The article suggests that the paper could run out of cash by May (not so fast: Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has come to the Times' rescue.) The bulk of the article reflects on the unsavory possibility that a post-print Times, with 1/5th of the original newsroom, may have to survive with some sort of a content-sharing and aggregation model that may or may not fulfill the Times' newspaper-of-record mission.
Hirschorn writes:
In an optimistic scenario, the remaining reporters—now reporters-cum-bloggers, in many cases—could use their considerable savvy to mix their own reporting with that of others, giving us a more integrative, real-time view of the world unencumbered by the inefficiencies of the traditional journalistic form.
Not a terrible outcome, but is it really necessary for every reporter to be a blogger? The internet blurs the distinctions between news sources. Audiences don't necessarily make the distinction between, say, a newspaper article and a magazine article on the web. So why should newspapers worry about publishing blog posts versus "regular" articles? The answer is: they shouldn't. Newspapers should remain content agnostic on the web: as long as a story meets journalistic standards, it should be presented in whatever form best conveys the story.
There's another issue here. Where would all this blog content go? Would the Times play host to hundreds of reporter blogs? If so, it would risk overwhelming readers with too much content. Remember that internet news aggregators have been successful because they allow people to get all their news in one place. Potential newspaper blogs should be chosen carefully from the niche topics that reporters cover.
UPDATE: Marvel as I partially contradict myself in the post above. To clear up any confusion, I don't think there's anything wrong with blogging or newspapers maintaining blogs. I just think that sometimes newspapers blindly pursue "bloggishness" with little regard to actual reader demand.
0 comments:
Post a Comment