The real lesson here is to listen and don’t assume that just because someone is young and inexperienced that they don’t know what they are talking about.

But then I’m still listening to vinyl!

When I did work for the Financial Times, they saw the potential of the web and this was back in ‘98, the end result of that is a very very popular FT.com website.

Both technologies go hand in hand. For the older farts, who don’t really do this mobile tech thing, they get to handle the pink paper whilst being driven to work in their Maybach, the tech-savvy kids use their tablet devices, but at the end of the day they are all reading the same content.

It’s down to the dinosaurs in control to admit this intaweb lark won’t go away and change their business model. It’s the same for photographers, if you cannot understand the basics of how the web works, you will struggle.

I for one read print newspapers and will continue to do so. I spent a lot of time on the Internet as well, but that isn’t the same experience as reading a “live” printed newspaper.

I saw a lot of pondering on the blogs about how to “save newspapers”, but I think most of them miss the point. Hyperlocal, crowdsourcing, news-on-phones, … will that really save anything?

IMHO, the biggest problem with newspapers is, that they declined and fail to provide a truthful and balanced picture about the World – which is a true purpose of newspapers. The are influenced by money or politics, put more emphasis on celebrities and less on important topics, news are not put into proper perspective (for example: two USA detention camps are criticized to death, but 1100 Chinese gulags are barely mentioned), etc. etc.

To sum it up, the only substantial problem newspapers have is that they are not trusted anymore because they are not up-to-par. Improve that and they will be selling like before.

now the LA Times from the perception of a reader has really two problems I would say: first its taking the wrong direction. They should invest in good content and not cancel the few good contents they had (magazine was just canceled). Not sure if Lobdells solutions would work either – most of them don’t sound attractive to me (as a reader).

Other problem: Newspaper culture in LA – just doesn’t seem to be as it is in New York or in Europe. I will bet any amount that there wil be newspapers in Europe for the next 20-30 years. Fewer – yes, but there will be quality newspapers. In LA – I feel everything is so much about celebrity culture. Its just not a newspapers city. So argueably the LA Times has failed to build that culture and its too bad because now its probably over for them to become a quality surviving paper (although trash can have long life too, it just stinks more…)

Yes, they are slowly leaving. But you don’t say where.

Let’s get realistic and understand that news and newspapers aren’t going anywhere. They’re changing and maybe (I dare say) for the better.

Check out this entry: http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/07/the-turning-tide.html

Former investigative reporter for the the Chicago Tribune. Where did he go?

http://www.chitowndailynews.org/

He went where he was needed most. I have faith.

Those who have the strength to leave (hats off toe William Lobdel and to yourself) will empower themselves and ultimately do what they do best.

chirp.

And it doesn’t take a newsroom of hundreds anymore to put out news.

One-man ops aren’t really tenable, but getting 3-10 people together to cover a beat or series of related beats should do it.

Small, cottage innovation generally is the most successful in changing an industry. The big boys are lumbering giants with too much red tape.

The trick is getting the right minds together.

As a retired J prof and magazine photographer I am of the over-the-hill generation, but find this one of the most exciting times of my life. Hope to be around for a few more years to see where all this is taking us.

I don’t even remember the last time I picked up a newspaper, but I read niche blogs such as aphotoeditor.com that speaks to my interests.