The Three Stages of Grief
Last night, City Council members Jean Godden and Nick Licata sponsored a panel-discussion on the future of Seattle newspapers at City Hall. The Bertha Landes room was full of veteran journalists, and at times it was hard to watch so many of them still in denial, still clinging to the hope that some magic money will fall from the sky and save the Seattle P-I and the Seattle Times.
Art Thiel, Seattle P-I sports columnists, suggested using the Green Bay Packers model of public ownership. He figures that if they can sell 600,000 shares at $25 each they could pull in $15 million and pay for 150 reporters. Don't get bogged down in the math here, Thiel was thinking out loud, there are other costs associated with running a newspaper besides paying reporters, but let's play along here for a minute. The problem with this plan is that the $15 million would be a one-time shot, somehow the newspaper would have to bring in $15 million every year to maintain its staff, which gets us back to the original problem, which is how to make money in today's new media landscape.
I don't think public ownership will happen because nothing we do will save the printed newspaper, it's over. The digital age is upon us and no matter how hard we click our heels we aren't going back.
Newspapers will never be what they once were. Gone are the days of selling ads for thousands and thousands of dollars. Gone are the days when people eagerly wait for the newspaper on their front stoop. Gone are the days when one or two corporations controlled the local news.
Yes, those days are behind us, and for some of us, that's a good thing.
I'm new to journalism, I just completed my degree at UW, but I'm also old enough to remember when there wasn't a World Wide Web. I bought my first computer when I was 20 years old - that was 1992. After a five year stint as an offset printing press operator, I spent the bulk of my adult life working as a technologist. I still miss the smell of a print shop though. But as a technologist, my expertise rests in developing Web applications using open source technology. If you're not aware of open source software, it's free, yet I made thousands and thousands of dollars with it.
I did see this technology train coming a long ago. When I first took a serious look at technology and the Web, I knew that this would level the playing field. The Web, I thought back in 1996, will bring back the mom and pop businesses, it will allow people who have traditionally been marginalized politically to more effectively speak truth to power (the only real tool available to a minority faction) and it will shatter the role of traditional news gatekeepers (i.e. those that own the presses).
It wasn't hard to see this coming, because one just needs to look at history. Never has there been an advancement in technology, at least in terms of communication, that has not resulted in a fragmentation of the market. Just look at the printing press. Before the printing press, most people were illiterate because there was no need to learn to read because there was nothing to read. Once the printing press began mass producing books and newspapers, literacy increased dramatically. And as the printing press, and the printing process, became more efficient and less costly, more and more people started printing more and more books and newspapers. Milton's marketplace of ideas expanded.
The same process happened with magazines, radio and television. How many magazines existed 20 or 30 years ago? There are now thousands of niche magazines. When I was a kid growing up in St. Paul, MN, we had three TV channels: ABC, NBC and CBS. And now with digital radio and iTunes, the number of radio broadcasters is in the thousands.
What happens is that technological advancements reduce the cost of production which increases the number of producers and the number of consumers. The result is that the old institutions that could afford the older and more expensive technology will crumble, fragment and perhaps die.
So rather than looking for ways to prop up the old newspapers, we need to look at how we as journalists can utilize the new tools available to us to not do what we did 20 years ago, but to do something even better. We need to get past the stage of denial, move through the stage of anger as quickly as possible and accept the reality of the world we now live in. Because when it's all said and done, I believe people do want news. They want to know what's happening in City Hall, who's playing at Qwest Field and what's up with light rail or the Alaska Way Viaduct.
I understand that the transition from analog to digital is difficult for many veteran journalists out there, but we can do this. It's not going to be easy, but most things in life worth doing are rarely easy.
--
To learn more about last night's event visit No News is Bad News
For another take on this important topic, read this article by Steve Rhodes at the Beachwood Reporter in Chicago.
Yes, Kubler-Ross has five stages, not three, this story isn't meant to be a literal psychological analysis of grieving, or Kubler-Ross, it's my take on what's happening in the newspaper business.
Jean Godden
Journalism
Nick Licata
I don't think public ownership will happen because nothing we do will save the printed newspaper, it's over. The digital age is upon us and no matter how hard we click our heels we aren't going back.
Newspapers will never be what they once were. Gone are the days of selling ads for thousands and thousands of dollars. Gone are the days when people eagerly wait for the newspaper on their front stoop. Gone are the days when one or two corporations controlled the local news.
Yes, those days are behind us, and for some of us, that's a good thing.
