Several newspaper executives launched a public relations campaign Monday to counter what they call “gloom-and-doom” reports of the industry’s demise.
Sure, they admit, times are tough. The economy is bad, the Internet has sucked away advertising dollars and people are losing jobs.
But the 100 million people who read a newspaper the day after the Super Bowl outnumbered the TV audience for the game, the group said in an advertisement that appeared Monday in more than 300 daily newspapers, including The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
With the ads, commentary pieces and a Web site, the industry is painting itself as a vital source of information and the best place for advertisers to sell anything from grapes to a house _ not the dinosaur often portrayed in the media.
If those claims were true, then yes, the MSM is still the best source for news. But true to fashion, the MSM doesn’t let the facts stand in the way of their opinion.
The simple reality is that newspapers are in the business of selling the news, but the medium that it is delivering the content is largely free. It is hard to pad the bottom line more than half of your readers opt for the free online version than the subscription copy.
Time Magazine did a great piece this week. Basically, the editors at Time assert that the way for newspapers to reinforce their financial footing is to once again charge people for online content.
Bloggers have a intense relationship with the MSM. On one hand, there is no way bloggers could replicate the day-to-day news reporting that delivers the fundamental facts that society needs to make informed decisions. Indeed, the largest single agregator of any news site is going to be the blogs and alternative news sites that link to it. On the flip side, however, alot of bloggers exist because they feel called to write against the bias and partisan politics so prevalent in the MSM.
I would like to offer this suggestion to the MSM. If you want to change for online content you had best first do some quality market research.
I read both The Idaho Statesman and the New York Times websites every day. In fact, I used to subscribe to The Statesman back in college. If forced to make a choice, I would have to let these news sources go by the wayside if they were to attempt to charge for the “privilege” of reading their paper.
Quite simply, I am fed up with the rabid editorial and political bias in both of these newspapers.
Yes, they give my the news- The New York Times probably has one of the best Washington D.C. bureau’s of any newspaper. And the Statesman’s coverage of Boise State Football and Idaho politics is also unmatched locally.
But, they also give me something I didn’t ask or bargain for: rabid left-leaning columnists and commentary. You want me to pay to hear how horrible Republicans are and how god-like Obama looks without his shirt on? You want me to pay for you to attack this country’s morals and values? You want me to pay for you spell out diatribes about the ills of capitalism and the greatness of socialism?
I don’t think so.
I have no problem with you charging for your content. Products and markets cannot survive in a profit void. Someone should not be expected to work for free. But, if you really plan on turning back the clock and restoring paid online news content, then you had best do an honest market analysis. And it stands, it seems, you only want to help bloggers gain an even bigger market share and run even more professional than they already are.