Regards Nathan

As for the forms that have lasted. That could be seen as evidence of now innovation or evidence of lasting value. I’m going with some stuff of lasting value, surrounded by a lot of other stuff that was a way to make money, but created no real value.

So if that’s true, then the issue for newspapers and journalists may not be to add features, but to strip away the barnacles.

I’ve noted this here before, but try to think of anything in popular culture that has lasted as long as Blondie. And it even looks just like it did in 1938! Try to imagine something that has been around that long unchanged in any other medium– TV, radio, magazines, anything. (Okay, maybe Paul Harvey.) Try to imagine a TV show lasting since the 50s, with the same haircuts even. That’s all you need to know about how newspapers stopped innovating and attracting new audiences, right there.

Do you know how that deal fared?

A question asked of Ted: “What is the future of news and media?”

To paraphrase his response: “It’s way too crowded and nobody can make any money anymore. That’s why I’m now in the restaurant business.”

Ted Turner didn’t get rich by being stupid.

The fact is that the world is changing in completely new – to us – ways. Organizations that evolved in one environment have a very hard time when that environment changes. The bigger they are, the more costly the change. Auto, Television, Newspapers, Finance, Advertising, Printing companies are all caught in a similar situation. If the whole Investment Banking business can disappear in a couple of weeks, it doesn’t make sense to focus the blame the folks who run newspapers.

Not to say that they couldn’t have done better. But the Googles and WalMarts are few and far between. It’s always been like that. Probably will always be like that.

Meanwhile, there are new models starting to emerge. Rupert seems to see some opportunity. His record in making money in the media is pretty good. And there are lots of new experiments on the ground. These days, things can scale very quickly. Google, after all, is only ten years old.

He controls a product which for now provides an unmet need, detailed business content. FT.com and IBD.com do the same thing. I don’t think one can extrapolate a general news business model from that, other than to say, for-profit general interest journalism is economically unsustainable without subsidy.

-robert

“McClatchy keeps arguing, with ear plugs well stuffed and blinders tight, that the problems in the industry are not fundamental but cyclical (as Dave Morgan said to that at my New Business Models for News Summit, “bullshit”).”

As you know, I was there at your conference, and called Dave on his mischaracterization immediately after he spoke. The Pruitt quote he cited was taken wholly out of context (I know; I heard the whole earnings call). Pruitt was talking about many of the effects OF THE LAST YEAR being cyclical. Morgan acknowledged as much to me, but said he wanted to make the general point and Gary’s quote was freshest.

As recently as yesterday, Pruitt said on Wall Street, “”We recognize that part of our advertising decline is permanent — reflecting the secular shift to the Internet. Another part is temporary — reflecting the cyclical nature of our business in a recession,” Pruitt said.”

Your comments about earplugs and blinders are beyond cheap shots, Jeff. They’re becoming willful, hurtful lies. Facts matter, dammit.

\-\/\/

Just heard you on The Diane Rehm Show, the first time I’ve actually heard you speak. You’re right on about the newspaper industry.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve read some of your columns here and seen you and your commentary elsewhere on the internet. We may have corresponded in the past. It was good to hear your pithy insight into the newspaper industry this morning on NPR.

BTW, I love your comment about the Tribune co-workers sitting Shiva for their former colleague who went to the Sun-Times.

Thank you for being at the forefront of the new era of print journalism.

Nancy

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana