Monday, July 27, 2009

Media arrogance

For more than a century, daily newspapers dominated media audiences. They made a tradition of posting double-digit profits, when most businesses have traditionally been more than happy with low single-digit profit. But even though dailies were longstanding, powerful profit machines, they rarely felt any urgency to make adjustments to their business model. They pretty much sat pat, even as the market they served changed, and competing, much more efficient technology to disburse information was developed.
But beginning in the 1980s that audience domination started to erode with declining daily readerships. The weaker of two-paper cities were forced out of business. The survivors sailed on with even bigger monopoly profits. Some dailies were shamed into beefing up their business pages, because local business weeklies were making their skimpy, behind the sports page coverage look bad. Realizing that running black and white photos was beginning to look grayish and bland to increasingly visually oriented readers, they took a cue from the color-blitzed upstart USA Today. They started displaying much more expensive color photographs and graphics. But that was about it. They were still profitable, so for them, all was moving along fine, with profits showing the proof.
Meanwhile, entertainment became more popular among a growing younger generation in the national population without any interest in reading daily newspaper stories. And this audience demographic of course, held no interest in buying or subscribing to a daily. That shrank daily newspaper readership even more. While staying profitable, several surviving dailies became publicly traded as a defensive move when younger generations of their family ownership wanted no part of taking over the reins of the newspaper. They wanted only the wealth they were entitled to. Publicly traded dailies then became even more squeezed for short-term shareholder profit and veered away from the more prudent path of long-term investments meant to help them cultivate growth over the long haul.
And then one day the Internet came along. Early on, the new online medium was something the dailies saw only as a potentially minor competitor. They and other media started their own websites. But they had no idea how they could make money selling advertising on websites as profitably as they had done for years with print.
But then, almost instantly, the 800-pound gorilla to replace daily newspapers as a dominant advertising medium, appeared. Google came along and figured out how to sell advertising – a lot of advertising -- to support its lightning fast, dynamic search engine. Google offered the news gathered by newspapers by linking users to their websites, and any other with useful information.
Then along came Craigslist, a 600-pound gorilla offering free classified ads online. That exploded a major revenue stream of daily newspapers. Suddenly, it was realized by a lot of former daily newspaper classified advertisers that Craigslist gave them the same or greater audience reach of a newspaper. All without having to pay a dime.
So now, the once omnipotent dailies are in the advanced throes of near bankruptcy, bankruptcy, or death. A lot fewer people read them anymore because of all the news and information available online. Fewer businesses and services buy advertising in them because online ads cost less and generate better results. Debt ridden, dailies have resorted to cutting staff, putting themselves up for sale, printing less pages on smaller sized formats, all while trying with little success to make their online sites profitable with ad sales.
Only a few big market dailies with national readership may survive, clinging to an antiquated business model that has been soundly beaten by technology and a changed appetite for media among the masses.
Some people see this as a sad thing. They grew up reading newspapers every day, and can’t imagine life without them.
Others applaud the demise of the daily newspaper, which to some, arrogantly wielded its power for too long.
TV and radio news media often were considered second-rate headline readers to the literary depth a newspaper provided in its news stories. TV and radio journalists chafed at being cast as lesser quality journalists with their limited air-time work than dailies, which had the luxury of more space for in-depth news. Meanwhile, some reporters at powerful dailies were arrogant and bullied sources to get information. They generally didn’t feel a need to be fully professional. They felt untouchable in their power, which was without a doubt, intimidating. Though only a few daily journalists were in that mode, with many others solid professionals, the arrogant bad apples left a bitter taste with those they’d slighted over the years.
One radio journalist I know who is usually reserved and diplomatic, changed his tune after a few drinks. He spewed his resentment of daily newspapers, and his delight at their demise.
“They had all the chances in the world to adjust to the changes in the market, but they never did,” he said. And he apparently thinks all daily journalists were too arrogant, and crowed at the change of fortune for them.
“Now they’re unemployed,” he said. “That’s OK. It’s good for them. It’ll toughen ‘em up.”
I’ve been a daily journalist in my career, but most of my years were spent at a business weekly newspaper, which is a different, more specialized animal than a daily. Still, I found myself a bit taken aback by his hostility at dailies in general, and his resentment-fueled glee at their downfall.
But his beef wasn’t any less arrogant than the daily newspapers and reporters he no doubt despised for arrogance in his dealings with them. He boasted his journalistic medium of public radio is now more popular than ever, hinting that it is the only credible journalism source left in media. He seemed to relish the notion of his medium as finally emerging from what had been the ever-present shadow of daily newspapers as the new superior source of journalism available to the public. He seemed more than willing to assume the dubious mantle of the arrogant journalist now, convinced of his news medium’s invincibility.
But if daily newspapers can go down, so can any medium, including public radio. Arrogance, while an inherent affliction of some journalists drunk with power, is just that. It’s an affliction of self-importance that doesn’t do anything but alienate people who come in contact with it. And because the daily newspaper industry has no doubt been arrogant in its many years as the dominant news medium, other news media should take note. It’s not a good idea for any media enjoying wild popularity and success to assume a top-dog arrogance that it will never have to change with market shifts. That ultimately led to the humbling downfall of dailies, and it will no doubt happen again because of blind arrogance.
As somebody wise once said, “The second you think you’ve got it all figured out, you’re toast.”

To see Mark Eric Larson's digital book of essays, "Don't Force it Get a Bigger Hammer," A newspaper journalist's memoir with names changed when that seemed best, visit:


His second book of essays, "The NERVE of Some People's Kids," will be posted at the above site in May 2011.