Home ›

OUT OF LEFT FIELD: "Print is dead" the battle cry of alarmists, despite closures of Weekender and Nelson Daily News

by Kyra Hoggan on 21 Jul 2010
in
OUT OF LEFT FIELD: "Print is dead" the battle cry of alarmists, despite closures of Weekender and Nelson Daily News

The very last issue of the Weekender will hit our mailboxes tomorrow, and the Nelson Daily News is already closed for good.

 

It has been suggested that, as the owner of an on-line media outlet, I should be delighted at the newspapers' demise.
 
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
For starters, I wrote for the Weekender, right up until the bitter end, filing my final coverage just yesterday (and what other publication, I ask you, would give me the shining moniker “Castlegar bureau chief” for the two or three stories I penned each week?). I'll miss editor Darren Davidson, with his irrepressible wit and genuine love for the region, quite terribly.
 
I worked with and for many of the people in that office – I liked most of them and respected all of them – and I know all too well the pain of having that rug pulled out from under you after years of hard work and commitment. The loss of the Castlegar Current still stings, a year-and-a-half later– and I was at its helm for only two years – hardly the 15 years Bob Hall served as managing editor at the NDN. In a very real way, those people (my friends and colleagues) are mourning the death of a loved one.
 
And make no mistake – like us or hate us, for most of us journalism is absolutely a labour of love. God knows, most of us will never get rich doing it ... entry-level rookies could probably make more money offering people fries with their order than they would at the average community newspaper.
 
To top it all off, I'm a trained, experienced print journalist – regardless of recent career shifts, I can hardly enjoy being told I'm now obsolete.
 
Which brings me to my point – print journalism is not dead, regardless how many of its vehicles die an ignominious death in the weeks and months and years to come.
 
The 'print is dead' paradigm reminds me forcibly of the introduction of Automated Banking Machines (or ATMs). I remember the hue and cry over those – people screaming that thousands of teller jobs would be lost, that people would no longer be able to bank with human beings, that computers were making, not just bank employees, but humanity in general, obsolete.
 
What absolutist nonsense.
 
Did bank employees have to retrain in new technologies? Probably. Was it inconvenient? I can't imagine how it could be otherwise. Did we ever actually see even a glimpse of the doomsday scenario for the banking world that so many alarmists predicted?
 
Of course not.
 
And so it is with print journalism.
 
Yes, many technophobic print writers like myself will surely have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the New Millennium and thus some proficiency with new media like the 'Net, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
 
Yes, paradigms will shift and we'll have to adapt with them – just like every generation before us since the Industrial Revolution.
 
Perhaps people will now gravitate more to on-line news sources for real-time coverage of breaking news, while others may forgo the print format altogether and web-sling their way through current events.
 
But many others, myself included, will still enjoy the heft of hard-copy in one hand and a coffee in the other, with a Sunday morning stretching before me and hours to peruse the in-depth features, op-eds, crosswords and other joyous luxuries to be found in the pages of print.
 
Will there be hard times ahead, at least for some in the print world? Surely so, as newspapers seek solutions to daunting problems like environmental footprints and the exhorbitant overhead involved in paper, ink, pressing, distribution ... but what business hasn't had to adapt and evolve apace with the world around them? It's the natural order of things, in commerce as in life.
 
One of the challenges corporate media will face in the years to come, I think, is its ponderous size. While newspaper chains boast some serious momentum in capturing market share, they often seem to struggle in adapting quickly to changing circumstance, simply by virtue of their size.
 
I think we'll see a lot more independent media outlets setting up shop – not just online, but with print versions, too – offering a more personal, sustainable news delivery.
 
Are these outlets going to fell the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times, or even the Castlegar News? Hardly – nor should they.
 
We're all important elements in the rich and vibrant media mix that every democratic community should boast. Radio, television, on-line and – yes – print all have different things to offer different people at different times, and they all play a critical role in informing a self-governing population that relies on strong media to make good decisions.
 
As long as there are people out there who care about the world around them – close to home and in the larger planet – there will be a place for journalists of every ilk.
 
Don't put on your best funeral suit just yet – print is far from dead. It's changing, that's all. Just like everything else.
 
 
Ed. Note: For the staff at the Weekender and the NDN – it takes great courage and integrity to pen thousands of words, put your full name at the top, and send it out into the broader community. Your mistakes are there in black-and-white for all the world to see; and your triumphs are often buried in back pages or unnoticed by those who don't understand what you do... or how, or why.
There are those, yes, who will rejoice at the end of these publications ... but many. many more who will not.
Your efforts were valued, and you will be missed.

Comments

From the editor: I respectfully disagree

by Kyra Hoggan on 23 Jul 2010 at about 10:34.

While I understand your frustration with sloppy media, I think laying the responsibility solely at the feet of print is a flawed perspective ... journalists everywhere, in every medium (including online) can be very sloppy, and serve as destructive elements in regard to journalistic endeavour.

By the same token, a small group of dedicated, caring journalists can elevate a community newspaper to become a vehicle for positive change, elightening and assisting residents in their day-to-day lives.

