If Dead Tree News Fell In The Forest, Would Anyone Hear?

Back in 1997 a journalist colleague announced to us that newspapers would be dead in 10 years - everyone would be getting their news on portable devices linked to the Internet.

He was roundly scoffed by the majority of his determinedly ink-immersed brethren.

Ten years on, newspapers aren't exactly extinct yet but he was right. With Internet connected phones and newspapers putting more and more news on web sites, it is quite possible to keep up with the latest without buying a dead tree edition.

In the United States, perhaps one of the robust news markets it's not technology that may put an end to some titles, but the economic downturn.

Case in point is the US Star Tribune, the metropolitan paper for Minneapolis. It has teetered on the brink of closure for a number of years but has also rushed to put most of its content, including breaking news stories on its web site.

All laudable, but the advertising revenue of the site is not enough to carry the capital-intensive print edition as editor Nancy Barnes announced on Saturday:

I'm not sure anyone knows what the right answer is for our business right now. What I do know is that good journalism, the kind an enlightened community like the Twin Cities demands and appreciates, cannot be produced for free. I also believe that we, as an industry, have to drive more value into our printed papers so long as we continue to deliver news that way.

At least the 'Strib', as it's known, has decided to back its own abilities, unlike other newspapers who have gone to the US Government for money.

This is the same US Government renowned for bailing out mortgage companies, insurance companies and car companies to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Uh-hmmm, there's all sorts of trouble brewing in that scenario.

Imagine, for instance, the Federal Government decided to effectively 'own' The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald?

Jack Schafer writing for online magazine Slate poses the question, do we actually need newspapers?

When the conversation turns to democracy, I turn to Adrian Monck, who rejects the idea that newspapers play an irreplaceable role in the institution's well-being. Indeed, American democracy survived its first century without much in the way of the investigative and accountability journalism we associate with newspapers. That kind of journalism didn't start to spread until the end of the 19th century. When Thomas Jefferson said he preferred newspapers without government to government without newspapers, he wasn't referring to anything we'd recognize as our local paper, says Stephen Bates, professor of journalism at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Slate contributor. The pre-modern press was captive of political parties, and their pages were filled with partisan fodder. What Jefferson was applauding was the newspapers' capacity as a forum for debate (and sometimes slander), not exposé...

...The insistence on coupling newspapering to democracy irritates me not just because it overstates the quality and urgency of most of the work done by newspapers but because it inflates the capacity of newspapers to make us better citizens, wiser voters, and more enlightened taxpayers. I love news on newsprint, believe me, I do. But I hate seeing newspapers reduced to a compulsory cheat sheet for democracy. All this lovey-dovey about how essential newspapers are to civic life and the political process makes me nostalgic for the days, not all that long ago, when everybody hated them.

So what does that mean for Australian newspapers?

Well things are looking so bad at the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne's The Age that there's a web site protesting the threatened retrenchment of journalists and a wage freeze as a cost-cutting measure:

It is fundamentally unfair that Fairfax reporters, sub-editors, photographers, artists, designers and web producers have had their wages frozen soon after executive managers were rewarded with a 45 per cent increase in bonuses alone - from $1.5 million in 2006 to $2.2 million in 2007.

Quality journalism matters. It is important that working journalists at Fairfax are able to keep Australians informed without fear of retribution from their corporate managers.

News is important and so the profession of journalism, no matter what changes exist in technology there will always be a role for news gathering.

Whether outdated technology should be subsidised is another matter all together.

What do you think? Let us know in comments.