How to reinvent journalism?

Why would we have to worry about transitioning the next generation from print to online? It's not the medium that's the issue, it's the message (note to Marshall McLuhan: suck it). Young people want this quick-hit, multi-media barrage. But as they mature and look for more long-form and analytical pieces, why wouldn't we still put it on teh Intraweb tubes? I don't think Gen X/Y is running from paper.

 

You either adapt or die. Journalism is dying.

 

Nope. Newsprint is dying (or at least has a terrible, hacking cough). Big difference.

 

(note -- as I started this response, I realized I made a pretty critical error that I've since fixed: the first line of my last post should have read "why would we have to worry about transitioning the next generation from ONLINE to PRINT")

Very insightful, except I never said anything about not adapting at all. Obviously the product of 2007 is not going to be the product of 2027 or 2057. But you have to adapt intelligently, instead of throwing shit against the wall and praying one of the globs turns into Picasso. Everyone's in such a rush to get online that they're putting some highly questionable stuff there. Take online video. I've seen three newspapers do high school football preview videos online that look about on par with public access cable shows. But since it's on teh Intraweb tubes, that in and of itself makes it cool (actually, it makes people remember why the newspaper is the newspaper and not the TV station, but don't disrupt the fanciful flights of the beancounters and the doomdsayers).

But in 30 years, when today's young readers turn into old readers, why would we have to make them read a print product? Just because in 2007, print is "old" and online is "young"?

 

That's your opinion.
I say the business is dying. In my opinion, many of the stories generated are worthless both in news and sports. And don't come off with one of your "intellectual" answers. I'm not in the mood for it. If you were as bright as you try to be, you wouldn't waste your time posting on a message board or belittling those whose opinions you don't share.
We have a difference of opinion. Leave it at that.

 

Meat, I saw the writing on the wall when newspapers began putting cameras into the newsroom for "up to the minute news briefs."
I don't like the way the journalism industry, especially print, is going. I don't think it will end well.

 

Thanks for the heads-up, Chicken Little. Can you support your "opinion" that "journalism" is dying? (You didn't say "the business" is dying -- you said "journalism.") Or that "many of the stories generated are worthless both in news and sports"? On what evidence? Or is it just more ill-considered theorizing on your part? If newsgathering itself is dying, why are all those lucrative jobs for sports writers popping up at places like Yahoo! and AOL? Why are companies like Time Warner and Conde Nast posting scores of job openings for their web operations?

The delivery system is changing. The technology is changing. The business model is changing. And change is always painful.

Sorry for the "intellectual" nature of the response.

 

That's right. Keep it dumb, jg, we're in no mood for that thinking stuff today. Journalism is dead, damnit, dead. Doesn't matter if its print or online, one day there will be no journalism being produced in any form whatsoever.

 

I don't know how long you have been around. If it's under 25 years, then in my opinion, you haven't been around to see a generation change.
I don't have to "support" my opinions. This is not a trial you are not a judge. It's what I believe. Whether you believe in what I wrote or not makes little difference to me in the real scheme of things.
And if there are so many lucrative jobs in journalism, why are there so many people griping about the pay?
You want to debate. I'm just saying the way I feel. Two different states of minds.

 

And honestly, I don't think newsprint is dying. Evolving, becoming less dominant, sure. But paper is always going to have an advantage over online because of its disposability. Drop coffee on your newspaper or leave your summer paperback at the beach, it's a minor inconvenience. Do it with your computer and say hello to a $500-$1000 expenditure. Where newsprint is going to get its biggest challenge is when the phone/iPod/Blackberry/video player/cold fusion machine all-in-one is mature, because then it loses portability advantages. That said, flipping a physical page or scanning a broadsheet with your eye is still a faster and more intrinsic action than scrolling through a website or typing in a web address.

 

Thanks for not answering any of my questions.

I'll answer yours, though.

Pay has always been low in the small markets where most journalists start their careers. Why? Because they're small markets. And because journalism, despite its many problems, is an attractive field to young people, which creates an economy where competition is high for relatively few openings and salaries thus remain low on the strength of employers' selectivity. How many of us have heard a boss say "I've got 1,000 resumes in my desk right now from people who want your job."? Especially on the occasion of your annual review.

When a lot of what's being done now in newsprint in those small markets shifts online - and it will, maybe in whole, maybe in part - those salaries will remain low, too, and for the same reasons.

That's why people gripe about their crappy salaries, boots.

And asking how long I've been around - more than 25 years, by the way - isn't relevant to the arguments you seem incabable of making.

 

I think journalism should be reinvented by running all porn, all the time. I have no proof this will work, but I don't have to give any. It's my opinion. Deal with it, and don't cross-examine me. I'm not in court.

Also, the sky is beige. It's my opinion.