Is the Internet killing the newspaper?
JEFF JARVIS, author of Gutenberg the Geek (Amazon Publishing), Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live (Simon & Schuster, 2011) and What Would Google Do? (HarperCollins 2009), blogs about media and news at Buzzmachine.com. He is associate professor and director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism.
He is consulting editor and a partner at Daylife, a news startup. He consults for media companies and is a public speaker. Until 2005, he was president and creative director of Advance.net, the online arm of Advance Publications. Prior to that, Jarvis was creator and founding editor of Entertainment Weekly; Sunday editor and associate publisher of the New York Daily News; TV critic for TV Guide and People; a columnist on the San Francisco Examiner; assistant city editor and reporter for the Chicago Tribune; reporter for Chicago Today.
Question: Is the Internet killing the newspaper?
Jeff Jarvis: It’s not the internet that’s killing the newspaper, it’s that newspapers are trying too hard to hold onto a past. The problem here is that there are new opportunities, newspapers have not seen, what they’re seeing instead is fear of change.
Every other industry in this country, in this world has to change because the internet. Why shouldn’t newspapers? Other industries that are smart are embracing this change. And newspapers are, out of fear, only beginning to. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether or not the printing press is getting used as long as the journalism continues.
I met Alan Rusbridger the editor of the Guardian not long ago and they had just spent 150 million dollars on new presses and he said very calmly, “Oh yes those are probably the last presses we’ll ever buy.” Now I can imagine an American publisher would say that and keel over at that moment. But Rusbridger realizes that what he’s continuing is the journalism and he’s got to find ways to make it continue in this new world.
It’s not going to be the same as it was. Newspapers were one-size-fits-all monopolies. Those days are over, the business has changed, the scale of the business has changed. But if they start thinking more collaboratively, if they start thinking more flexibly, I think journalism can actually grow.
Question: What advice do you have for the New York Times?
Jeff Jarvis: If I were running the New York Times company today, I would use the Boston Globe as a laboratory to do all kinds of new and brave things and figure out what to do.
Maybe it shouldn’t be in print, maybe it should go hyper local, maybe it should go multimedia, maybe it should be five different products, I don’t know; but I would try them out in Boston. At the New York Times itself, their strength is their weakness because they are this incredible institution and they’re trying to protect that, and for good reason. But that protectionism is not a strategy for the future and they realize that. I’m not saying anything to them they don’t know.
They are trying to do new things but they’re constantly saddled with being the New York Times. So what I hope really happens is that, in newspapers across the country, we’ll see experiments about new ways to do things.
The Madison Capital Times, an afternoon paper and a two paper market has just gone out of print except for a two once a week supplements and they’re now going to go solely online. We’ll see how that works, I think every paper in the country should be looking at new experiments and seeing new ways to do things.
Recorded on: Apri 30, 2008
Newspapers are killing themselves by holding on to the past, says Jarvis.
Fight or flight? We've all been there. Now we have an understanding of how it works.
The Spilhaus Projection may be more than 75 years old, but it has never been more relevant than today.
- Athelstan Spilhaus designed an oceanic thermometer to fight the Nazis, and the weather balloon that got mistaken for a UFO in Roswell.
- In 1942, he produced a world map with a unique perspective, presenting the world's oceans as one body of water.
- The Spilhaus Projection could be just what the oceans need to get the attention their problems deserve.
It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction
- It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
- If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
- The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.