Stage Five: Acceptance

Traditional journalists have been progressing fairly predictably over the past few years through Elisabeth Kübler-Ross' infamous Five Stages of Grief, and it looks like a few of them have finally reached the final stage. Just to review, here's how things have gone over the previous four stages, more or less:

• enial–"This Internet thing is just a fad," or "Craig who?"
• Anger–"Bloggers are NOT journalists," or "Stop linking to our site!"
• Bargaining–"But wait, maybe we can figure out how to get people to pay for news on the Web."
• Depression–"Another buyout/layoff? We're all gonna lose our jobs."

Which brings us to Stage Five: Acceptance. While there are still many journalists and newspaper executives still trapped somewhere in the first four stages, all of a sudden we're seeing several prominent thinkers come to the realization that newspapers, as we know them, may be going away–soon. And they're starting to realize that the world won't end at the same time. (Sudden thought: How dare the world end if there are no newspapers to cover it? Discuss.) 

Moreover, they're understanding just why this is happening–that much of the damage was actually self-inflicted, by newspaper managements who failed to understand and properly react to the threats they faced. And they're starting to think about the future.

Impending doom does tend to clarify the mind. As some of us have been predicting for a while, the one-two-three punch of the newspaper industry's structural changes (thanks to the Internet, mostly), the rotten economy and, in some cases, foolish financial risk, has put many papers on the brink. It's no longer radical to say that major papers are going to die or be significantly cut back over the next few months. In fact, the challenge is guessing which one topples over first. Not a happy game to play, but journalists always did have a thing for gallows humor.

Just this week, there have been three examples of forward-thinking traditional journalists accepting that the end may be nigh, and, more importantly, understanding why and What It All Means:

Former San Francisco Chronicle Editor Phil Bronstein writes on his blog:

The notion that we old media institutions are still the big boys, so much more important and, well, HEFTIER than these pesky digital newcomers sounds familiar: we had the exact same view of things when CraigsList started cranking up at the beginning of the 2000s.

We were up to important things then, too important to worry about this quirky little community, sell-your-bicycle site. Weren't we? Hundreds of millions of dollars in lost classified revenues later, newspapers no longer feel that way. Too late for crying.

Next up, Slate's excellent press critic, Jack Shafer:

From the beginning, newspapers sought to invent the Web in their own image by repurposing the copy, values, and temperament found in their ink-and-paper editions. Despite being early arrivals, despite having spent millions on manpower and hardware, despite all the animations, links, videos, databases, and other software tricks found on their sites, every newspaper Web site is instantly identifiable as a newspaper Web site. By succeeding, they failed to invent the Web.

And finally, Michael Hirschorn, writing in The Atlantic about the potential demise of, gasp, the New York Times:

Ultimately, the death of The New York Times—or at least its print edition—would be a sentimental moment, and a severe blow to American journalism. But a disaster? In the long run, maybe not.

This is a very different tenor than most previous writings about the newspaper business, by traditional journalists, have had until now. In other words, there's now acceptance of what's happening, why it's happening, and what it means. 

What's needed now is a next stage of grief over the newspaper business: How to reinvent it. It will look radically different than what we know now, and it will be much more about "news" than "paper." Some of us are already working on it, and have been for some time. But now that the traditionalists are starting to understand and accept what's happening, it's time to move very quickly to figure out what comes next–and to stop mourning what will soon be gone.

Comments

[Michael Staton]

It seems strange to me it took so long for the "consistent rapid publishers" of the planet to get on board. I guess they had their platform previously, so they didn't need blogs. I guess that follows Christensen's model of disruption.....

[Phogg]

"Journalism" professionals STILL can not Identify their competition.

If you have an automotive engineer who writes an insightful three page description of an engine his team is developing every three years, that used to not be a problem. Even though it was just as well written as someone with a journalism or English degree might write.

It was one article every three years that only the man's friends were likely to see. If they shared it, well a few xerox copies mailed around still don't reach that many people even if it pyramids out seven times and by the time the last group gets it it will be a month later if they were being mailed.

Fast foreword to now.

There are thousands of engineers. Every 1095 of them writing once every three years equal one story a day. Written, generally, for free. As in costs no money. As in they are writing for their own vanity.

And on the web, writing in interest forums, or having those forums available as a place their friends might send the article - it will be seen.

Extend this out to other interests, because it carries over across the board.

Journalists keep looking at the picture trying to figure out how content producers are going to be paid in the new media.

The stopper is that they have to compete with people who write about any given subject as well or better than they possibly can WHO DON'T EXPECT TO BE PAID.

When the internet arrived and provided a means for people to disseminate their writings, this became inevitable. I saw it, Drudge saw it, hundreds and hundreds of people saw and have been discussing it for over a decade.

The dinosaur media is late to the party.

[Celeste Altus]

Everything Phogg said above it spot-on. It's frightening how long it took the suits at newspapers to catch on. That being said, I went through the "acceptance" phase in 2004 - maybe I can start a side business: Former Newspaper Reporter Grief Counseling.

[Ron]

I'm not a news person but I hear talk often from everyday acquaintances about "why I don't read the newspaper". That reason is often political and involves trust. Their content is not trusted (or at least not valued by a gold standard). Many newspapers have knowingly or unknowingly narrowed their available readership/market by the nature of material they have covered (and not covered). They have favored one political demographic (toward the left or right) and have thus damaged or at least limited their brands and franchises. Politics aside, Roger Ailes at Fox TV targeted an unserved market - right of center. He drove a MACK TRUCK through the market opening left by CNN. My sense is that while the industry restructures around the internet, the newspapers have compounded their trouble by narrowing their addressable market segments though content choices. Bloggers and online sources have filled the void.

[autoegocrat]

I sure picked the wrong week to quit sniffing printer's ink.