The 10 Nails in the Coffin of Newspapers

A more recent one... written just after Black Friday at the DesNews.

One of the larger news stories of the past couple weeks was the elimination of 43 percent of the staff of The Deseret News and the resultant intermingling of what’s left of The News with some other related-by-marriage media. Forty-three percent, mind you. These were real people, too.
I am not going to examine this specific intermingling and the ethical, journalistic and messy questions that it spawns, but rather take a larger look at how this came to be. One of the editorial writers for The Deseret News, for example, explained it this way, about three days after nearly half of his fellow employees were laid off: “… the problem is that the Internet has sapped ad sales.”

Holy Simplified Answer, Batman!

It’s much more layered, much more complex that than, rest assured. To examine all of the nails that have been and are now being pounded into the coffin of newspapers, you have to go back a generation or more. Here are those nails, in more or less chronological order.

Nail 1. There used to be a TV show on Saturdays in Utah where high school kids — in teams — were quizzed by an editor of the Tribune about current events that had been found in the past week’s issue of the paper. This was not uncommon; throughout the nation, papers were often used as a current events tool. Then came Channel One.

Channel One? Yup, a TV channel sent directly to junior and senior high schools — we’re talking early to mid-‘80s here — to be shown during “home room” periods, a slam-bam TV news look at current events and popular culture. The pervasive presence of Channel One did a couple of things: it made newspapers irrelevant for a rising generation of students; newspapers were no longer a learning tool; and it conditioned millions of students to receive news via quick, flashy edits and tiny sound bites. It also fed into and, in fact, was a catalyst in reducing the attention spans of teenagers.

Nail 2. As it began being an part of day-to-day lives — not even yet an important part, but a part, nonetheless — the Internet was championed as “free.” All content on it was supposed to be free. There were bumper stickers stating the fact; there were student clubs at colleges in the ‘80s with that as their mission statement. I remember having an argument with a web-savvy technogeek college student who was absolutely aghast that a website would charge for anything. With the slogan “The Internet must never be owned by Bill Gates” on their lips, the Internet had at its beginning a strong, earthy undercurrent that said all “information” must be free.
And newspapers bought into that, as did most every similar research source on the web. As news and opinion began being archived or repeated online from print sources, it was free. Given that choice again, newspaper owners would dip themselves in boiling ink before setting out on that road.

Nail 3. Many thought the Internet could actually make money. Remember the so-called “dot.com boom”? One of the basic premises of the dot.com surge was that the Internet could make money … for everyone involved. The “dot.com bust,” you might remember, quickly followed the boom. Realistically, you can count the legitimate businesses making money solely with a presence on the Web on your fingers and toes.

Nail 4. The Channel One generation now becomes the decision-makers. I once heard a group of well-paid executives, all of them aged a couple decades younger than me, describe their marketing campaign for the unveiling of a new video game, a game designed for high school- and college-aged students. They used little videos and little hints strategically placed throughout the web (ala “Blair Witch Project”) and techno-this and unconventional-that, spending thousands to get the word out. When I asked if they had considered a college newspaper to reach college students, they looked blankly at each other and shrugged and said, “Nah, dude. Didn’t even think of that.” The irrelevancy of newspapers in the lives of decision-makers who had never read one — and wear their hats backwards — had, by this point, grown geometrically.

Nail 5. The Perfect Storm. Around October of 2008, several newspapers (Seattle, Los Angeles, Detroit to name a few) announced in varying forms and levels, their failure. At almost the exact same moment, or so it seemed, the stock market died, the so-called housing and banking crises hit and businesses went to the edge of the cliff. Peering over, they saw newspaper advertising as the first expense that could be called back as they circled the wagons. Black October now created an advertising crisis, too.

Nail 6. News by theft or imitation becomes more common. “News” websites that merely cut and paste from other sites and consider all information on the Web “public” begin popping up everywhere. Most are built on the premise they can sell ads around these tidbits and make money. See Nail 3. Add to these the legitimate, thoughtful blogs and alternative (non-newspaper) sites — yes, there are some! — and there began a significant diluting of the niche newspapers once thought was theirs alone. Suddenly newspapers and newspaper sites became only one voice in a chorus.

Nail 7. It becomes obvious that Internet advertising doesn’t work any better than print advertising. If you are reading this column on the ‘net, quick, what was the ad that loaded at the top of the page when you loaded this column? Can’t remember, can you? The Internet generation — as much as they love technology — are absolutely immune to Internet advertising. They are so used to buttons and banners and a little flashing this and that on web pages that they pass over them quicker than, well, quicker than a newspaper ad can be ignored, that’s for sure. So the concept of trading one advertising model — newspapers surrounded by news — for a new model — internet news surrounded by blips and bleeps — showed it’s flaws. And business owners began to question both models. Newspapers that were hoping to supplement their loss of print advertising dollars with dollars from the Web are left hoping.

Nail 8. Phones and other hand-held information gathers get really, really good. It’s not difficult for anyone, regardless of generation or former favorite sources of news, to leave print in the driveway.

Nail 9. You’ve heard sad statistics about how many WWII veterans — the Greatest Generation — we lose every day in the United States. The same can be said for newspaper subscribers; it’s the same group. In fact, that same statistics will soon be said for those who watch the evening news. Watch the CBS or NBC news at 5:30 p.m. and see what is being advertised. That should tell you who is watching, and whom the networks will soon be losing as viewers. Students I deal with more are much more likely to watch TV shows on a computer — or phone — than on a TV.

Nail 10. To bring us full circle — due in part to the shortened attention span and the million-edits-a-minute fed to the minds of the rising generation — people now consider a conversation with a maximum of 140 characters (not words, but characters) normal. Twitter and Facebook have reduced social interaction and discussion to less than a sound bite — to a mere tease. Reduced to “stories” of 140 characters, heck, who of the rising generation has time to read anything of substance, as important or good as it may be?

Even the Deseret News.