I'm new to journalism, I just completed my degree at UW, but I'm also old enough to remember when there wasn't a World Wide Web. I bought my first computer when I was 20 years old - that was 1992. After a five year stint as an offset printing press operator, I spent the bulk of my adult life working as a technologist. I still miss the smell of a print shop though. But as a technologist, my expertise rests in developing Web applications using open source technology. If you're not aware of open source software, it's free, yet I made thousands and thousands of dollars with it.
I did see this technology train coming a long ago. When I first took a serious look at technology and the Web, I knew that this would level the playing field. The Web, I thought back in 1996, will bring back the mom and pop businesses, it will allow people who have traditionally been marginalized politically to more effectively speak truth to power (the only real tool available to a minority faction) and it will shatter the role of traditional news gatekeepers (i.e. those that own the presses).
It wasn't hard to see this coming, because one just needs to look at history. Never has there been an advancement in technology, at least in terms of communication, that has not resulted in a fragmentation of the market. Just look at the printing press. Before the printing press, most people were illiterate because there was no need to learn to read because there was nothing to read. Once the printing press began mass producing books and newspapers, literacy increased dramatically. And as the printing press, and the printing process, became more efficient and less costly, more and more people started printing more and more books and newspapers. Milton's marketplace of ideas expanded.
The same process happened with magazines, radio and television. How many magazines existed 20 or 30 years ago? There are now thousands of niche magazines. When I was a kid growing up in St. Paul, MN, we had three TV channels: ABC, NBC and CBS. And now with digital radio and iTunes, the number of radio broadcasters is in the thousands.
What happens is that technological advancements reduce the cost of production which increases the number of producers and the number of consumers. The result is that the old institutions that could afford the older and more expensive technology will crumble, fragment and perhaps die.
So rather than looking for ways to prop up the old newspapers, we need to look at how we as journalists can utilize the new tools available to us to not do what we did 20 years ago, but to do something even better. We need to get past the stage of denial, move through the stage of anger as quickly as possible and accept the reality of the world we now live in. Because when it's all said and done, I believe people do want news. They want to know what's happening in City Hall, who's playing at Qwest Field and what's up with light rail or the Alaska Way Viaduct.
I understand that the transition from analog to digital is difficult for many veteran journalists out there, but we can do this. It's not going to be easy, but most things in life worth doing are rarely easy.
--
To learn more about last night's event visit No News is Bad News
For another take on this important topic, read this article by Steve Rhodes at the Beachwood Reporter in Chicago.
Yes, Kubler-Ross has five stages, not three, this story isn't meant to be a literal psychological analysis of grieving, or Kubler-Ross, it's my take on what's happening in the newspaper business.



Denial
Bargaining
Anger
Depression
Acceptance
An Editor would have corrected your so called article and made it much better looking. Editing is part and parcel of all kinds of publishing, books, magazine, and newspapers. This apparently is lost on the tweeps, bloggers, and web posters who call themselves "journalists."
By Dick's Burgers
Seattle, WA, 98103
--
Hey, Keith!
The KUBLER-ROSS Stages of Mourning have FIVE stages, not 3
(etc.)
An editor would have corrected your SO-CALLED article ...
MAGAZINES ...
Five errors in one short snipe. Blue pencil, please.
By Proofreader 4Life
Seattle, WA
--
I miss writing for a newspaper. I've worked at newspapers since I was 11 years old. My grandfather worked as a publisher for William Randolph Hearst. But that's hardly the point. My grandmother was the first female AP Bureau Cheif (in Reno, NV).
But that's not the point, is it?
Right now, my job is to get the information to my readers. We've developed a revenue model that works for us--and we're refining it so we still can afford to do our jobs. So far--so good. Thanks for the insight, Keith.
By Scott mcmurren
Anchorage, AK
--
By Andrew Hedges
Auckland, NZ
--
I appreciate your effort here to cover some of the news in Seattle!
I just wanted to clarify that the veteran journalists attending many of the meetings held recently are not anguishing so much over the loss of newspapers on doorsteps, but over the loss of professional journalists and journalism.
You have noticed, I'm guessing, how hard it is to convince a volunteer to sit through three hour city council meetings every Monday, much less, attend committee meetings every morning and afternoon, mayor press conferences, file public records requests, read and digest the information, then pin officials, experts and others down on what it means, how much it will cost and who is responsible. Then write it in concise, clear language a reader can digest with morning coffee or their lunch.
The same can be said for education, environmental coverage, courts, business, sports and so much more.
That is our anguish.
