They can be read here and here.
Now, Part I sort of confused me at first. As a twenty-something who grew up on cell phones and the internet, I thought I knew the answer to his question of 'why are newspapers failing so horribly and will never recover because of this and that and the other thing?' Why take so long to spit out the answer Crosbie?
Wait... so I just read all of that nonsense about online editions, stocks, prices, and the definition of "regular" so you could tell me your answer will be included and explained in a future article."So, what are the two reasons why the American daily newspaper industry's is dying?
The major one is simply that American newspaper companies have violated a specific part of the Principle of Supply & Demand when consumers' supply of news and information radically changed in the past 15 to 30 years. (I'll describe which specific part of the Principle in Part 2 of this essay). The other and more reasons why American newspapers are dying is because of how far too many of them have deviated from their local roots (the subject of Part 3 of this essay)."
*insert lengthy sigh here*
The truth comes out in Crosbie's 2nd article and it is most worthwhile. Indirectly, it is my opinion and I assume it to be Crosbie's, the internet has caused print newspapers' downfall. However his second article states the problem really lies in the packaging of newspapers and similar media. Newspapers offer information to the masses. That is, every reader receives the same information, the same newspaper. That's why people only read a few articles in every paper. Or why people only read a few articles on the paper's website. People have few common interests and Crosbie makes great points through great examples:
Everybody doesn't have the same interests The average supermarket in America contains 45,000 different types of items (meat, produce, canned or bottled goods, etc.). However, imagine that you instead walked into a 400-year old market where the clerks hand you and every other customer an identical bag containing exactly the same mix of some 50 items and they tell you it contains what the supermarket's manager thought you and everyone else should or would like to eat. Despite its venerable history, would you shop at this market again?
If you had access to another source, even multiple sources, that could readily supply you with your own choice of the unique mix of items that match your individual needs, interests, and tastes, would you continue to use a 400 year-old source that continued to give everyone a generic mix of things? No, and that answer is the same when the items are the news as it is with supermarket items. With today's cornucopia of access to news and information, few Americans are patronizing newspapers anymore, particularly the young adults and young people who have grown up feasting on that cornucopia.
While, embarrassingly, it took me a bit to fully comprehend Crosbie's answers, this made perfect sense to me. The above quote sums it all up. It's exactly why I read almost all of Foreign Policy magazine and skim others. And why I get upset there is practically ZERO soccer coverage here in the states (unless Beckham is around...). It's why I read the BBC's website and wonder why the Chicago Tribune hasn't published anything on the crisis in Zaire. It's also why I feel bad for newspapers. It's not their fault. They didn't do anything WRONG in my book. Granted, they could specialize things in such a way to help save them, but then they would just be big magazines. A "war newspaper," a "foreign policy newspaper," a "soccer newspaper;" it makes a little sense.
I suppose there really isn't anything they CAN do. A newspaper serves its purpose best by doing exactly what they have been doing forever. It's just unfortunate that someday (and someday soon at that) they will disappear.
Oh, and sorry Capital Times, looks like your online-only approach won't save you after all...
1 comment:
Graham:
I apologize about the articles' lengths, but the ironic thing about my posting on the Internet my critique of the the American newspaper industry is that academics read it as well as regular folks, so the articles have to be written to withstand criticisms by nitpicking academics as well as by regular folks. Hence the irony is that I had to write one series of articles designed to withstand all critics' interests, even though that type of one-thing-fits-all is exactly what the series contradicts.
I would have much preferred to be writing a shorter, more concise series. However, I'm still getting nickpicking critiques (i.e., "yes, but that's not the case with newspapers in Albania...") even a the length I've written. Sorry to be prolix.
-- Vin Crosbie
Post a Comment