A student emailed me today to ask what I thought about the Booth newspaper restructuring we talked about in class, and the future of journalism in general. For what it’s worth, here are some thoughts.
As a journalist, I try not to pretend I know something when I don’t. I don’t know what the future holds.
That said, there are various scenarios for a positive future. Here are a few.
1) Newspapers aren’t doomed; there are just too many of them. There will be a shakeout. Those that are left will be stronger, because fewer competitors will be chasing the remaining ad revenue. This is, in fact, the New York Times’ strategy for survival — to be “the last man standing” among major national papers.
2) Online does an awesome job on national and international, but a less good job of filling the need for local information. Thus news organizations with an INTENSE, LOCAL focus — whether they be print, online or a combination — might have a sustainable future.
3) Online advertising begins to be a significant enough revenue producer to support strong news efforts.
4) Professional news organizations are increasingly supported by — even owned by — non profits.
St. Petersburg Times is a prototype. A variant of this would be partnerships between universities and local communities to own and operate news organizations. There are a few of these around the country already.
5) Professional news organizations are supported by government subsidy — it works in UK with the BBC, and in Scandinavia.
6) Committed journalists become like a lot of writers, actors and musicians, waiting tables to support the habit while they hope to strike it big.
7) When pigs fly scenario — the public finds out how lousy it is not to have reliable information and realizes it has to pay professional journalists what they’re worth.
Negative scenarios
You will have no trouble coming up with these on your own.
