Curious Inversions of Perception
“WHEN WE SHIFT OUR ATTENTION from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.”
I FOUND THIS to be a very interesting and worthwhile read about publishing today and the transitions we are living through, now that the Internet has taken a big hammer to the Newspaper. It’s long and totally worth it. The writer tells us that the problem is not that the Newspaper/News industry didn’t see the shift in models coming up as the Internet grew strong, it did. And in the 1990s, various models of dealing with the changeover were crafted. There was only one problem. The one eventuality nobody wanted to discuss is the one that came to life.
Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world was increasingly resembling the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. …
Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke. …
Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead. …
When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.
sombrero tip to amigo Nadir, from an email
Can I just say how glad I am to see this post? It’s not that I don’t care if century-old newspapers bite the dust, I mean I don’t feel like, “Screw them, history can go eff itself!” But I do feel like, what’s with the whole acting-like-it’s-the-death-of-innocence or some damn thing? I do hate that people are losing jobs in EVERY industry, including publishing. But I agree whole heartedly with the distinction between saving newspapers and saving society. And last I checked, society has been continuing on with itself whilst this one form of journalism dies out.
So thanks again for this post. I’ve been feeling like such an effing Scrooge for not tearing up at every sadly-narrated this-newspaper-is-now-also-going-under story I hear on the radio.
thank you joan. i got a tiny bit of pushback on a list or two i sent this to, so i always value the comments that support what i’m feeling, as well.
Interesting article and refreshing take on the situation. Indeed, what we need is journalism.
first impression that comes to my mind is; the decline of newspaper/news is an exact example of how and why form follows function.
i dunno, but i think that if i wanted the essence of hog shit, then i would go to a hog farm. i believe the responsibility for the publics loss of interest is due to the newspapers that sold out to_____(fill in the blank), and due to the poser journalist/journalism that prevails. i mean if i want to hear a bunch of lies, fabricated stories, or what i already know, etc…. i talk to my boy friend…(just joking kind of
)
what i am trying to say is, i think that the loss of newpapers, is not due to the internet as a better means, (that may turn out to be a trojan horse), but due to hidden agenda, newspapers acceptance and demand for lazy reporting, and that true/real journalism is a lost art. newspaper has to take responsibility for their own success and in this case, failure.
this was foreseen, predictable, and so what does that tell us?
oh i agree…i think it was a confluence of the internet (we like news faster, its simple, quicker updates and we can carry them on fones, etc) and papers losing their soul in a big obvious way (selling us a war that would kill thousands and make millions for corporations). seems clear to me. this is what they have sown, its what they reap. tuff titty.
word there nez…and thank you for giving me a place(s) i can go to get a real feel for what is going on, and not the contrived shit that is mass produced and spoon fed to us daily. i have been following your lead for about a year now.
thank you for being here.
sweetleaf, its always good to see you.