed? I get more information on the things I care about online, and more easily store the stories I want for later research (relying on del.icio.us or the "save story" button at the Times website). But I tend to miss out on the small items out of left field that would never catch my eye online. I read less of the long-form stories, which is ironic since it's my favorite form and one I enjoy writing. In fact, when I see a long story online that really interests me, I tend to grab the paper on the couch and read it. I may also print out the story, but the sad fact is I print out far more stories than I read. (I know, it's a waste of paper).
This raises a couple of crucial issues that are the daily grist of newsrooms and boardrooms. First, how do newspapers keep readers paying for a service that is less useful (the newsprint) and which faces loads of competition? And if readers won't pay for newsprint, and the ads that come with the news, how will the paper support its primary mission and expense of reporting the news? The interesting thing about this conundrum is that the primary product that newspapers deliver, news and analysis and opinion, is thriving. People want that. But fewer of them each year want it delivered in a paper format.
Now, electronic delivery cuts the expense of paper, but unless consumers or online advertisers pay for the news, it won't get done. It's not sustainable. (That's why the Wall Street Journal charges for its online subscription, forgoing many more readers in exchange for cash.)
So what will happen? My gut feeling is that news as we know it will morph into something else. Technology always defines the medium (whether in music, art, or media). Once freed from the constraints that paper imposes, reporters can use many more tools to do what they've always done. This is beginning to occur, but it's still too early to say definitively what works. The downside is that we'll get new emphasis on whiz-bang gizmos and also a lot more self-indulgent crap. But being a market, consumers will flock to what does work and ignore the stuff that doesn't. And what will work is what's always worked: breaking stories, doing eyebrow-raising investigative work, and providing top-notch opinion, humor, and insight. In the meantime, smart companies or more likely entrepreneurs will need to come up with the new business models that make the new medium pay for itself.
So where does that leave me? I'll probably ditch my newspaper subscriptions in the coming year and just rely on online news, even for sources I have to pay for. There's a lot of environmental benefits in that (the trees saved, the energy burned up by printing presses and plants, the delivery trucks, etc.) but that's not why I'm doing it. The old paper just doesn't work for me any more. Like other former newspaper readers, I'm propelling the creative destruction and am looking for something new to sprout from the rubble.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:10 am
22 Dec 2006
I agree that certain things are going to flourish online (and on tv), namely opinion, whiz-bang gadgetry, and talking-head "news" of the kind FOX does. That stuff is popular.
But what about old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting? Fact gathering? Investigating?
That stuff is not as popular to a media generation that likes candy more than fiber. And it's expensive. Pretty much the only institutions left that do it are newspapers, and they do it less and less.
Despite all the hoo-ha about "citizen journalism," nothing beats a focused, funded reporter pursuing a story. Who's going to do that stuff when newspapers go under? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to read it?
I fear we're going to end up in a media environment where there are only competing talking points, competing realities, and there will be nothing left of the investigative reporting that once gave this country at least the illusion of a shared body of factual knowledge.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Samuel Fromartz Posted 5:48 am
22 Dec 2006
I'm not saying goodbye to media companies, I am saying that the old delivery vehicle has to evolve into a new one - one that does support the costs of investigative journalism and everything else.
People want reporting. They want real news. But the new models to provide it will need to be built.
Samuel Fromartz
Author
Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:06 am
22 Dec 2006
"Saving trees" is an easy sell to a mindless public eager to "do something for the environment". In the same way that Smokey Bear sold the public on forest fire suppression, with all its unintended effects, "saving trees" is very similar in that an undesirable inevitability will happen down the road.
Back on topic, since we all seem to have computer access, we are in dire need of internet news sources we can trust. Wherever we get our news from, they all seem to exhibit their own individual spin.
Luckily, we have Grist to use as one great source for news we can use to make this a better planet.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:29 am
22 Dec 2006
Your comment about trees is also relevant. Too many people have taken the slogan "save the trees" literally. Trees are just one piece in a big puzzle. A tree farm can be as biologically impoverished as a corn field.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 7:21 pm
22 Dec 2006
Newsprint is useful for mopping up major household spills, starting a barbeque fire etc.
