Can the Newspaper Really Be Saved?

Recently, I read an article by Walter Isaacson entitled "How to Save Your Newspaper." While I agree with several of his points, I think it is clearly obvious that he has little or no understanding of the technology in several aspects. Many people still do not comprehend how to appropriately use the Internet. What brought this article to light was watching The Daily Show, where a few points were skimmed over.

I agree entirely that the aggregators are gaining far too much from the work of other people; they simply link to an article with either a small bit of information or a clip from the piece. They continue gaining money through the system of advertisements, despite not having done more work than an average user; they merely read the news and paste it on a website. There is little to no thought involved, and it piggybacks on the work of the reporters and the publishers. The contradiction to this is that, if it were not for the newspapers having started as aggregators, they wouldn't have grown to the level they have enjoyed.

I think it's almost entertaining to see that he never really looked at how newspapers and magazines have appeared to their readers in the last decade. I remember having a number of subscriptions when I was younger to both teen magazines, such as Seventeen and YM, and educational resources, such as National Geographic. Admittedly, I'm an odd person with a sense of appreciation for fashion and archaeology, but that's not the point.

All of these magazines share one thing in common: The first page you open to is almost always going to be an advertisement. It's akin to turning on a television; the first thing you see is probably going to be a commercial, and you're going to spend more time trying to find actual content rather than messages telling you which toys your kids want or what fabric softener smells better. The same is true of magazines.

When I was fourteen years old, I made the conscious decision to stop getting my teen subscriptions. It's hard to fathom that a girl that young would be annoyed by being told to buy this terrible smelling perfume because boys like it, wear these jeans because your butt will look cute, or wear this low-cut top so members of the opposite sex would find you attractive. Like I said, I'm an odd person. But these magazines that were full of nothing but advertisements drove my childhood consumerism, and I decided to keep my allowance for other things I'd find more amusing than a handful of interesting articles I could read elsewhere.

This problem still persists, however. While waiting in line at the cash register, I idly thumb through these publications to see if there is anything worth reading, which there generally isn't. So many of the stories lack quality writing that they're immediately boring. Why would I want to pay the $3 for the copy at the newsstand, which contains the same shoddy writing and overabundance of advertisements that I can get for free online? It's counterintuitive, and it's a poor consumer choice on my part.

While the minds in the industry say that the primary duty of a publication is to focus their energies on the reader, the truth is that it never happens. The loyalties of major magazines have always been with the advertisers, and the writing that we see today is proof of that. I can find the same poor quality writing by reading a random blog. The quality has been diminishing for years, and it is more obvious now than ever. This isn't to say all journalists should give up, but these industries aren't paying attention to the lack of information. For example, I still subscribe to National Geographic because I can flip through the pages and learn about the basics of various topics (archaeology, natural science, history, culture, politics, and so on); the writing quality is vastly different from other magazines. There is still depth to the topics, even if the writers barely skimmed the surface of such issues. You can't say the same of many of our news sources, which rarely provide good writing or information.

Also, despite what he seems to believe, news websites do not and cannot work the same way as the iTunes Music Store, which is a severe understatement. Part of the reasoning for this, despite the intentions that Ted Nelson had when he thought that each link a person clicked on would pay small amounts so that the creator would always be rewarded for hard work, is that there is that you're actually receiving something from iTMS. As soon as you purchase the song, you own that download. Much like Jon Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show, you can do whatever you desire with that song (including blaring it at your ex at three o'clock in the morning over the phone). The same cannot be said of that news article. I can pay a minor charge for it, but I will not always have access to it; TIME is capable of moving it into archives, deleting it, or whatever they see fit to do with that file. As a consumer, I'm not getting the option. My choices are going to be made for me.

There are websites which take payment for their services, but they offer something more than a one-time read of an article. Take for example websites which run Java applet games; they do this for free, but there is a trade that the viewer makes for the lack of payment. For those utilizing the free-to-play services, they are subjected to advertisements of various forms (pop-ups, pop-unders, in-screen, and game intermissions). As they provide content that some people deem worth paying for, they established a system that would also reward the customer for purchasing paid access. As a paying client, they have access to an ad-free website, playing without interruptions, and various small rewards that free users do not have access to. It's a win-win situation; the consumer feels that they get what they pay for, and the company is able to continue running their business while creating a profit.

Another aspect of the internet business model he overlooked for the companies he compared is the option of purchasing money for the transactions at major chain stores. iTMS, among the many card choices in stores, allows you to purchase cards for a predetermined value for real cash. Rather than having to constantly input a credit card number or fix changed information, you're capable of using a pre-purchased card to pay for your online transactions.

The sad truth is that none of these business models would function for a publication of any sort. These function perfectly fine for other companies because people perceive they are getting something. If they buy a song from a music store, they get the satisfaction of that song for as long as they enjoy it. People who spend money on Nexon's cash cards perceive that the upgrades they get in the games are worth the money they spent; they get immediate enjoyment from these products, even if others see it as being a frivolous expense with no value.

Newspapers and magazines can no longer do this. At least, they haven't proven that they are capable of it. A consumer can get something of the same value online for free that they can find on a newsstand. We're capable of finding better writers, more recent information, and a variety of opinions from concerned citizens from around the globe. The Internet has given citizens an option and a voice. Many publications take their articles from the Associated Press, which a person is capable of finding anywhere. What value does a print copy have over your own ability to scour the Internet? The answer is "very little," and perhaps Isaacson and his ilk need to wake up to the problems their own industries have created through lack of imagination and a dependence on repurposed material.

This isn't to say I wish print copies would disappear. Like Jon Stewart, I find reading a newspaper to be far more satisfying than reading website. I enjoy taking a journal to a café or park, reading it as I observe my surroundings. I love the texture of the newspaper and the slight annoyance of stained fingertips from thumbing through it. There is something inherently beautiful about a printed publication, but the news industry has yet to understand that there needs to be more variety and value added to what they print. I hope, for the sake of everyone tied to this industry, that they start taking ideas into consideration. They need to restructure, and they need new plans for the future. If all they can do is complain about the irony of selling fewer papers and having an increasing readership, then they will definitely be in for a world of trouble.