Or, why newspapers aren't making money anymore.
1997 was a different time. I remember seeing all the adults on the subway with their newspapers in hand. Back then, in New York, the newspaper you read said something about you. The regular Joes read the Daily News or the Post, depending on their political slant. These were entertaining tabloids that slightly enhanced the truth, and you could tell just by reading the headlines. The folks who considered themselves somewhat more educated would have in hand a copy of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. It was harder to detect bias in those papers, but you could certainly discern it if you knew the raw facts and the spectrum of viewpoints.
Just as importantly, you could tell immediately which newspaper was which, just by looking at them. In the case of the plebeian pubs, the headlines were typed with screaming 2-inch high font. The patrician pubs used starkly different and recognizable typefaces for their titles.
Today, most newspapers in America are going out of business, and one thing that's perhaps been overlooked was the status conferred by reading a newspaper. One of the oldest adages in marketing states that the magnitude of status or identity conferred by a product determines how many brands you'll have of it. There are two major brands of toothpaste, as far as I can tell. People don't take too much pride in their toothpaste. You can't tell if someone brushed with Crest or Colgate, only whether they did at all. On the other hand, there's dozens of different car brands. Cars are expensive. They signal immediately one's level of wealth and some brands alert others to the owner's hobbies, or the size of the owner's beer gut or phallic insecurities.
No one really read the news just for the sake of knowing.
So how does this relate to newspapers?… It's quite simple: What if they don't confer status or identity anymore?
There's more than one take on this. My middle school math team teacher, a fairly well educated and openly intellectual person, once lamented how there were more newspapers and viewpoints in his day. He was born just before America suburbanized in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Sprawl was the first thing that happened. People may only see the newspaper on your lawn for a second in the morning, if at all. Next came computers, phones and tablets.
The problem with the modern world is that it's just not possible for others to see what you are reading anymore. What are they going to do? Squint at your laptop to see what you're reading? Forget about trying to surreptitiously read off an iPhone. You could argue that it can be done, but what's important is that people don't expect those around them to do so. Most damningly, most news in a paper is from the AP or Reuters anyway. It's just a piece of text and it really doesn't matter then where you get it from.
The other thing that happened is that the newspaper has stopped being a marker for appearing intelligent and well-informed. Old folks read newspapers. The well-informed folks get their news off the wire, on their smartphone, 30 seconds after Reuters or the AP pushed it out. What's post-modern journalism to do in the face of this?
Journalism needs to be "interesting" again, and other silly proposals.
I think that whatever journalism survives this new age will have to branch out again. It needs to once again appeal to people's inclinations and identity. Perhaps that's why blogs are so popular these days. They provide "analysis" alongside content. There are some news sources that seem to understand this. Stratfor, for example, provides a well-reasoned realpolitik attitude towards world news, and combines it with a solid understanding of local history and politics. It should be emphasized that unless you're aiming to be the 800lb gorilla like Fox News, your core readers should be willing to pay for your news. Everyone's talked about how the Internet has allowed companies to exploit niche markets. Perhaps it actually requires it, in our new world of commoditized information. Specialize. That's only part of the puzzle though.
The next part of the puzzle may be difficult for old media to stomach. They need to let subscribers share their material. If buying a newspaper was a way to confer status, then they can revive the dynamic in the modern world by letting subscribers mail a limited number of pieces to an unlimited number of their friends. Chances are, these friends aren't going to read the piece at all. What matters though is that subscriber will pay for a news service that tells others about how they think the world should be seen.
Sharing would also be a way for a subscription service to spread virally. People should also be able to post links to these articles on some social network, where they would be able to give props for them. People get a buzz out of seeing that others agree with their viewpoint, or found an interest in something that they read off the wire.
I actually think there's room on the web for a news service tailored exactly for this purpose (or maybe even more), especially if such a service were to aggregate based on people's interests and viewpoints. Implementing such a thing would of course be no trivial matter, but seeing how the incumbents seem to have dropped the ball, the time seems right. It could be monetized as well. The service could form a symbiosis with the news media by helping them sell subscriptions.
