By and large the people trying to work their way out of this mess are the same ones who got themselves in it. The management structure that couldn’t see the impact of the internet and changing demographics on their product are being asked to take a second look at it now. I’m not sure they’re any better at understanding it today in part because the only guidance they’re getting is from the retail sector of the internet. Newspapers are a unique product, and don’t translate as conveniently to the internet as other commerce.

Leadership may also be a generational problem.

Certainly, the leadership of most newspapers has not changed appreciably in the last decade insofar as newsroom executives are concerned. And as things get worse, they manage harder and are less willing to avail themselves to new opportunities or possibilities. Advertising on section fronts is not new or innovative.

For certain newsroom leadership is stubborn in allowing new leadership to surface. In the last decade there has been a dearth of promotion of visual journalists into leadership roles. It’s more difficult to point to the Gilkas, McDougals, or Clarksons in newspapers any longer, even as some studies seem to suggest that print will have to morph into an even more photography-intensive medium, and online into streaming content. (Although arguably online is more successful in promoting visual people, like Andrew DeVigal and such in to leadership roles).

And certainly there seems to be resistance by editors to let proven content grow when other content lags behing; sports and politics being two examples that suffer from a lack of space when both are draws to loyal readership).

Bronstein is right when he says nobody has the answer. But whatever answer ends up working it’s more likely to have been a bottom-up solution rather than top-down. Newspaper executives are going to have to stop forcing solutions based on their own histories, and instead enlist their rank and file into shaping their own futures.

That’s my take anyway.

I’m pretty interested in the non-profit news organization model. This was brought to my attention by the Frontline series “News War.” I think its a great way for journalists to make their first loyalty to the citizens(not the stock holders).

Also I’m encouraged by the increased demand for original reporting the internet has created.

I think management needs to make sure that they don’t just talk about how the internet will change everything, but actually go out and try some stuff.

Dan

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if journalism in its current guise is no longer financially sustainable (other than by public bodies such as the BBC in the UK).

What would a world without journalism be like?

Will there be a backlash? Will people then be prepared to pay for reliable news coverage?

Let’s hope so.

It’s clear that most papers, in practice, care more about short-term quarterly profits than longterm investments.

Having answers to these kinds of problems requires adequate investment in Research & Development. Many tech companies, for example, invest upwards of 25% or more of their net profits in R&D. The solutions to these problems also require longterm strategic planning and thinking, which takes valuable time.

I would say that there was a point maybe two years ago where proper long-term strategy and foresight could have helped to prevent what is happening now. But that point is long gone. In my opinion.

It’s really the hubris and the arrogance of the journalism establishment resisting change that has fucked all of us in the long-run. People have been warning about this shit for years, to no avail.

I personally have suggested more radical ideas, such as my call for a Global Journalism Union but the reality of the matter is that any out-of-the-box creative thinking is something that is generally abhorred in the journalism industry.

Anything going against the status quo is typically regarded as heresy, regardless of it’s potential legitimacy or relevancy. It apparently takes years for the truth to sink in
an industry where it should be instantaneous.

Perhaps somewhat predictable, for an industry that has remained relatively unchanged for 40+ years.

Journalists are not typically rewarded for coming up with fresh ideas, they are punished. Coming up with a workable solution may take hundreds of failed attempts, and failure is simply not an option in this risk-adverse industry.

In my opinion, there are two options at this point in time:
1) A Global Journalism Union
2) Wait for the entire industry to collapse, first, then reorganize

If the entire industry collapses and almost everybody is out of a job, then some real change and development will happen because journalists will no longer have anything to lose once they’ve lost it all.

Right now, working journalists have everything to lose with no time to figure out a solution and no leeway for risk and failure.

Patching a broken system probably isn’t going to work at this point in time.
What we really need is a complete and utter overhaul of the system from the ground up with no regrets and no looking back.

Perhaps we need to invest our money in a global union to figure out these very solutions for all of us?