News organizations can compete with each other and concurrently keep customers paying for their product if they work more as a group and less like competitors. Competition is only good to the point where it benefits those competing. In the case of news it’s not working so well because every organization is acting independently, and by so doing is slitting the throat of traditional investigative reporting.

Group together and force customers to pay – don’t give news away online.

Best Regards,

Michael

I blame the media for the panic causing the run on wamu and devastating Seattle. I’m sure many people will be shocked I say that, but think about it… How many times in the past 10 years has it been published that Citibank or Chase was going to buy Wamu when it wasn’t true? Regardless of the excess capital, how many times in the weeks leading to the “run”, did the papers reflect a doomsday scenario on a bank that was already precarious? The FDIC walked in–NOT because the bank had reached unacceptable capital levels through it’s own doing, but because the run on the bank (which by the way, still didn’t deplete capital beyond acceptable levels) made them nervous. A run on the bank caused by the beating given by the media–not of pure truth, but a few tiny pieces of truth burried amongst a massive slew of crap and speculation. Creating a self fullfilling prophosy does not make the crap truth. Sadly, this information was given to people who rely on the news to be the truth, the news, not “news-ish”. Therefore, they act upon these stories as if they are the truth and the nation suffers for it.

I’m not saying that wamu may not have gone down anyway, but I’d sure feel better as a citizen that now has to live in this job market, or lack thereof, if the bank went down on it’s own accord, not because people can read the “news” & choose to get their financial advice from it.

I will respect the news again when they start giving actual facts and give the whole side of the story. In all that gloom and doom, I don’t remember the other side of the story–isn’t also the newspaper’s job to provide reality? like saying don’t withdrawl your funds, they’re FDIC insured and all you’ll do is cause the exact thing you don’t want.

Doesn’t the media have an obligation to support the community they live in? Instead, they play god by creating havic and panic that is unnecessary and eventually become the actual cause of taking down a bank instead of letting the bank do that itself, or heaven forbid, maybe have a chance to save itself… but what fun would that be, right? then what would they write about?

So, no, I don’t beleive that kind of news is worth paying for. I believe that the news has an unofficial “fiduciary” duty to the community because of the trust and reliance individuals put on its truth, whether they like it or not. I also believe they have badly abused it.

I want to trust the news again, but I don’t know that I can.

I started out as a journalism/communications major in college – before I graduated they discontinued the major! Journalism on a whole seems to have declined quite a bit, especially now because the media is so biased – nothing seems objective anymore. (which maybe stems to the lack of asking the “how and why” you mentioned)

Is that accurate? The music industry was/is failing, meaning the sales/marketing/distribution/cocaine concession part of music. You were covering music and music itself is still plenty vibrant, as the fact that there is an audience for an alt-country magazine, in any format, demonstrates.

But your central point that people assume things are fine until their local purveyor of desirable product goes away is not really new. The rule of thumb about small business startup is that 19 in 20 fail in the first year or something like that, due to undercapitalization/slow sales — no money, in other words.

13 years is a great run, especially for a magazine with a niche audience: well done.

I think maybe the current financial mess and this situation all point to a fundamental disconnect from how things work and what they cost. The presence of ads does not mean things are good or newspapers wouldn’t be where they are.

There are no answers to be found until we ask better questions. What does quality journalism cost to do and what does the lack of it mean for us? Newspapers != journalism just as LP records != music. We need to move our thinking past the desire for a rolled-up fishwrapper. Cities used to have 4,5 or more dailies 100 years ago. Radio and TV at into that. What did broadcast media offer, and how does the new electronic media further eat into the newspaper’s position?

I wrote a blog last week attempting to educate my readers why the current online business model doesn’t work. I have found that most people don’t understand what the problem is. They see ads on websites and assume they must be doing great.

http://community.nodepression.com/profiles/blogs/the-cold-hard-facts

I write a weekly column for my local paper, which is owned by the Sun Times in Chicago. Recently, ten of the local editors were laid off, and the bulk of their work was dumped on the remaining editors. What’s happened is that I no longer receive the slightest bit of feedback from my editor. He simply does not have the time.

I’ve watched over the last year as the paper has attempted to do just what you’ve suggested–they’ve opened all of the stories on their website up to commenting. They’ve also got a voting system in place.

But I don’t know if anyone is reading my column, or anything else on the website. They’re certainly not creating any kind of community (certainly not one like I’m used to on Newsvine). Nobody comments, despite my best attempts to encourage them to do so.

I do know that they’re reading it in the physical paper, because people stop me on the street to talk to me about it. That’s awesome, sure. But in order to ensure the survival of the paper itself, the people who run it are going to have to get a lot smarter about creating the community atmosphere of which you speak.

Sites like Newsvine are great, because users are able to read news from a vast array of sources, and discuss the stories with members of the community. I can’t see the average joe taking the time to join several different newspapers’ sites and make an attempt to be a part of several different communities.

I can see, however, the large dailies, in concert with their local papers, creating a larger, whole community. If the Sun Times were like Newsvine, and its small locals different subsets (like Newsvine’s categories or groups), I can see that working quite well. I’d have access to world and US news, in addition to local news, and the ability to participate in a community that exists on many different levels.

My editor has gone so far as to start a Facebook group for the paper in an attempt to garner just that kind of community and readership. He’s got the paper up on Twitter and posts links to articles.

He’s trying, sure. But it’s never going to work unless the entire organization gets on board and gets organized about what they’re trying to do.

Lots of food for thought here.