Does that always happen? Not hardly. But that's the fault of corporate ownership and understaffing - not the medium itself, as you so correctly pointed out.

Yes, money matters have skewed the value and virtue of many a newspaper ... and the flawed journalism that results is both sad and frightening. But I know the Trail Daily Times is still making money and led by a woman with the deepest respect for journalistic integrity - that paper alone makes my argument.

There's room for all of us ... and a chance, as the paradigms shift, to call for stronger, better, more responsible reporting, instead of alientating those who still value print by insisting it's a dying dinosaur, doomed for extinction.

I would argue that, if purveyors of print get smart, the model can be altered enough to allow a market share for hard copy newspapers. You may no longer enjoy reading them - but lots of other people do, and lots of advertisers know that. Hundreds of savvy business people continue to invest in print journalism - I don't think they're all either stupid or blind. In fact, I think they're very wise to explore ways of altering an antiquated business model such that it works effectively in the New Millennium.

We, at Lone Sheep, like our model better than others, because of its sustainability - both economically and environmentally.  It's a clean, simple paradigm that requires no defense, so obvious are its benefits.

Coming from such a comfortable, enviable position, I think it behooves us to regard other media with respect, patience and open minds ...dancing on the grave of an ailing industry - whether it's actually dying or simply changing doesn't matter in his context - seems unproductive to me.

Moreover, I think we should dial down our harsher rhetoric when we have cause to believe said commentary will hurt men and women in our communities who are struggling with, or suffering from, that changing paradigm. Men and women who, more often than not, share our regard for journalistic endeavour and have dedicated the larger part of their professional lives to it.

Dead, dying, changing ... the truth will out, in time, and I'll buy you a beer and laugh over it a decade from now ... and take my lumps  ... if I'm wrong.

In the interim, I think, the best we can do is be respectful of other media and let our own stand on its merits ..and let the chips fall where they may. More than 8,000 individual readers have chosen the Castlegar Source - they don't need any more convincing from us.

We have the luxury of floating like a butterfly - let the other guys sting like a bee, and see where it gets them.

If anything has died, it's our communities' patience for the '80s business model that makes it okay to condemn the competition, rightly or wrongly. We live side by side, we shop at the same stores, our kids go to the same schools. We are together - that's what community means - it softens our defeats and sweetens our victories, to know we experienced them together.

So I think we need to be very careful about saying things like 'print is dead' when good people in our communities are battling furiously to keep it alive.

If nothing else, we can harken back to the Journalist's Prayer - "Lord, let my words be soft and gentle today, for tomorrow I may have to eat them."

Adrian, I admire your passion and conviction. But we no longer need to beat the anti-print drum. Our products have proven their merit, with or without print competition.

Just to be clear, Kyra, when

by Adrian Barnes on 23 Jul 2010 at about 21:04.

Just to be clear, Kyra, when I beat my 'print is dead' drum, I don't do so to the disparagement of print journalists or editors, most of whom are doing the best they can in increasingly impossible circumstances. I believe I said as much in my last comment!

Print is just a medium, but it's a dying one that is now doing damage to our communities and our democracy. In fact, if anyone should be inclined to agree with my views it ought to be the conscientious print journalist who has seen his or her pay and budgets shrink (or disappear) and the amount of control they have over their work and careers increasingly taken out of their hands as centralized control of chain papers is implemented in order to try to keep an archaic business model afloat as long as possible. 

There's a difference between an attack and simply calling a spade a spade and I've said nothing against our fellow journalists. If we lived in a world of infinite trees, fresh air, and oil, a world where media monopolies weren't deadly serious threats to our democracy, if the model still worked, I'd say viva print. As it is, I have to repeat: good riddance.

An odd position for something from 'out of left field'

by Adrian Barnes on 22 Jul 2010 at about 14:38.

Kyra, I'm on the record as being 'anti-print', but I'm anti-print for very specific reasons. I'm not against print as a medium (except environmentally), I'm against print for what it's becoming in these waning days of its existence. The decreased economic vitality of the print model has led to very specific changes in newspapers:

  • less diversity of voices
  • more centralized (read 'corporate') ownership
  • less and worse content

Death is never pretty, but sometimes a wounded and dying animal can do a lot of damage before it finally collapses. So it is with print: right now, cash-strapped and chain-owned small town newspapers are tending to harm small towns and democracy. Increasingly, print is a tool wielded by moneyed interests. This is no slight against the journalists who work for them, doing their best against the tide of history.

As someone who clearly values journalism and journalists, surely you see that print is done for and, as long as it stumbles around, mortally wounded, the more damage will be done, both to the profession of journalism and to our democracy?

There isn't a 'place' for print journalism any more--that's the whole point. All there's a place for is one under-done newspaper per town, a newspaper that exists to sell ads and not much more. Such is the economic reality of the print model in the 21st century. To wish otherwise is fine, but nothing more than nostalgia.

I can certainly understand mourning the passing of print newspapers, but I can't see why anyone would want them to carry on in their current state.