The “Great Recession” has had all kinds of effects, some good and some bad. One effect that has interested me a great deal is the accelerating decline of newspapers. Professionally, this is a concern on several levels. Most immediately, some newspapers have responded to this situation by laying off staff including information professionals. More generally, newspapers are a great source of information, opinion and reporting that is still unmatched compared to other forms of media. The blogosphere does some great things, but I still remain skeptical that it can replace full-time paid journalists (though I remain open minded on this). Personally, I have always enjoyed reading newspapers both online and in print. When I travel abroad, looking through the local newspapers is always an enjoyable experience. The flexibility to read whatever one wishes makes me like them much more than TV and radio news too.

Recently, two particular articles have got me thinking more about the meaning of the decline in newspapers. A Globe & Mail article mainly looks at the implications for the collapse of newspapers for democracy. The Globe & Mail article is called, “Future of Media: Is democracy written in disappearing ink?” (Globe & Mail, March 14, 2009). I wonder if the present economic situation will encourage some new thinking on running newspapers; perhaps more experimentation with the non-profit organization model that Harper’s Magazine uses? What I liked most about that article was the suggestion that newspaper leadership must take some of the responsibility for what has happened. In the early and mid 1990s, there was no vision for what the Internet would mean for information and news use, consumption and creation. This failure to seriously engage with new technology is a cautionary tale in my view. One must remain open to new developments for the threats and opportunities they pose.

Taking a different view is Clay Shirky (author of ” Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations“) who has written an interesting blog post called Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. The focus of this article is on the effect of the Internet on changing business models for newspapers. One of Shirky’s most interesting insights – articulated elsewhere – is that online advertising is much more efficient than traditional print advertising. With online advertising, it is possible to get feedback routinely and in great detail. Such feedback makes it much easier to recalibrate and try other approaches. Shirky then makes the point that this, along with other trends, has meant less spending on advertising.

Here is the “unthinkable scenario” that is crushing newspapers in their current business model:

The unthinkable scenario unfolded something like this: The ability to share content wouldn’t shrink, it would grow. Walled gardens would prove unpopular. Digital advertising would reduce inefficiencies, and therefore profits. Dislike of micropayments would prevent widespread use. People would resist being educated to act against their own desires. Old habits of advertisers and readers would not transfer online. Even ferocious litigation would be inadequate to constrain massive, sustained law-breaking. (Prohibition redux.) Hardware and software vendors would not regard copyright holders as allies, nor would they regard customers as enemies. DRM’s requirement that the attacker be allowed to decode the content would be an insuperable flaw. And, per Thompson, suing people who love something so much they want to share it would piss them off.

The article gets even more interesting from there as Shirky draws parallels between the effect of the Internet and the effect of printing in Europe. The latter point is made by referencing Elizabeth Eisenstein’s landmark book, “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change.” I’ve read that book and thought it was quite good, though I’m aware that many historians dislike it for various reasons (one such reason appears to be the ambition of the work; attempting to make a grand argument or explanation in academia is difficult proposition at the best of times).

What do I think of all this? I do want to see the concept of newspapers – daily collections of reporting, opinion and so on – continue. Can that be covered with subscriptions? That would seem doubtful. I don’t have any answers to offer on this topic, but it is one that I will be following with great interest.

Related posts:

1. Fall Conference Season: Access & Internet Librarian
2. The High Social Cost of Poor Records
3. The Web is Not Dead