Do Bloggers "Get" Newspapers?

In the wake of James Lileks seemingly pending re-assignment to news, Ed Driscoll asks:

Do Newspapers "Get" The Web?

The answer to that would be a definite emphatic "No!" based on James Lileks' latest post.

Read the whole thing here. Here are links via Memerorandum. I see the Northern Lights Out coalition is out in force. I've already weighed in here.

It always disappoints me when I have to sometimes face how much of so-called new media, Left and Right, is steeped in crony-ism, more than media itself. I've never played the game, nor withheld my opinion, particularly as it is one of the things we rail against in old and big media itself.

Working in the newspaper business as far back as the eighties, the emerging trend was clear. We need more pictures of Jimmy's soccer game and a story on the new dry cleaners that opened up on that mall strip. That bloggers think every newspaper should now just up and go on line to compete in a market as large as the world is absurd. The NY Times and WaPo are having a rough enough go of it as it is.

This isn't about James Lileks, however talented he might be. This is about local media and the particular audience it serves. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is not The Washington Post. They don't make most of their money having nationally syndicated columnists as apparently Lileks once was on staff.

They make money by covering local issues and news and that's precisely what they are asking Lileks to do. When would be commenters / bloggers watching national trends just up and drop their principles because it suits a friend, the overall concept of new media is not well served.

Here is one well done entry on the topic I've read, I think it comes from the Left and someone who has been in the same shoes.

Comments

[Patrick]

How you think that is a "well done entry", is beyond me. It's nothing but a snarky piece of crap.

[Old Grouch]

"...the emerging trend was clear. We need more pictures of Jimmy's soccer game and a story on the new dry cleaners that opened up on that mall strip."

The problem is, we're not even getting that. My local paper (one of Gannett's mid-markets) has killed its circulation by giving readers a Section A consisting of politically-spun national coverage (with a front page reminiscent of People magazine), and a Section B filled with fluff, "diversity"-driven feature articles, and rewritten press releases. This while a major governmental consolidation was going on, while the city's violent crime rate exploded, while property taxes went going through the roof, and while the city's bond rating got cut. There's no NEWS there, certainly there's no interest in tracking the machinations of local government.

There's little local business coverage that isn't press-conference driven. There is ONE (count 'em!) reporter who covers the ENTIRE arts/entertainment beat (which includes a major symphony orchestra, five world-class museums, 20-some theater companies, and who-knows-how-many live music venues.

And what they do print remains agenda-driven: You can bet that Jimmy won't get a picture of his soccer game printed unless he's a Person of Color. And that "new dry cleaners" won't get a story unless it's a Womyn-owned business that got busted for employing illegal immigrants-- and then the spin will be "how awful for the government to smash the aspirations of all these innocent victims."

As to Lileks, maybe the Strib's focus group told them that nobody was reading their columnists. (He's not the only one who had his column cut.) I don't know the thinking, but from the outside it looks stupid precisely because he has a local connection, and that flavored his Strib column (which was not the same as the national one, BTW). And he writes better fluff than many. Seems to me that a smart management would figure out how to take advantage of those strengths. And if you don't want to agree with Hugh Hewett, how about Dave Barry?

[templar knight]

Old Grouch, as a former managing editor of a newspaper, I agree with just about everything you said, and if one wants to know many of the things that are absolutely wrong about the newspaper business, your list is a good place to start.

[Dan Riehl]

how about Dave Barry?

Barry responds to himself - keyword business.

"Sometimes I don't understand the newspaper business"

He doesn't. He admires Lileks as a writer - as do most. That and a quaret won't buy you a coke if his columns aren't driving ad revenue. What this is about is a bunch of the "artists" upset with management. That management has to pay the bills, the artists are one of the bills. For goodness sakes, is this all really necessary? If Lileks is the cash cow some suggest, do you really think he won't have a new home soon?

Every body wants to do what "feels good" and not account for the cost. That's precisely why I compared this effort to liberalism. If Lilek's columns can help pay the bills, you know as well as I do, h will be wriitng them somewhere else, better positioned to capitalize on them. We are capitalists, that what we do. Sometimes it hurts, but would you throw it away?

[Old Grouch]

Dan, I believe in capitalism... happen to be one myself. Agreed, it's all about allocation of resources. And agreed, a company that's financially pressed can't do things (or keep doing them) just because they "feel good." Notice that I didn't say, "but he HAS to keep his column." I said, "a smart management would figure out how to take advantage of [his] strengths." When somebody else figures out how to do that, what will it say about the effectiveness of the Strib's management?

[Dan Riehl]

what will it say about the effectiveness of the Strib's management?

Honestly, it depends. You probably know as well as I, not every business can cash in on every opportunity. But with Shister and others, plus several columnists at the Strib, this is obviously a market reality. And I am only trying to discuss as such, as opposed to a personal thing.

[Moneyrunner]

Dan,

My friend – and you are my friend – you make a really stupid point without half trying. Putting Lileks to reporting local school board meetings is like taking your Maserati grocery shopping. It may work, but it’s a terrific waste of talent.

You point seems to be that the Strib does not have a place for a nationally respected columnist. If that’s so, they should get rid of him. I don’t know what he earns as a columnist, but he has not said anything about a salary cut. What he has said that he’s not a very good reporter. So unless you disagree with his self assessment, I would say that they have turned a nationally known columnist at salary “X” into an inept and disgruntled reporter at salary “X.” If you think that this is a good business decision, it illustrates why you work for the media, you don’t know jack about economics or the efficient utilization of resources.

I’m not here to defend anyone working in a dying medium. The people who work for the dead tree press are dinosaurs looking for a place to lie down. One day I’m sure that you and they will become a useful resource, like Paleolithic life turned into oil wells, but in the meantime, life will be interesting for those in the industry. Lileks will do very well. But what’s sad is that the Stib made such a stupid move: sort of like deciding that Street Sense should be giving kids rides in a carnival.

[Dan Riehl]

"the Stib made such a stupid move"

Taking everything into account, the move is probably designed more to force him out sooner than later without terminating him ... pressure for the buyout, etc. I doubt they expect him to become a good reporter.