22 February saw the first major American newspaper’s demise, as the Colorado daily Rocky Mountain News published its last edition, on print as well as on line. In many ways as could be expected, as we’ve been waiting for newspapers to go belly up for some time now – on a global basis. But the Rocky’s editorial staff didn’t give up. For some time now, they’ve continued to publish local news in I Want My Rocky, a blog not much unlike this, in terms of technology and design.
It soon became clear, however, that further developments were afoot. In a press conference yesterday, the Rocky successor, The InDenverTimes.com was announced, an online only newspaper, to be published some time later this spring. Here are a few video clips, issued on the happy occasion:
For Rocky readers preferring paper, on the other hand, this marks the end:
The Rocky Mountain News's final edition on 22 February 2009.
On the very same day we learn that The Seattle Post-Intelligencer decides to halt its printed edition, going online only. Today’s printed edition is its last.
This may be idle speculation, but it should come as no surprise that, before long, most news will have to be read online, at least in the industrialised world, where Internet penetration has reached a level rendering printed news obsolete.
Some of us have seen this coming for quite some time, even though we do not applaud it, unlike some journalists and techies, who, enthused by the technology’s possibilities, have advocated the media parenticide now taking place. As for me, I see no reason to rejoice in numerous colleagues being laid off. The Seattle P-I reorganisation says it all:
About 20 news gatherers and Web producers will stay on with seattlepi.com, plus another 20 newly hired advertising sales staff. The publisher will stick around through the transition period, but does not expect to be part of the ongoing online operation.
Up until today, the editorial staff alone counted 165 members.
I fear that we’ll see a lot more of this in times to come, perhaps even sooner than expected. But I must say that I find the tech-enthused journalists’ cheers a little out of place. Seems like we’re celebrating matter’s victory over mind. Certainly, technology involves mind, too, but a different mindset, if you know what I mean.
And of course, the Internet offers a wide variety of possibilities unavailable to the printed newspaper, such as instant reader contributions, comments, polls, quizzes and multimedia, as so lavishly demonstrated in this post. Even so, printed news offers a different reading experience. After all, there’s a reason why some prefer the book over the filmed version.
But, unlike some, I fail to see the upside to colleagues losing their livelihood by the numbers. In fact, as a freelance journalist, I’ve already started to feel the consequences of the ongoing recession. In the wake of advertisers’ reluctance to pay on time, my fees have been delayed considerably, and the number of assignments have dropped below an acceptable level (or perhaps you thought I just preferred blogging over writing for money).
We all notice the down-turn, one way or the other, but happily taking leave of printed news… Really, I don’t know about that.
This may sound a little strange, coming from someone who gave up printed newspapers a long time ago. In other words, I concur with those advocating news on the net. I just don’t see why print necessarily has to be the enemy.
There are ways to combine the two. We just need to find the right formula.
No comments here as of yet, but I’ve received some response to my briefly described link over at Facebook, to which I’d like to respond in a manner that’s not very well suited for the Facebook limitations. In particular Mads Kristensen’s remark:
Of course, the platform, be it the Internet or the press (in a quite literary meaning of the term), should be of no consequence for the content, although the former has proven itself unsurpassed for last-minute updates, whereas the latter seems better suited for in-depth material (which again isn’t entirely true, as specials, made up of flash presentations, video and other multimedia phenomena adds an extra dimension to background material).
I see no reason to preserve print for print’s sake, but really wouldn’t mind if printed newspapers prevailed. Maybe because I’m a hopeless romantic, starting my journalistic career when news stories were typed on typewriters, and cicero rulers were mandatory for those of us who worked the news desk, but staffing considerations weigh heavier, in my opinion.
If The Seattle P-I alone downsizes its editorial staff from 165 to 20, multiplying with the number of print-based newspapers worldwide could result in depressing figures, to say the least.
On the other hand; if a major US regional daily can do with 20 editorial staffers, wouldn’t that imply raised standards among the chosen few, thereby raising the editorial level of quality altogether?
I have to say that I’m doubtful.
That said, drastic changes are inevitable. I’m just not so sure that I find them overly agreeable.