Are newspaper layoffs repeating the history of other failed industries?

It's always nice to get name checked in a bigshot writer's column. And yesterday's reference by New York Times media writer David Carr to this humble space was a surprising and welcome bit of attention to the still-depressing layoff of 18 journalists at the Tampa Tribune last week.

Carr quoted one of many comments posted here last week from a frustrated reader promising to drop his Tribune subscription upon learning valued voices such as Dan Ruth, Phil Morgan and Rosemary Goudreau had been shown the door.

Comparing the layoffs and similar moves at Sam Zell's Tribune Co. newspapers to now bankrupt retailer Circuit City's 2007 plan to save money by firing its best employees, Carr concluded newspapers "won't stay relevant to readers with generic content ginned up by newbies with no background in the communities they serve."

Carr's thoughts are not new. Indeed, they formed a major plot point in the final season of HBO's excellent crime drama The Wire, which aired back in January. But the column made me think of a few other things I'm seeing at news outlets, thanks to the widespread job cuts.

First, experienced reporters aren't the only ones leaving newspapers. Talented younger journalists with options in other fields are reconsidering the wisdom of staying in an industry with as much trouble as newspapers face these days. So newspapers are seeing a talent drain at both ends of the spectrum.

I'm also seeing an odd dynamic at some newspapers where the reporting staff is getting younger and the older journalists are in management -- leading older writers to worry whether they can keep working in the industry without making the jump to management. Before long, I wonder if we'll reach a point where only the best writers can keep doing the job as they age, creating a bit of a generation gap between writers and editors.

It's also tougher to develop talent, with fewer slots available for those who might need a little seasoning before they're competitive with their reporting colleagues. As Carr noted Sunday, it all adds up to an industry watching its future fade -- nibbled away in bits by cost-cutting that makes future investment difficult.

The open question: Will anyone figure out a new way to pay for big reporting staffs before newspapers shrink too much?

*

Comments

[David]

Joe,

I like your thought on "how will this impact me tomorrow?". I often wonder if the average person -- and I count myself in that group -- truly thinks things through and gets the 'impact'. Sometimes it's obvious ("State Farm to raise rates 4000% in FL!"), but sometimes it is not so obvious.

Call me crazy (and you wouldn't be the first person to, trust me!), but I envision the "newspapers" of tomorrow almost in a blog/forum format. News is presented, and the readers have a meaningful dialogue about it. Sure, you'll get the occasional knucklehead, but I think there is a lot of value in collaborative thinking.

I admire Eric for posting as frequently as he does -- I'm sure he has other things on his plate other than reading what some crazy guy named David posted on his blog! I don't always agree with him on things, but he is not afraid to call it as he sees it, which is refreshing.

One thing is certain -- the future of 'newspapers' is clearly digital.

-David

[joe hillman]

>>>The current Generation is truly digitally enhanced, on-demand type of individuals. They receive their news LONG before the ink has dried on the paper. And they also begrudge the fact that that news, when they do see the paper, is woefully out of date, as it is already hours old.<<<

exactly why newspapers -- in paper format -- need to transform themselves into "daily magazines." stories should look to the future, not rehash what happened the night before.

how will last night's city council meeting, ballgame, congressional session et al effect me tomorrow?

[David]

To answer your question, no, nobody will figure out a way to pay for big reporting staffs before newspapers shrink too much.

It's inevitable that eventually, the concept of 'a newspaper' will be discussed in the same breath as 'a telegraph'.

The current Generation is truly digitally enhanced, on-demand type of individuals. They receive their news LONG before the ink has dried on the paper. And they also begrudge the fact that that news, when they do see the paper, is woefully out of date, as it is already hours old.

As I have discussed in this blog before, it's going to be a tough thing to watch, those newspapers shriveling up. It's a vicious cycle at that, with fewer classifieds leading to lower revenue which doesn't offset spiraling costs.

On a positive note, though, Eric, I was killing it at the gym the other day, and through my creatine rage, I spy YOU on CNN, killing it with the ladies!! Unfortunately, there was no closed captioning or sound on the TV, so I could not get your message, but my hat is off to you! Anytime you land a CNN appearance, you deserve props!

Even if you are part of the MSM! :)

[Jennifer]

I still see high paying edditorial/publishing/media/advertising jobs posted on popular job sites -

www.linkedin.com (professional networking)
www.indeed.com (aggregated listings)
www.realmatch.com (matches jobs based on your skills)

They will find new work.

[joe hillman]

"My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers," said Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive officer of News Corp. He made his remarks as part of a lecture series sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation.

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

[beltwaybandit]

To Eric's Headline Question, the answer is "YES".

Newspapers are repreating the mistake of the railroads back in the day.

Railroads were THE big business in the late half of the 1800s.

Then the car was invented and the airplane. Railroads chugged along.

Then air travel became larger, and still railroads marched on as they always had.

Cars became trucks, and still railroads kept up their traditional model. After all, they were still making a lot of money.

But then...trucks got larger, more economical and could go places rail could not.

And then, air travel became more sophisticated, they were much faster than railroads, and they also could go a lot of places railroads could not.

And soon, railroads almost became extinct and to this day remain a third-tier player in transportation.

Why?

Because railroad executives kept thinking they were in the "railroad" business and forgot they were in the "transportation" business, which included air and other forms of transport for passengers and freight.

Newspapers are repeating the railorad model in spades. They mistakenly believed that their position was protected from other media because after all...they were "newspapers".

Problem is along came this new medium...The Internet...which could easily deliver content in the same manner as newspapers, the same manner as radio, and the same manner as TV. All on demand, and for a cost so low that newspapers spend more on coffee at the office.

Newspapers forgot they have always been in the "media" business, and more specifically the "audience" business. They used news, sports, etc. content to attract their audience, then sold that audience to advertisiers to generate most of their money.

The Internet gets that audience with content but a lot more targeted, and advertisers will pay for that targetability instead of the "mass" approach of newspapers. The Internet is also "real time" while newspapers are "yesterday" time.

If newspapers had only come to grips with what they were being told 10 years ago, things might have been different. If they had adopted Internet 10 years ago, branded it with their titles, continued to offer unique, local content and cut the hell outof their printing and circulation costs, they might still have a chance.

Too late. Newspapers continue to saddle themselves with outdated business models and we now have generations coming along thathave always had the Internet at their disposal and they are going there over newspapers big time.

It's just a matter of time before there is no longer an audience willing to wait for information they can get the night before, and for less or no cost.

[drinklime]

I just got back from the car dealership... they told my friend she needed a $700 repair. I fixed the car in the parking lot. When they saw I got the car running, they closed the garage.

GM is about to go out of business. Do I really need to explain why?

If your product is GARBAGE, eventually the well will run dry.

[Chuck Welch]

To answer your last question Eric: no.

At least not any of the papers in Florida I4 corridor. The future of media here won't be print.

Reporters no longer automatically get the respect they deserve because they work for the paper. I think city governments and large local businesses feel they can bypass newspapers to deliver their message.

Some old print media will become online text and video hybrids, but the audience for the dead tress version is disappearing too rapidly.

National and International news will become the product of the major players. State capitol news will be shared reporter coverage.

While the older audience may open the paper to find out what is news, the younger audience already knows the facts from other sources (TV, Internet). They want a news organization to give them more detail and conclusions about those facts.

And that is the future of newspapers:

Truly local coverage will be handled by those willing to invest their work life into covering a town. Those willing to stay in one play and develop sources and earn the confidence of the public.

I don't read the Times to find out what shows are on, what has been canceled, or who will cover the inauguration. I read to see what Eric Deggans thinks about those topics.