An article in this month’s Atlantic discusses the end of journalism as we know it, by suggesting it plausible that the New York Times would go under by May. (The Times needs to take drastic measures over the next five months or they’ll default on $400 million of debt — on top of $1 billion already on the books — Michael Hischorn writes.)
It’s worth a read. He discusses the conundrum that all papers everywhere are, no doubt, struggling with: the fact that even as print readership drops and internet readership rises, print readers continue to be the ones to pay for quality journalism. He cites “common estimates” that indicate a web news product could support 20% of the staff of a print product, a change that would obviously mean less and worse news.
Perhaps most interestingly, he tackles the question that’s long been top of mind for me: why don’t people seem to care about this impending crisis?
“If you’re hearing few howls and seeing little rending of garments over the impending death of institutional, high-quality journalism, it’s because the public at large has been trained to undervalue journalists and journalism. The Internet has done much to encourage lazy news consumption, while virtually eradicating the meaningful distinctions among newspaper brands,” he writes.
End Times Atlantic Monthly January/February 2009
The article presents interesting alternatives to news funded in the mainstream way, but this argument about why people don’t care is perhaps the most interesting one.