Boomers remember reading the paper every morning. I still do, only I read “the papers” on my computer. Like many of you, I’m worried that news organizations will continue to decline, and pretty soon we won’t have reporters snooping around and discovering the bad things politicians, corporations, and governments do. Greed, graft, fraud, and criminality will thrive in the darkness. I’d like to help figure out a way to fund news organizations so that won’t happen.
How does this sound: you start with an aggregator (a publisher who collects news from everywhere and puts it in one place; e.g. Slate.com, The Huffington Post). Call it YourNews.com (actually, there is such a domain but at present, it’s crap.) Offer an interesting and entertaining website that the reader could totally customize with free and fee-based apps that would provide a variety of news, such as local, world, science, education, business, in-depth reporting and analysis, and opinion from your favorite thinkers.
The news would be provided by a new, specialized organization which would contract with YourNews.com to provide high-quality feeds from their niche (for example, the best, most insightful, most understandable science news, or the most truly balanced political analysis).
If we did this, my local paper, the Press-Enterprise, could stop buying feeds from world news (which I can get anywhere, and in more depth), and spend the money beefing up its local coverage (which it does a pretty good job of, and which nobody else covers). Instead of subscribing to the P-E, I could subscribe to the new & improved P-E LOCAL application. This way, I would always know what was going on in my local world, without having to wade through half-assed coverage of the world as provided by a cash-strapped P-E.
Revenue for YourNews.com would come from paid apps and advertisers. Any thoughts on this idea?
If you’re reading this on Kindle, email me your thoughts at Lmspreen@yahoo.com.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post, Debbie. I agree re coupons but even in that arena, the trend is toward the online version (story here: http://www.couponsinc.com/Corporate/OurCompany/PressReleases/2010.aspx?udt_447_param_detail=97)
I think any form of media pretty much panders to its demographic, in order to sell product. I can’t think of a truly objective news source except maybe CSPAN, and they’re very limited, to just congressional goings-on.
My goal was to think of a way to keep news establishments alive. My local paper is still trying to maintain a printing press, paper, ink, employees to run it, deliver it, etc. I’m afraid they won’t be able to compete with online “papers”.
Using myself as an example, I was suggesting that even though I can get all the news I want for free, I would pay to get a local feed. It’s only thru the local paper that I can find out what’s going on down at my local city hall. I hope the Press will continue to exist, but I don’t think they can if they try to compete with, say, USAToday for national news. So maybe if they focus on what they can do that nobody else can do? And I would pay for that. Here’s hoping.
Yes, they’re definitely going to have to change their focus to what they do best — monitor local news, rather than cramming pages full of wire service stories that we’ve already read online or heard on TV! And you’re absolutely correct that it costs a small fortune for every tiny local paper in every community to have its own staff, its own printing press, its own deliverers, etc. I guess that’s why so many local papers sell out to one of the large conglomerates; however, speaking from the standpoint of someone who’s seen just that happen in my home town, it hasn’t improved the quality of reporting or editing!
Lynne, I agree that something needs to be done, but I’m hesitant to swallow your suggestion entirely. There always will be folks who clip coupons and like the feel and smell of a newspaper (what would they line their bird cages or puppy crates with in the absence?!). In addition, I wonder if an aggregate would only be pandering to the interests of the people it serves, rather than “stirring up” people the way a non-biased newspaper traditionally does. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to charge a small access fee for people to read online papers — they could then pick and choose which papers they want to read, help subsidize the reporting/editing staff, and force the local papers to do the best possible job (thanks to the free enterprise system). Those that didn’t live up to expectation would fold, regardless of how much or how little advertising business they secured. What do you think?