A special report on the newspaper industry in this week's Economist should be required reading for all journalists. Headlined Who killed the newspaper? it takes a long, hard look at the future of newspapers which, it argues, are an increasingly endangered species. Newspapers have not yet started to shut down in large numbers, it says, but it's only a matter of time before they do. Correctly, it points out that newspaper circulations have been falling in the developed world for decades and, again correctly, reports that the fall has grown steeper in recent years due to the popularity of the internet. It also notes that young people show little appetite for newsprint. Hardly ground-breaking stuff, but it's cogently argued.
When it comes to solutions The Economist suggests that newspaper companies must concentrate far more effort on their websites and use their brands to experiment by building entirely new businesses both online and off. Again, this doesn't amount to lateral thinking. In Britain, several national newspaper companies - notably, those running The Guardian, the Financial Times, the Telegraphs and The Times - have devoted considerable resources to their websites. Similarly, several regional chains have been in the forefront of innovation, including Johnston Press and Trinity-Mirror. According to The Economist, most newspaper firms are still being too timid and defensive. I'm not so sure about that. There are examples of timidity - arguably, The Independent - but I think in Britain and the States, there is no doubt about the crisis for print and the need to grasp the online opportunity.
Where I do agree with The Economist thesis is the lack of imagination involved in some online experimentation. However, we are undergoing a communications revolution and it's difficult for anyone, whether it be moguls like Rupert Murdoch or a geeky website editor in a 5,000-circulation local weekly, to envision the future. We are in the dark and advancing by trial and error.
I also agree with another part of The Economist analysis which envisages greater investment in free daily papers. We are seeing that now in London (see London's newspaper war) and in Denmark (Metro launches and Danish free in trouble). These titles are publishing stories skewed towards more entertainment, lifestyle and, says The Economist, other kinds of news which are of greater relevance to their readers' daily lives than, say, international affairs and politics. Nevertheless, some traditional newspaper firms, especially those where journalists have influence, will try to resist this.
I hear an echo of my own views in The Economist's belief in there being a profitable global niche market for the few print titles that survive and are able to offer investigative reporting and serious analysis. It names the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal as examples, though I'd fancy The Guardian and, possibly, The Times (of London) as further instances. But I'm not so certain that they will be able to charge high cover prices for the privilege.
Finally, The Economist argues: "Although the internet is sucking attention and advertising away from newspapers, it is also improving journalism in lots of ways." It says people using the net now have access to the very best journalism, and suggests that blogging and "amateur journalism" are likely to become an increasing part of our daily lives as newspapers retreat.
