A quick word about my friend Al Giordano’s post about the death of newspapers. Giordano was certainly prescient in his move to Internet journalism many years ago (additionally, Giordano’s work is supported by public fundraising but is not reliant on advertising), so he’s earned the right to crow.
However, I don’t think his analysis as to WHY newspapers are in decline is exactly right, and I think he mixes two different (albeit important) arguments:
I grew up reading a New York Times that no longer exists: Tom Wicker reporting from the Attica prison truthfully and in solidarity with the rebelling inmates, Max Frankel ordering expensive investigations into government wrongdoing, the publication of The Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, and I’ll never regret following music critic John Rockwell down Bleeker Street to The Bowery and through those graffiti-covered doors into the future that we inhabit today.
As one who, last year, finally weaned myself off the New York Times Crossword Puzzle – the last section of the Gray Lady that held my attention – I understand that old habits and routines die hard, and that my crocodile tears for the putrid newspaper industry are not well received by all. There is something familiar and comfortable – like warm apple pie – in opening one’s door in the morning and staining one’s fingers with ink. There was a time when reading the local daily made us feel part of something bigger than ourselves: a community, a city, or a metropolitan area. Newspapers used to be the glue that held communities together. Not so much any more.
The first point is that the work of the journalists just isn’t what it used to be and the pure quality of work is in decline. That’s a difficult notion to dispute, although I wouldn’t call myself qualified enough to provide an overview of journalistic quality over the last few decades.
The second point is that newspapers no longer hold the same place in our community that they did in the past. I think that is also certainly true. Take New York city. It used to be you needed to read the NYTimes to stay up on current news, particularly local community news. With millions of commuters choosing between their 2 or 3 free newspapers at subway entrances, not to mention a proliferation of hundreds of other sources online and off, there’s no question that this town isn’t as connected to the Times as it once was.
But can we definitively attribute the reason WHY newspapers don’t hold the same place in our community to the decline in journalism quality? I think that’s a bit of cause-and-effect reasoning, and probably not the only example we can find of someone finding a particular aspect of decline in news journalism and declaring that the reason for the decline of print media (to be fair, Giordano doesn’t declare that the sole reason, but hints strongly at it).
I believe these are all important pieces to analyze, but we should be careful to break out the different factors and assign them their individual importance relevant to ALL the countless reasons newspapers are on the precipice. I’m not disputing the decline in quality, I’m just not convinced that’s really the driving factor behind the decline. Someone conduct a scientific study!
