A business perspective on newspapers

While the tide of doom-and-gloom, self-loathing articles about the demise of newspapers has slowed down, I thought this article by Daniel Gross in Slate, examining the industry from a business perspective, was a unique take. Here's the money line:

While newspapers have serious problems, the recent failures of several newspaper
companies shouldn't necessarily lead to visions of the apocalypse... the
failures may say more about a style of capitalism than an industry. Each company
was undone in large measure by really stupid (and in one case criminal)
activities by managers.

I think it's a bit oversimplistic to simply blame "a bunch of private equity types," although clearly capitalism and newspapers aren't a good mix right now. But while Gross thinks its a certain type of capitalism that caused the demise of newspapers, I'm inclined to believe it's more of a general, growing perception that information should be free. And I'm willing and able to admit my generation is guilty as charged.

More on newspapers

I happened upon this essay, originally from The New Republic, this morning when I was reading the recap of last night's Kings game on The Sacramento Bee's Web site. The author, Princeton Professor Paul Starr, does a good job summarizing the current state of newspapers and analyzing their importance to the public. I thought it was interesting he referred to news as a "public good" here:

Public goods are notoriously underproduced in the marketplace, and news is a public good – and yet, since the mid-19th century, newspapers have produced news in abundance at a cheap price to readers and without need of direct subsidy.

Public goods usually are something you want the government to subsidize, since the market is not producing the optimal amount on its own. I expected Starr to follow with some proposal for the government to subsidize newspapers, which, thankfully, he didn't. Not every paper can be BBC or NPR, and the idea of the watchdog having a tie to the government makes me nervous.

Taking a step back, the fact that I even stumbled upon this story shows that reading news on the Web isn't all bad. Many have cited the "serendipity" that print newspapers allow--the stories that you wouldn't go out of your way to read, but are happy you found--and lamented that there is no such parallel online. But that's not necessarily true, as I found out this morning.

Keeping up on the news: the good, the bad, and the ugly

OK, I swear I'll get back to writing about Costa Rica soon. But there were three articles today that caught my eye, and I couldn't help commenting on them. Let's call them the good, the bad, and the ugly.

First, the good. Obama's new plan for the federal budget may be massive, but it's a step in the right direction. I was particularly encouraged by his plan to cut farm subsidies, which have been a pet peeve of mine since I researched the Farm Bill (for more, check out Michael Pollan's seminal 2007 piece in the New York Times magazine). While farm state members of Congress always fight subsidy cuts tooth and nail, screaming that to do so would destroy the American farmer, the reality is the American taxpayer is funding large corporate farms. Luckily, the Obama Administration is coming out early and arguing that the large farms are being targeted specifically, which may take some ammo out of his opponents' arsenal in the looming Congressional battle.

Now, for the bad. This story is slightly problematic for me since it relies on a single source and seems like Reuters may be stretching for an "exclusive." But the premise is troubling enough: abuses in Guantanamo have actually worsened since Obama took office.

Finally, the ugly. I don't normally read the entertainment section of Google News, but the word "Sacramento" always will catch my eye. From MSNBC, of all places: Sacramento radio station bans Chris Brown.

More malas noticias (bad news) for the news industry

I used to love our family vacations to San Francisco. The sights and sounds, Chinatown, the thrill of Giants games, the glorious Golden Gate... and the Sunday Chronicle. Now, as the news industry continues its spiral to oblivion, reports are that the Chronicle is teetering on the brink:

"The Hearst Corp. today announced an effort to reverse the deepening operating losses of its San Francisco Chronicle by seeking near-term cost savings that would include "significant" cuts to both union and non-union staff.

In a posted statement, Hearst said if the savings cannot be accomplished "quickly" the company will seek a buyer, and if none comes forward, it will close the Chronicle. The Chronicle lost more than $50 million in 2008 and is on a pace to lose more than that this year, Hearst said."

Clearly, operating print newspapers on a for-profit basis is no longer viable. But what is the answer? No one knows. In my history and future of journalism class last spring, we discussed some of the possibilities, including non-profits and the Web. There is no perfect solution.

As the article suggests, the organization's Web site "depends on the Chronicle's print news staff for much its content." Cutting down somewhat and re-launching as a Web-only news outlet would be better than closing altogether, but how much journalism would that organization be able to produce? And would that even be viable?

One article I read said that San Francisco is a tough market, since the Bay Area is saturated with daily newspapers. But wouldn't you think that The Chronicle would be the last one standing? Why would anyone like me want to be starting a career in journalism again?

UPDATE: The Rocky Mountain News, which has operated in the Denver community for 150-odd years, is folding. The days of two majors newspapers in most metro areas are long gone, but troubling news for the industry nonetheless.

Keeping up on the news: Political musings of the week

Living abroad means I cant be the news junkie I am when back home. I only glance at The New York Times Web site a couple times per day, depending on how busy I am at work and how tired I am when I get home. A sad state for any would-be journalist and blogger, I really only get to skim the headlines on Google News. For those lamenting the demise of the news industry, I am part of the problem.

That said, I do get to check out The Sacramento Bee as well (mostly for updates on the sad state of affairs regarding your Sacramento Kings) and was happy to see that the budget finally was passed. I was less happy to see that the state Republicans ousted their leader for his willingness to compromise and openly mocked their own members who were willing to strike a deal (speaking of "being of part of the problem and not the solution"...). This mirrors some of the news I saw this weekend, regarding Republican governors and their political grandstanding on the stimulus package. Thankfully, Arnold was not one of them.

While I voted for his opponent both times, I’m happy to see Arnold assume the mantle of moderation within the Republican Party. It’s somewhat of a shame that he can’t seek the presidency (thanks to the constitution) because I’d much rather see him setting the national Republican agenda than conservatives like Palin or Jindal, both clearly pandering to the conservative base with their eyes on 2012. Of course, political grandstanding is nothing new, but playing politics with the economy in a time of crisis is something I can’t really stand for. I applaud Arnold’s pragmatism, recognizing that tax cuts aren’t the solution all the time. (And really, if you think tax cuts are the solution when the economy is good, and you think tax cuts are the solution when the economy is bad, isn’t that just a sign of the kind ideological indoctrination and blockheaded stubbornness that got us into this mess in the first place? Show some common sense and willingness to adapt to the situation, why don’t you?)

It’s not like the Democrats are blameless either. I just read in today’s Times that Obama’s first forays into Social Security reform are being met with opposition from liberal Democrats and Congressional Leaders. I’ve long said Obama may have more trouble with Democrats than Republicans in Congress. Hopefully, he’ll be able to continue his pledge of bipartisanship and putting national interest above party or ideology. The article notes, I must point out, that analysts agree that both taxes and cuts in spending are needed to solve the problem. Sounds a lot like the California budget crisis doesn’t it? Hopefully, Obama will fare better than Arnold in convincing legislators to do the right thing. What’s clear, however, is that we need more Obamas, and dare I say more Arnolds, to continue to press for a consensus of cooperation, moderation and practicality. A little compromise could go a long way right now.

Now, back to Costa Rica…