The Demise of Newspapers: What Does It Mean?

One of the recurring questions over the past fifteen years has been this one: What will be the impact of the Internet. I've heard some folks lament that it will destroy the English language as we know it. Michael Crichton, among others, predicted that network television would become extinct like the Jurassic period dinosaurs he wrote about. Others, upon seeing what is happening in print media -- magazines and newspapers -- have begun ringing alarm bells about the demise of democracy. Without an informed electorate, where will we be then? The questions are being raised. The only point of agreement is that things have been changing.

While in the Flagstaff B&N last week I picked up a copy of The New Republic (TNR) because it had several articles pertaining to this theme as it related to newspapers. One of these especially caught my eye, written by Paul Starr, a professor of communications and public affairs at Princeton. In Paul Starr's view, the diminished strength of our nation's newspapers will have serious ramifications in our culture, politics and our experience of democracy. In his article Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Era of Corruption) Starr writes, "More than any other medium, newspapers have been our eyes on the state, our check on private abuses, our civic alarm systems. It is true that they have often failed to perform those functions as well as they should have done. But whether they can continue to perform them at all is now in doubt."

That newspapers are shrinking in size is self-evident. Our local Duluth News-Tribune is half what it used to be, if that. And all across the country journalists are being ushered into early retirement or alternative careers, many in the Public Relations sphere. Declining ad revenues are the chief culprit as well as declining circulation numbers. The newspapers can't support the staff.

Starr states that Internet bloggers and writers excel at sharing their opinions but that Watergate scandals do not get unearthed without rigorous research and tedious fact-checking. I would counter that we have all seen the power of the blogosphere to bring down the likes of Dan Rather and Trent Lott. Such anecdotes do not entirely dismantle the force of his arguments. In my opinion it is a worthwhile debate.

According to Dean Baker, Co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "Newspapers are vital, but they have failed us." The title of his article, posted at Politico.com,says it all. Will you (unlike most Americans polled) miss your newspaper when its gone? How much will the decline of the paper hurt our democracy?

There's no hand-wringing in Baker's piece, which begins, "Newspapers have a vital role to play in a democracy, but unfortunately they have largely failed in filling this role in recent decades. For this reason, their passing is hardly a tragedy." Taking an optimist's view, the news and information business is being liberated and democratized by the demise of newspapers and the Internet's rise.

In that self-same issue of TNR which shared Starr's concerns we can find an intriguing dissection of Politico.com, the soapbox from which Baker delivers his salvos. The Scoop Factory bores down on the "brave new world of post-print journalism." I'll give my take on that story another day.

What do you think? Are newspapers going to die altogether? It's hard for me to envision that scenario. Some people once thought television would replace radio, but that never happened, though talkies did pretty much eliminate silent pictures. Four weeks ago former Superior Telegram editor Ron Brochu made some illuminating observations pertaining to this theme during an interview for Ennyman's Territory. Maybe you'd like to contribute something to this dialogue.