Discussion points

• 

  metroactive.com

  Is print too expensive and inefficient? Is it really dying?Michael Rosenblum pretty much implied that print nowadays was becoming an unsustainable media. Advertisers are migrating to the web, or just not advertising at all, and readers seem more interested in the now news the web can provide… not to mention the video, graphics and interactions that come with it. So does print still have a role in today’s increasingly wired world?I ran across an article that claims printing the New York Times (and delivering it), costs twice as much as sending every subscriber a new Amazon Kindle. Shocking? Not really, but it made me think: Is all that expense really worth it? I imagine that pretty soon most of the urban population will have 24/7 Internet access on their phones, laptops, everything. While we’re pretty connected now, reading newspapers online will soon, I assume, become easily accessible on smartphones and contraptions like the Kindle and the Nook.Newspapers now pretty much provide a summary of the day, but I imagine it won’t be that hard to mimic that purpose online. In that case, buying a newspaper for all its other benefits may be for the well to do.

• Would a merger between business and editorial camps result in a better product?News media are businesses. Newspapers are their products. So should the people involved in creating that product be concerned with how well it’s selling and how they can maximize profitability? Some say an emphatic yes. Some say a resounding no. The answer it’s that clear cut.Writers, editors… everyone on the editorial side should be concerned with what’s going into the paper and how their readers appreciate it. It’s not simply about succumbing to the public’s every whim, it’s about being aware of what affects people and what people want to know, and giving it to them.In that sense, most newspaper staffers have already been doing just that, but Rosenblum argues that they’ve let themselves become pawns of businessmen who don’t have their best interest at heart. Instead, in this day and age, Rosenblum argues that reporters should go out and be their own bosses – or even work with or for other people – in an inclusive, cost-effective and rewarding business. It’s about owning the work you do and really profiting from it.

  While I don’t agree with everything he says, I definitely think reporters shouldn’t starve for work they believe the public cannot live without.

• Is hyperlocal news “hypersignificant?”Do people really need to know that the soda and beer place around the corner is shutting down? If the pizzeria on the next block hired a dozen new delivery guys, is that important? For some, it is. Many communities are like universities, and if a student newspaper can exist, why not community or hyperlocal organizations?There are people and communities who feel under-served, and hyperlocal news organizations can provide them with a sense of awareness. From a business point of view, if people want to read it, it’s important. So yes, the local police chief’s appointment may be just as important as the president of the United States’. Kind of.
• Are hyperlocal reporters more sensitive and aware of local issues?Patch.com functions on the idea that one person, the editor, in a community is knowledgeable enough of that community to know what’s important to its inhabitants. That concept makes complete sense. Who better to cover the community than someone experiencing it day to day.  It’s the same idea behind the bureaus of bigger news media, and it works. Hyperlocal news has the potential to be more in-depth, more hard-hitting, and if it’s reporters know so much about the things they cover, maybe it’ll leave room for less mistakes as well.

Advertisement