One opinion on making the Internet work for newspapers ...

San Francisco Chronicle had this (the link is from journalismjobs.com):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/12/EDGRMLJIGK1.DTL

 

This guy identifies the problem well, and at least he has an idea.

I just don't think you can get a room full of independent thinkers to come together on a plan like this. Somebody's going to think they're right and the rest of the people are wrong, and they're going to refuse to embargo their material. And it won't take many of those to send this plan down the tubes.

 

The part about "newspapers and wire services" doesn't make sense. Why would AP deny content to Yahoo? Isn't Yahoo its biggest customer? And if AP isn't on board, this plan wouldn't work at all.

 

I guess you give the guy credit for trying to come up with a solution, but this idea is flawed on so many levels I don't know where to start. 1. As already noted, all the major online sites are part of the AP. What logical reason is there for not giving them content? This makes the whole idea a nonstarter in and of itself, but, 2. If we play hypothetical and say for the sake of argument this plan was hatched, what would keep someone like yahoo from simply hiring away newspaper reporters and doing their own reporting? How many good reporters in sports alone have left newspapers for the Internet already? I can't tell if it is arrogance or simply naivete that makes the guy who came up with this think that if you embargo newspaper stories from the Internet, the rest of the media would be crippled. 3. In this day and age in which news can often be outdated by the time a newspaper hits people's doorsteps, I can't even fathom the thinking behind wanting to make your news delivery less timely. 4. And none of that takes into account the likelihood that the sort of collusion this would require would be struck down by the courts in a heartbeat.

 

Yet another tool who thinks because newsrooms have managed to fuck up the use of technology in their own workplaces, they can somehow manage to hold it back everywhere.

There's a word for someone who writes shit like this, and that word is fucktard.

 

I think that's going a bit too far (the opinion, not the use of the word fucktard... lol)

I could see a scenario where print and online work together. Sometimes we have refers to online-only content in our paper. Online, there should be references to stories you can only find in the print edition. Don't put those print-only stories online, and you give people a bit more reason to buy the actual paper.

 

The article is not talking about that, though, as that approach would make sense. It's talking about a total "keep ALL our stories off the Net" approach.

 

Couldn't agree more. Go completely dark. Pull all reporters/columnists from radio and television gigs, share nothing, take down the Internet site, fire all those people, increase salaries and hire more reporters. Make it entirely exlcusive - the only place you're gonna r what X columnist thinks is in the print edition. Not online. Not on their radio show. Not on ATH. Not on a blog. Just one place, and it can be delivered to your door.

All newspapers are doing now is diluting the brand. Of course there are naysayers to the exclusivity plan. They're called people who make money off the other forms of media. Again, if you want to see your staff cut by 2 or 3 so one sports columnist can have a radio show, hey, great.

Hey - protectionism works, folks. OPEC ain't OPEC for nuthin.

 

Our industry ego could never handle that - everyone likes to hear their stories talked about on CNN or ESPN. To be linked from name-brand blogs. That all stops when you shut down a Web site. You become a product for the local crowd only, and that's not enough for us in this global age.

 

The problem is, with two papers in one market, one paper will surely post their stuff online thereby forcing the other to do the same.

Or, as is the case here in my city, online-only newsgathering agencies (read: some guy sitting in his basement rewriting local press releases from local gov't and groups) is posting, for free, some of the same shit we cover.

 

Better yet, lets just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that television, the internet, and radio don't exist at all. That way newspapers can become even more irrelevant in a 24-hour news cycle.

 

statrat,

Sorry, but it's your head that's in the sand.

My view fully acknowledges the power of those outlets. They're more powerful than newspapers, and the very minute you give your best talent to them, it dilutes the brand. If a columnist is going to tell me what he or she thinks for three hours on the radio, do I need to read him or her? If they can get the milk for free...

I think a newspaper has to protect its content and talent. You don't.