Text

Newspaper Industry in Disarray

I just got back from the OSCON (a yearly convention for open source software), where I sat in on a session called Shaping the Web Future of the Newspaper.  It was basically an open discussion between the techies that run the online editions of the major papers around the country (N.Y. Times, Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, etc).  While a lot of ground was covered, the underlying theme was that these entrenched dailies are loosing ground due to the sweeping changes occurring throughout the web.  Their profits margins are shrinking as more readers shift towards the web, and they feel that if they don't adapt quickly to this strange new media, they'll may be out of business in the next ten to twenty years.  Personally I'm sure there will always be a place for this traditional journalism, simply because it serves such an important function within society.  But it's role is certainly shifting.  I'd like to touch on a couple of the major points discussed.  

Firstly, a break seems to be occurring between the breaking of news stories and their distribution.  More people are getting news through aggregator websites, through RSS feed-readers, or filtered & spun through the blogging community.  This distributed nature of the web is particularly threatening to these papers who have no idea how to monetize their content when it's spread this way across the web.  The conversation became heated when this become a conversation on APIs, a feature that one of the reps said would never happen on his paper.  I personally feel that this is extremely short-sited, as advertising can be passed through the API embedded within the content.   This is FeedBurner’s strategy, who must be on the right track since they were just purchased by Google for around $100 million.

Another central theme was a fear of loosing journalistic integrity and objectivity in news sources due to the rise of blogging.  I strongly agree that the major dailies provide an essential service to society by dedicating huge resources to in-depth reporting to break these stories, and editors to uphold standards.  While there is a trend in cable news towards more superficial content (like all the Paris Hilton stories), institutions such as the New York Times and Washington Post are sticking to their guns, and reporting the facts.  Interestingly, these two papers may be regarded as respectively left and right leaning by traditional sources, but they are both pretty moderate when compared to the highly polarized opinions presented in blogosphere.

A few questions to ponder: Is the wide range of opinions from across the blogosphere complimenting these traditional sources? Do they just dilute and distort the discussion but putting a spin on every issue?  Are these old news institutions doomed to failure in the wake of Web2.0 news sites like NewsVine and independent journalists like TPM Muckraker?  Do these old school institutions really present a moderate, objective view?  Does the highly edited and controlled process of traditional news censor and limit the discussion, or is it an essential part of accurate reporting?