Things have more credibility, somehow, in 'hard copy' than on the Net. It's very easy to make stories vanish and thus surpress history on the Web - if there are thousands of hard copies made of a story, it's more likely to survive somewhere in a more credible from (that we know hasn't been edited or electronically messed-with).
David, don't make the mistake of tying hard copy newsprint to well-funded reporting. Thriving newspapers don't necessarily mean well-funded (or even extant) investigative divisions. I could go on a long mission here about the massive changes in the structure and motivations owners of the press over the last 15 years or so, but the bottom line is not the format that stories come out in, it's the morality and business models behind them that count. These have been changing rather profoundly, recently.
I lecture a bunch of media students every year on freelancing and copyright issues. More and more valuable stories are going to be done by freelancers outside of the big media companies, because those companies (the world over) are less and less interested in funding any investigations, particularly of corporations (they still investigate sex scandal in govt becasue that draws readers without hurting advertising revenue).
The bottom line is that good journalism needs time and money for good research. If you are freelance that means you have to become very money-savvy, and cultivate a way of doing business that makes sure that you are paid well and NEVER give up your copyright. If you are in a big organisation, you need to know how to lobby hard for the funds to do your job properly.
Journalism schools still, by and large, don't teach this - earning a living is very much secondary to crafting a good story, if it's mentioned at all. Unless you learn to bring in the bucks WHILE MAINTAINING YOUR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY (which is worth a lot of money in the long run) you will not be able to do good stories based on proper, first-hand research.
I think that people should support whichever sources that they think have integrity and ability to deliver the information that matters - don't sweat the format. That will probably mean paying a higher cover price for something that isn's so oriented towards delivering eyes for advertisers, and is thus not heavily advertiser-subsidised and controlled.
4) At the university I part-time study at paper consumption has shot through the roof (we're talking orders of magnitude increases) since the library decided to get online journal subscriptions for many key journals. Instead of one copy of Science and Nature for people to read, the whole zoology department prints out their own copy (people don't like reading off screens and do like doodling in the margins). What a disaster...
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:05 am
23 Dec 2006
You may have read in the news lately about new internet data servers locating in the Northwest. Those data centers are approximately a 50 MW load each (my utility has an average load of 75 MW for 31,000 customers).
So, there is still a fairly significant environmental impact even if you convert to an electronic format.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:43 am
23 Dec 2006
Ad revenues from newspapers still dwarf internet ad revenues. Most people still look in the newspaper classified ads for the things they need, like apartments and used cars. These ads are available online too, but only if you pay for the print ad too.
Will free sites like Craig's List take over eventually? Maybe, but for now newspapers are still raking in more ad dollars.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:45 am
23 Dec 2006
You're dropping newsprint because you have found something better, which is the same reason I have dropped it. Martyrdom just doesn't work for most of us. The world could use more technology driven environmentally benign side effects like this.
Here is an example of the media doing its job without print:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4341663241410918...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:08 am
23 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Engineer Posted 3:32 am
23 Dec 2006
Just (as usual, I guess) pointing out factors that people tend to overlook.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:40 pm
23 Dec 2006
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
pumpysworld Posted 4:32 pm
29 Dec 2006
I read somewhere that a computer turned on for three hours uses up the equivalent of one tree. This probably doesn't include the chemicals used to make it, and the fact that most of them are toxic and difficult to dispose of.
With regards to shopping, factor in the high level of consumption of products, shipping costs, etc., and one might still see environmental problems.
The last I heard, less than 10 percent of human beings have access to computers, most are poor, and greater amounts of wealth are concentrated on fewer people.
If what they say about energy problems is true, then we might see the collapse of high-tech industries that are heavily dependent on cheap oil, and with that both the Internet and computers. Communities will likely end up going local, i.e., buying and selling things from nearby places, the formation of local newspapers with any international news passed through wire services, an emphasis on farming and practical skills, and probably a return to libraries filled with books.
All of these will likely be part of the argument that says that the way we live now is not, in the long run, sustainable. Something will have to give.
Permalink