By Kathy Mulady
Seattle, WA
--
Keith,
I think you are missing the point that a lot of those people, including me, can accept that print is dead, sort of, but still think there should a system other than a thousand individual bloggers in niche markets operating in a vacuum. That there shouldn't necessarily be some corporate giant overseeing things, but the institutional practice of having a newsroom where things are checked and there is a collaborative process; where there is a system in place to discuss ethics and editing, and we are looking for a revenue model that can support that.
Also, there is grief over loss of having a newspaper as a historical record, where, like Andrew says above, you can turn to, and is solid. Yes, of course you can print out an online newspaper, but it's just not the same, and there is some grief over that.
And, there is alot to be said for working with people who have covered a city for 30 years and have institutional memory, like Joel Connelly, who know everything that has happened politically in this city and uses that as a reference to present events and can put things in context. Whether you like his writing or not, that is an incredibly valuable thing, and those people need to earn a living wage and not have journalism as a part-time job. If Scott M wants to share his revenue model, we'd all be obliged.
There are also projects that are very financially expensive that can only be done while supported by an institution with financial backing, no matter what format it is read.
People like you keep making it about print verse digital, but that is not the issue, the issue is resources, professionalism, and accountabilty.
Let's agree to disagree.
By Meryl Schenker
Seattle, WA
--
Thanks for reading and sharing in this discussion.
While I don't think the transition from analog to digital is the only factor in the loss of newspaper revenue, but I do think it's a big part of it. You can't drastically lower the cost of creating and distributing news without there being consequences in the marketplace. And whether or not it's good or bad, I believe market fragmentation is one of the likely results of this transition.
But that doesn't have to mean no one will ever get paid to be a journalist. That no one will ever make money selling news. I really don't believe that journalism will devolve into nothing more than a passing hobby.
And if I'm right, and Seattle ends up with four or five little dailies, as well as blogs, TV and radio, battling it out for news, would that really be so awful? This is of course assuming that the people working at these places are making a living.
Or is it really better to have fewer newspapers, online or otherwise?
By Keith Vance
Seattle, WA
--
By Etaoin Shrdlu
Las Vegas, Nev.
--
Again, you are focusing on the cause of the problem , and I am focusing on the immediate consequences, concerns and the idea that the grief is not over the loss of newsprint. At least I thought I was.
I dont want to turn this into an unproductive, online battle. I think the assumption of making a living as individual bloggers is a big assumption.
Etaoin, too bad your contribution is an unhelpful, nasty comment and you gave a fake name. As I said, Joel was just an example of a person with a lot of institutional memory.
Let's try to not be nasty and have intelligent dialogue.
By Meryl Schenker
Seattle, WA
--
But you keep setting up the false dichotomy that either we have the type of journalism we see in the Seattle Times or the P-I today, or we have bloggers. I just disagree that bloggers will make it impossible for reporters to make a living. I actually think the opposite is true. Bloggers bring more readers into the world of news. By linking to original reporting, bloggers spread the word about news coverage. It's the beauty of the Web, and either we embrace it, or we get run over by it.
And you're right, I am focusing on the cause, or causes, of the problem because I really believe that's how solutions are found. If we don't examine causation and just pick at the symptoms, such as this round of layoffs or that one, I don't think we'll move forward.
What we're seeing unfold here is not just a technological transformation, but a generational shift as well. And it's not just happening in journalism, things are changing across the country.
I know that sounds like an Obama campaign message. Obama didn't create the change we're seeing, but he tapped into it.
There's a reason that newspapers didn't see this coming. There's a reason that newspapers can't solve this problem. There are reasons why things are the way they are. If we just look at the immediate consequences and fail to figure out why, we're just walking around blindfolded.
By Keith Vance
Seattle, WA
--
Meryl was merely defending and characterizing the grief felt by print-newspaper employees. I think she's in a better position to talk about how we feel because she works in a print newspaper newsroom.
You wrote -- "So rather than looking for ways to prop up the old newspapers, we need to look at how we as journalists can utilize the new tools available to us to not do what we did 20 years ago, but to do something even better. We need to get past the stage of denial, move through the stage of anger as quickly as possible and accept the reality of the world we now live in." -- The Seattle P-I has been doing this for years, through its online Web site.
Seattlepi.com is pioneering and has understood the online game for a long time.
Nobody is going to start trusting Seattle Courant, or any online news source, overnight. Building such trust in a brand takes years and years of diligent reporting and getting the facts straight.
The transition from analog to digital isn't difficult for us veterans at all. In fact, many of us started our careers at wire services -- which have no printed product and ship out their news to other services.
I hope that helps clarify. Meryl was not setting up a false dichotomy -- actually, she was doing just the opposite.
Hope that helps and good luck,
Andrea James
P-I reporter
By Andrea James
Seattle, WA
--