Newspapers vs. Internet

Weak response, typical of the design mentality where everyone needs a sugar cookie and a pat on the head.

To address the tiny part of your post with substance: No, not all redesigns are bad. Some newspapers are crying out for them.

But readers get tired of hearing about the shit. I saw one comment after the subsequent trumpeting of a redesign on Page 1 that read: "OK. Now can we stop hearing about this?"

Designers do not know what readers want, and they do not care. Their acting as if they do is a tired charade that should have been drummed out of newsrooms some time ago.

 

Actually, it has nothing to do with that. But you did offer a very nice non sequitur.

Moving on from juvenile bullshit ... Most modern news operations need to get in touch with the fact that they'll need to stop buying these soon:

 

And if I spelled they're as ``their,'' ... Ah, never mind.

 

There's a visual I didn't need

 

Newspapers and Internet are the same things. If you work for a media outlet, it doesn't matter if your work is printed or published electonically.

 

First, the Oklahoman is MUCH better, post-redesign. Good call there.

Second, when are the children going to realize the vast wisdom in that last line? I'm not here to argue that design is the end-all be-all of newspaper production, but I can't believe anyone here really wants to return to days when the paper was a giant pile of copy. They're hard to read, no matter how well-written they are.

When you kiddies get done calling each other names, perhaps we'll move the discussion forward.

 

Ah, the usual complete non-sequitur argument: "We CAN'T have just 120 inches of straight text on a page!"

No one is saying that. But it's possible to put out a newspaper that looks good without obsessing over hairline rules and screwing up as many facts as designers do.

Of course, no designer will admit that because it's all about them. It's not about the readers.

 

I'm still not convinced that there is a legitimate, stable source of revenue for Internet journalism. Blog sites have proven popular, but I tend to believe that the best of them are piling up the hits and waiting to cash out by selling to someone who believes they can turn ad potential into actual dollars. Case in point, Gawker and its quazi-sports journalism offshoot, Deadspin. I don't have the numbers at my disposal. But I tend to think their business plan is to rack up the hits and then dump it for a pretty penny.

Some online magazine journalism has found a niche through multimedia innovation. But I can't speak for their revenue streams, either. And those that charge seem to throw a lot of stuff out there at no cost.

I admire ESPN.com and some of the other Web portals that are charging for exclusive coverage beyond the basics. But that is a different animal than newspaper journalism. There are tons of papers vying for online dollars through all softs of gimmicky approaches, including Times Select, if it hasn't been dumped already.

And do Web ads work? If not, fee-for-news Internet journalism will become standard. If ads do work, then it's a matter of converting the mom-and-pop tire shop ad to the Web. And I'm not sure how that's going over at the moment. The fact is that Netflix and Viagra ads aren't going to support all of the daily newspapers in the country. Something has to give, and I don't know what that is. Classified advertising certainly seems to be lost forever. Hell, I can buy a used car on eBay. I bought the computer I'm using to type this via eBay, and I was even able to search in my own area and pick up my purchase at the seller's doorstep. Throw in Craigslist and all of the job sites, and it's unlikely that classified ads will be in play for newspapers in the future.

For all the talk about printing and paper costs, it should be noted that the greatest cost any newspaper has is in paying employees. Does it take fewer employees to run a Web site than it does to run a printing press?

There are just too many questions remaining for me to throw all of my support to Internet journalism. But I certainly don't want to be the last guy off the paper-and-ink boat. So I try to keep an open mind and follow the innovation in online media to understand what's happening and how it can save the daily newspaper.

At the end of the day, however, I'm not sure that the Internet is the great savior for print journalism. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder whether there is any means of saving newspapers from becoming a shell of their former existence. My guess is that the turmoil in the industry is making more teachers, attorneys, novelists and early retirees than Internet journalists. That is to say that the best and the brightest in the industry are being driven away with no end in sight. And that's really the shame in all of this.

I'll now wait to be hammered.

 

OK, I'll start. The line about the "best and the brightest" has been uttered for at least 10 years, and nothing has changed for the better.

 

I think you're wrong about that.

Here's what I think will happen.

Consumers are used to "free" internet. That will continue....

But nothing is ever "free" is it?

In order to maintain "free," users will have to allow web companies know more about them. And it won't be a matter of simply making up a name and typing in any old birth year. Nielsen is already getting inside and figuring out who we are. So we'll give up privacy for "free"-- oftentimes without even realizing it. That way, advertisers can target-- and that's all advertisers really want-- to know demos.

---------------------------------

Here's a Tuesday tidbit from one of the big TV trades, Television Week:

Internet Takes Lion's Share of Q1 Ad Spending Increase
Network TV Up 11 Percent From 2005

By Jon Lafayette

Advertising spending rose 5.6 percent in the first quarter of 2006, compared with the same quarter a year ago, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus.

In a report released Monday, Nielsen said Internet spending was the biggest gainer, jumping 46.4 percent, followed by Spanish-language TV, with a 14.3 percent increase.

With a boost from the 2006 Winter Olympics, network TV registered an 11.1 percent gain. Spot TV in the top 100 markets rose 4.8 percent and spot TV in the smaller markets edged up 0.6 percent.

Cable TV showed a slight 0.2 percent rise.

--------------------------------------

You're starting to see where the money is going.

 

Here's where you and I are in complete agreement. It IS entirely possible to put out a paper that IS good, not just one that looks good. That said, I can't justify laying all of the ills of the industry at the feet of designers, since I know plenty of reporters and copy editors who exhibit the same, very bad, qualities you loathe in your view of designers.

I think we have to correct the problem at every level, not just at the design stage.