The growing participation of elected leaders and their staff members on BMG is a sign that we need big media less than we used to. We can communicate with the governor’s office directly. We don’t need intermediaries on Morrisey Boulevard.
On the other hand, The Globe still plays an important role as a source of new information on this site. It’s frequently used to establish a base of facts and introduce new facts. Charley’s post on Sal DiMasi yesterday is a typical example. He offers a critque of DiMasi’s recent letter in The Herald, and links to a Globe story by Frank Phillips that provides important new information about DiMasi’s relationship with Jay Cashman.
As the Globe’s staff gets smaller, we’ll probably see fewer stories like this one by Frank. The print Globe provided these stories as part of their bundle. Now that the news is unbundled and online, content must stand on its own economic merits. Investigative journalism isn’t making the cut because it doesn’t generate the advertising revenue needed to pay for its production.
I don’t see BMG filling this vacuum — BMG is more about spreading and discussing public information than introducing new information to the discussion.
I think we need to consider new ways of funding investigative journalism in Massachusetts. Maybe a simple endowment setup as part of MassINC or The Boston Foundation will work. Or maybe a grass-roots, community-controlled local online advertising network would be a better approach. What do you think? Are there other ways to solve this problem?
watchdog reporting that you describe. One thing I’ve noticed about the Globe lately is that they seem to have gotten even more local in their focus than I remember them being prior to the NYT takeover (but maybe I’ve just been paying attention more) For instance, all their national and international stuff is just generic AP or Reuters material, but a lot of front-pagers seem to be Phillips, Slack, Estes, Viser, Sean Murphy, and so on with the endless drama of Boston and the Commonwealth at large. So I wouldn’t write the paper’s obituary quite yet.
and I generally think it is a good thing since no one else is going to focus on local issues. We get the paper delivered and read it regularly, but my wife usually doesn’t even read the first section of the paper at all. Once in a while we get the Times.
<
p>I wish I could get a hybrid paper that combined the national and international news from the times and everything else from the Globe. You would think that the technology would support that kind of thing should they want to do it.
<
p>
that’s why it’s more local in scope: it’s ceased to be a national paper and has since become a regional one. Yet, it’s quickly just becoming a Boston paper, as they don’t even properly cover the state house. However, I wouldn’t be so quick to think of that as a good thing… it’s so bad that it’s representative of the obituary writing itself. The only way to save the Globe is for the NY Times to finally agree to sell it.
It had already gone downhill as a national paper well before the Times took over.
between disease and death…
Are some of the only papers still going strong.
that it doesn’t make fiscal sense to have aggressive reporting anymore. Of course it does!
<
p>Many newspapers clear profit margins comparable to the vast majority of the Fortune 500, including the NY Times Inc. It’s not profit that’s killed the newspaper; it’s shareholders. Newspapers make plenty of money, but they’re also expensive to run… does that mean they aren’t profitable in general? No. It just means that shareholders aren’t happy, because they want to spend nothing and get everything. Unfortunately, a newspaper’s profit margin can never match that of a software developer, for example.
<
p>I’ve read a few essays that have convinced me that one answer to the journalism problem is taking newspapers off Wallstreet. Mike, Lynne and I had a podcast on this recently, where I kept bringing up the point that owning a newspaper makes sense when it’s just a few investors and not a publicly traded company, because the investors can have patience whereas shareholders often don’t even give a crap about the company.
<
p>Furthermore, not too long ago, owning a paper in town was considered a noble privelege – something akin to owning a professional baseball team, for example. But when public, megacorporations gobble the papers up, there’s no longer that hometown force that actually cares about the company. Without that, people don’t care about making cuts. While those cuts may make sense on a short term basis (again, making shareholders company), they make the papers lose readers and credibility over the long run… which, again, a non-public group of investors may care more about.
<
p>That said, to answer the question, bloggers do unearth stories and has already helped in that endeavor. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I unearthed some of the casino stuff before it was ever reported in the MSM, so it certainly can happen.
<
p>But that doesn’t mean I’d prefer a world in which the Globe and other newspapers across the country closed their door. However, that’s not something we – as a blogosphere – can control. The MSM has always had a listening problem – so it’s tough to convince them on worthwhile ideas like taking their companies off the public market.
<
p>Some solutions can come from some of your creative ideas. Currently, online ads really only pay when people click on them. I’ve always found that an absurd notion: people don’t pay the Globe when someone finds a job to apply to listed in the Globe, or someone who shops at Macy’s using a coupon printed in the paper. Papers would never make any money if that’s how it worked. So, to be paid per click on an online ad isn’t a model that can last: there has to be a switch to being paid per page load. Yet, it’ll be tough to actually do that since it would mean a radical change for the entire internet… so the only way that would work is if Google embraced it.
is pretty much dead. Blogs are starting to echo the bland emptyheadedness of the mainstream and are being divided up into millions of tiny unread personal spaces which again echo the prescribed non-thinking vacuum created by the very same for profit media.
hmmm…..
Got an Apocalypse to get ready for.
Multiple diverse cultures all agree!
Hate doing that.
if you keep reading these useless blogs.
Newspapers are a national treasure. Newspapers fired the Revolutionary war and our Independence, they have illuminated crooked politicians and made heroes out of bank robbers. Newspapers are something that you could spend time with, with your cup of coffee and spend the entire day discussing the contents with your co-workers.
<
p>When newspapers decided to cast their lot with a particular political party they signed their death warrant. The constant clamor for the extinction of one political party of another left 50% of their readership with a foul taste.
<
p>One can only hope that newspapers can be saved. Bloggers only regurgitate what ever gumshoes toiled to uncover. The rehash of old news—albeit news worth discussion.
<
p>I subscribe to my daily paper (almost #300.00/yr) and will continue to do so. I disagree vehemently with their political slant, but I live with it, because the enemy you know is safer than the enemy you don’t. besides—newspapers are a good thing —-as long as they keep things somewhat even keeled.
Newspapers got their start with political parties. Witness “Foster’s Daily Democrat,” etc.
<
p>”Unbiased” journalism is a later 20th century happening.
<
p>It grew partially out of technology that allowed Associated Press to collect and then sell stories nationwide. If their stories were partisan, they wouldn’t have market share.
Just has to change it’s business model. Print is not going to bring home the bacon anymore. Once the market adjusts the Globe will be going strong. As to the strength of their journalism. There’s always room for that debate.