They're Just Not That Into You

The latest harebrained idea for saving newspapers–is it February cabin fever that's bringing all of this out?–is a couple of different proposals that newspapers and maybe the AP go on strike for a few days to show everybody just how vital and important and essential they are.

Yeah, right.

I'm not going to link to this idiocy because it really doesn't deserve any more attention (but here are a couple of good takedowns). And if you think that sort of thing is a good idea, you're not going to want to read the rest of this post anyway. 

Look, the idea that newspapers and wire services are the center of the universe and the primary if not only form of news media is much beloved by, well, newspapers and wire services. The rest of the world doesn't care as much. There are plenty of other places to find out what's going on–radio and TV news, live broadcasts, Twitter, blogs that contain original content and analysis, the international press, etc. And never mind the sheer impossibility of getting a group of newspapers to agree to cooperate uniformly on anything. Good luck with that.

Does anybody really think that stifling newspapers and the wires for a couple of days is going to prove how desperate the world is for news (only news junkies are desperate for news, and most of them work in journalism), or force the Googles of the world to say "uncle" and start to give back their hard-won competitive advantages in information?

The answer is absolutely not. As any town where the local newspaper has gone on strike knows, life goes on, quite well, thank you. People find other ways to find out what's going on (the Web makes that easier than ever) and continue living their lives. Getting good quality news is nice, but it's just not essential to life, as much as some journalists might want to believe. Depriving consumers (and bloggers and Google) of their excellence as some sort of protest just isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference. Sorry. Nice try.

So go ahead, hold your breath until you turn blue. You know what happens when you stop breathing.

Comments

[Patrick Thornton]

This idea might backfire horribly. What if newspapers and wire services discover that people just don't care that much and don't really notice they are on strike?

Or, what if this gives people the perfect excuse to discover new Web news sources?

That's a risk newspapers and wire services can't afford to take.

[David Cohn]

I totally agree with you on this. In fact, I had Pat's thoughts above. What happens when you take a week off and the world keeps on turning..... then what?

[Michael Becker]

When I read that idea, I thought of two things.

First, as you say, you'd never get enough news organizations to cooperate. The effort would backfire, and the outlets that actually did "strike" would find themselves scrambling to catch up with the news-stream by mid-morning.

Second, it seems decidedly vain for anyone to suggest this about the mainstream media. It's the same attitude the petulant take when their contributions are being questioned. It's the plot of dozens of sitcom episodes -- you know, the ones where the mom character takes a break and tries to let the dad character figure out just how hard her job is. Except, in real life, dad manages, maybe not great, but he manages.

The world will not learn some great lesson if the news strikes. Well, the world might learn one thing: to ask a new question. "We got along without them for a week, so why exactly do we need them again?"

[Ari Soglin]

Isn't it telling that the proposal for a one-week hiatus is posted on a blog that doesn't allow comments.

[William M. Hartnett]

I think we're actually missing a trick here. With so many newspaper companies resorting to mandatory one-week furloughs anyway, why don't we just all take the same week off? Think of the savings!