Chronicle Says New Media Responsible for Sub Par News

Haven't you heard? News is declining. At least, according to Neil Henry in this morning's Chronicle:

The factors behind this shrinkage are sadly familiar: The rise of the
Internet has produced sharp declines in traditional advertising revenues in the printed press. Free online advertising competitors such as Craigslist.com have sharply undermined classified advertising as a traditional source of revenue. . .As a result, newspapers such as The Chronicle must make staff cuts to survive -- and increasingly it is highly skilled professional journalists committed to seeking the truth and reporting it, independently and without fear or favor, who must go.

Although I can understand Henry's frustrations with the changing climate of the newspaper business, I think his ire is misguided. According to Henry, everything from news aggregators like Google and Yahoo and even Craigslist are to blame for the impending exodus of skilled reporters. Although this may be accurate on a financial level as far as revenue loss is concerned, it's a far cry from making new media culpable for old media's reluctance to evolve.

Old media isn't losing its journalists because the public no longer values accurate news. It's losing its journalists because new media has found a cheaper way to provide advertising--which is a newspaper's lifeblood as far as revenue is concerned. A good example of this would be Craigslist. It undermines traditional print classifieds by offering the service for free--and to a larger audience, no less. If I wanted a tacky plaid lamp to go with my tacky plaid sofa, and I wanted to find it from London, I could do so with a few clicks of the mouse. That sense of immediacy (and the negligible cost) doesn't even compare to the slow speed and clunkiness of print classifieds. It's no one's fault really--things have just evolved.

In terms of the quality of the news, I don't really buy into Henry's slippery slope either. He describes the potential effects of the Chronicle layoffs as so:

When journalists' jobs are eliminated, especially as many as The Chronicle intends, the product is inevitably less than it was. The fact is there will be nothing on YouTube, or in the blogosphere, or anywhere else on the Web to effectively replace the valuable work of those professionals.

Just because The Chronicle is losing ad revenue to news aggregates, doesn't necessarily mean that a smaller reporter pool will ultimately produce sub par news. Not only is that unnecesarilly damning to everyone that isn't laid off, but it also assumes that the people who leave The Chronicle won't take their top notch reporting elsewhere. Getting laid off can definitely be devastating, but I seriously doubt that these people will never use their reporting or editorial talents elsewhere. A reporter switching publications or even working in the blogosphere isn't unheard of you know...

Ultimately, Henry's letter is but another chapter in the on-going old media vs. new media battle, but to put things in perspective, I think it's fitting to leave off with some advice from Rupert Murdoch that I blogged about a few weeks ago. In light of old media's need to adapt Murdoch said:

Quality is more important than ever, because the marketplace is more ruthlessly competitive. Options are not merely one click of the remote away; devices undreamed of a few short decades ago are at least as tempting as a change of the channel. Old media can survive--and thrive--in this new environment, but they must adapt. We must learn how younger generations of consumers prefer to receive their news and entertainment, and we must meet those expectations.

The Decline of News