My buddy Garvin had a post concerning his viewpoint on newspapers going non-profit. He raises interesting points, especially by changing the point of view between the ‘commoner’ (I’m assuming he’s referring to the landed gentry in the middle ages) and a journalism major. He brings up each side and their points very well, pointing out that from the ‘commoner’s’ standpoint, they get unbiased news (something I disagree with, but that’s for later); however, the journalism major inside him (frosted mini-wheats commercial) disagrees, because it basically forces them to prevent any and all kinds of bias, due to their non-profit tax status.
But, what he doesn’t bring up is the fact that not every ‘commoner’ reads the newspaper. I don’t. The last time I bought a newspaper was 3 copies last weekend to use as packing material. I just have no interest in paying for an item that’s cumbersome, leaves my finger tips black, and has only 3-4 sections I’m actually interested in. I don’t care about 90% of what happens in Cleveland; I don’t live there, none of my work is affected by it, and the sports team ‘insights’ are no better than what’s found online/on the radio. The editorials are a joke, and the political coverage is incredibly lacking. The front page stories can easily be found at Cleveland.com, and I don’t have to wait for tomorrow morning to read about something that happened 10 minutes ago.
So, I really don’t have any use for the newspaper, and thusly, don’t read it. No big deal, honestly. What they provide is a service I don’t need from them, or can get elsewhere for easier/cheaper. If enough people agree with me, and their business starts to suffer, then they’re forced to either adapt to the growing needs of their consumer base, or fall by the wayside.
For example, anyone go to a silent movie recently? How about riding a horse to work? What about ordering donuts online? Exactly. These were all services that were offered that, for a time, there was enough of a consumer base to justify their existence. But, the people that make up that consumer base didn’t need or want their service anymore, and they fell by the wayside.
So, I ask, why should newspapers be different? Why do they get to be especially coddled? Why should a circle be arbitrarily drawn around them and then others say, ‘well, they’re different.’ Why should they be different from pets.com, drive-in theaters, and pet rocks? If they provide a service that no one wants, why should they be set apart from the rest?
And if they do decide to go non-profit (I have my own issues with government rules and non-profits), and you strip away all bias in their reporting, how effective can they really be? What are facts without context, and how can you provide that context without any kind of bias whatsoever? And who decides what is and isn’t biased? How will we know that a particular person’s gauge of what is ‘biased’ is the same as everyone else’s? How do you make something as wishy-washy and personal as a point-of-view rational and concrete?
Isn’t it just easier to leave them as for-profit enterprises, and strip away any strange notion they have of remaining non-biased observers of the world? Why not have The Plain Dealer read; “Your source for all things conservative” and let someone else provide a paper that’s a counter-point to that to the need of those who want their news from newspapers, but don’t like the point-of-view of the PD? Why not let the competition between the two, and the need to retain an audience allow them to figure out a way to remain relevant?
What alot of people don’t know is that when the internet was young – and I mean, 14.4 baud modems young, there was essentially only one real service available; and that was newspapers. The AP and Reuters were providing raw news wires that could be picked up by anyone, and since text was low-weight for the young modems available at the time (pictures were rare, and videos were impossible), it made newspapers incredibly valuable – some of the first websites were online editions of newspapers. Porn may have made the internet what it is today, but newspapers made it what it was when porn took over.
If they were such pioneers in the realm of this new and soon to be powerful medium; what happened? I really don’t know. And I have the feeling that many people in the newspaper industry don’t know either.
