Putting the Paper to Sleep: This Time for Good

Over the past couple of weeks and months, we have bombarded with articles of lamentation concerning the demise of newspapers. As people interested in writing, this news is quite disconcerting. Take for example my hometown newspaper of the Philadelphia Inquirer. They declared Chapter 11 two months ago and they have been crying poverty for as long as I can remember. They have changed format (adding ads to every conceivable location), erased whole sections (remember the Sunday Magazine), slashed writers with a red ink pens and raised the price. This weekend they celebrated bringing the news to this market of readers for 180 years. It is quite an accomplishment for any business to stay alive that long, but even more so for one that has seen many forms of communications come and go. But if you look a little closer, you may see that this paper has held a monopoly on the news and writers living in this area. We are faced with the reality that a paper is a business first, a public trust second, and a source of information third. They sell information for money. Taken in this line, how can we feel sorry it is being replaced?

 Reading a recent article about the post internet world, the plan is to charge for information using the applications on hand held devices. This would rid us of ink stained hands but charge us for free information out there on the internet. The news industries are hoping that the sleek, modern and cool devices will be the impetus for us to spend our money on the information again. If they would give a Kindle or smart phone for a subscription to your favorite magazine or newspaper, they would have plenty of readers and takers. Considering this line of thought, we are faced with the reality that the loyal costumers have been paying for the format and name of their paper out of tradition and habit. They fell in love with the ink smell, the early morning dew on the paper wrapper, the crinkle sound of the opening of the first page, the familiar set up of the heading that welcomes them to morning as much as the smell of brewing coffee. For over 180 years, the Philadelphia Inquirer has provided an item that became synonymous with morning. This newspaper has outlasted everyone in the region and is now on the brink of its own collapse. I just hope that people will let it go and not pay for the information it offers, not only because it is free in other places, but its claims as an institution are over inflated.

Putting many of the environmental, technology and business elements away for the demise of newspapers that have been reiterated, let us just focus on reading and writing. Newspapers stopped promoting the development of writing to engage the reading audiences. Newspapers were there to inform and entertain. They did this by writing. Customers today should be interested in reading, not the paper. Today’s newspapers do not mean reading more, as you can see in the amount of pictures and ads. Newspapers failed because they have became so large that they decreased the amount of diversified thinking, thus hurting the democracy. This is no clearer then when the paper endorses politicians the day before the election. Television has made the news easy to get and the internet became a place where we can discover more about the topics. What is left for newspapers other than nostalgia? It is the writing and people’s need to sit down and read. This is a great opportunity for news agencies (not papers) to increase the level of sophistication of writing and thought to make loyal readers. It is an opportunity for writers to embark on all types of writing that will bring people back to their couches in celebration of the written word.

So what died first: the reader or the writer? For newspapers, it doesn’t matter because if they do not bring back the writer, the readers will surely go. And I don’t mean to other sources, but become obsolete. Newspapers promoted reading in our earliest levels and allowed us grow in sophistication as it introduced us to different styles of writings and other printed works. If newspapers die out, new forms of writing will emerge, thus a new generation of readers. This is where we come in. As our houses and neighborhoods remove the newsprint, we must provide alternatives. As newspapers become a less solvent business, they may return to their basic forms of providing the highest level of writing to meet their readers’ modern needs. They must change as everything changes and no amount of nostalgia, even for 180 years, is enough to prevent us to go back to print. If the writing is good, then the readers won’t leave regardless of its form, as long as it is not the newspaper. Don’t feel too bad, they did corner the market on obituaries.

Comments

[Russell]

Think the editor "died first". Good editors - given wide governance - are responsible for presenting quality journalism. Unfortunately, churning corporate press releases and features based opn celebrity and "lifestyle" have skewed newspapers beyond the point of no return.

Thanks for a thoughtful and informative post.

[newchinaguyritchie]

<p>Good Post! I'll admit, I've been reading the 180th Anniversary specials this week, and I am saddened to live in a time when our papers have lost their value. While I appreciate the alternative sources of news, I wonder though if there isn't any danger in losing our ability to place importance on information. I think the greatest aspect of the paper, that is already being lost through internet writing, is the differentiating of information by quality, purpose, and value.</p><p>The article you recently emailed to me, http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090519/cm_csm/ypicard, addresses this issue of value quite well. However, it missed the idea of the reader learning to evaluate information through its organization and placement within the newspaper. All writers aspire to be on the front page of paper. This usually occurs from either addressing a legitimate issue or writing a great article. </p><p>For newspaper readers, we are able to understand that the front, with largest font, and the colorful pictures, has more value than other sections of the paper. As we mature as readers, and as concerned members of society, we tend to focus more of our attention to the front page and less to the Sports and Comics. Now, you may argue that this logic has been replaced with political nepotism and bias, but for the most part, the front page of newspapers has the most pressing news, or the best, Pulitzer-prizing winning writing. </p><p>However, in our new media, this differentiation of quality and importance has been lost. Merely look at the hub for the Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/ and you'll see what I'm talking about. Currently, there is a focus on Eagles Wideout Desean Jackson's father passing. This will change to some other hot, topical, kitsch story in another hour or so, but you get the point. To get to the better, more note-worthy, critical news, one must circumnavigate through tons of worthless, frivolous trash, that is if they are capable of ignoring all of the alluring advertisements. </p><p>So, I wonder if forcing readers to pay for online media will disrupt this growing trend of information. Personally, I think people are better off just creating their own news, maybe with a blog or two.</p>

[Lynn Hoffmann]

I love this idea - Let's get rid of plastic too. Stop making those plastic shopping bags and yogurt containers altogether unless they can absolutely be recycled. Teach the workers green engineering to find a way to employ those factory workers with a job in a more green friendly industry- perhaps cleaning up the earth so we can grow more food again. If people can afford iphones they can afford a few fabric bags.