One Man’s View:

A world without newspapers will be dumber

Thursday, March 26, 2009 | 3:16 p.m.

Tim O'Callaghan

More of Tim O'Callaghan's One Man's View.

While newspapers across the country shutter their newsrooms and empty the ink from their presses, there is a good deal of sadness surrounding the historic change in how Americans get their news.

There appears to be a hero in the U.S. Senate who has proposed legislation to bail out newspapers, sort of.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., has introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. The bill would allow newspapers to request 501(c)3 status. However, this status would prevent newspapers from endorsing political candidates.

That, my friends, is risky business, the first swing of the axe at the foundation of the First Amendment, in my view. That makes the Newspaper Revitalization Act a dangerous compromise to the First Amendment.

But the alternative concerns me. The newspaper industry as it exists is in grave danger, and there are deeper concerns to think about when considering the elimination of the printed word.

The closing of newspapers may lead to the dumbing down of America even further than has occurred.

As I contemplate a nation without newspapers, I can’t help but think about the most ridiculous movie I have ever watched. The 2006 film “Idiocracy,” directed by Mike Judge, is surely one of the dumbest movies ever made, yet it has some serious undertones.

The story is about Private Joe Bauer, an average, underachieving Army librarian who is selected to participate in a secret military experiment “Human Hibernation Project.” He and a prostitute named Rita are placed in a state of hibernation for what is supposed to be one year. The man in charge of the project is arrested, however, leaving the pair suspended in time for 500 years.

When they are accidentally awakened in 2505, they discover the nation is in shambles, run by illiterate couch potatoes. The average Joe finds himself to be the smartest man in the world.

Surely this is far-fetched and unlikely, right? But it’s where my mind takes me when I think of a nation without newspapers.

Perhaps, it will only lead to a world that is more “back to the future,” where an educated elite is granted all of the rights.

Obviously, I’m not a prophet and I don’t have a clue to the future. However, the movie provides me a vision of an exaggerated concern I have with people relying on the Internet as an accurate news source.

Day in and day out, friends and family have sent me e-mails they received about whatever you can imagine. Most of what they were reading was untrue, yet it looked authentic, with dozens of attributions.

It got to the point where I was sending them back the e-mails, telling them what a disservice it was to forward the inaccuracies.

Today, they send me inquiries of whether something is true or not so I can check the facts for them, then reply.

The case I make for newspapers is that most good newspapers have fact checkers and editors to keep information accurate. However, no one is perfect and mistakes are made. Therefore, in reliable papers, there is a corrections box on page 2 or 3. This is to correct the record for history, whereas in cyberspace, once it’s out, it is almost impossible to retrieve or correct.

Here is a reality check for those of you who are giving up your newspaper for news from the Internet for free! There are no free lunches, at least in the long term.

The Internet news model doesn’t work like the dinosaur newspaper model. In other words, the price point that Internet companies receive for advertising is less than what newspapers charge, creating a revenue problem or lack of revenue to pay for expenses, such as fact checkers, editors and reporters.

My point is that while the Internet provides a buffet of news sources for the small price of Internet access today, it won’t be so tomorrow. Quality news organizations will become coveted, pushing the market to an all-paid model.

You will have to pay for your news in one form or another. Perhaps, your Internet provider will charge you a news surcharge, which it will pay to subscribe to a quality news source.

Sadly, the truth isn’t free, leaving the question of who is willing to pay for accurate news and how much are they willing to pay?

Large newspaper Web sites will be forced to charge subscription fees in order to become profitable. That’s no different from your daily newspaper, except the subscription fee will be used for direct operations rather than to offset delivery cost.

As I struggle to hold onto my parents’ dream of providing quality community news on paper, the rest of the world is looking at the day when all of your news will be free on the Internet.

That’s what keeps the ember glowing in my heart, because I know newspapers will stick around in one form or another without compromising our First Amendment rights.

If left unbridled, the Internet could lead to illiteracy or, worse, a grossly misinformed public. As the gates of the Fourth Estate become blurred, information seekers will have a difficult time determining news from fiction. This would open the door wider for fiction to become history, if left unchecked.

There is some irony here in that this column will probably not be printed in the paper. This column will forever float in cyberspace on dozens of servers around the world, where my grandchildren will be able to find it with ease and read it for a few bucks.

Tim O’Callaghan, co-publisher of the Home News, can be reached at 990-2656 or tim.oc@vegas.com. He writes a regular blog at tocomv.blogspot.com.

Discussion: 16 comments so far…

By ryansmart

3/26/09 at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Take it from a recently laid off radio news reporter - this country has a love affair with amateurism. It's part of the dumbing down of America that Tim mentioned. No one wants to get the news from a professional journalist, they'd rather head to cnsnews, dailykos, or comedy central and have their own beliefs reinforced.

The print industry may have the most visible problems right now, but the news industry in all media is dying on the vine. Maybe it needs some Brawndo. Afterall, "it's got electrolytes."
By SmartAz

3/26/09 at 6:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

The newspaper saga is the story of "Free Milk and a Cow." Because of the Internet, people are saying, "Why buy a cow when you can have the milk for free?"

Unfortunately, the business model for newspapers is broken -- and those who are in power are not interested in researching, let alone fix, the broken model. The bottom line is more important than those who are generating the news. Experienced journalists are being replaced with entry-level writers and photographers. When was the last time the Greenspuns hired a journalist in their mid-to-late fourties?

In order to succeed, newspapers need to return to being a quality product. Good stories need to be played well and poorly written/reported stories need to be rejected. Weak journalists need to be shown the door. The newspaper needs to find a way to report remarkable stories that cause people to discuss the day's news with friends and coworkers. Stop trying to be TV.

When the news is no longer the stuff that goes around the ads, you can concentrate on ways to sell advertising. Only AFTER the product is great.

Advertising in the newspaper needs to change too. Banner ads are horrible and I'm not going to go to a page of downloadable coupons. What if advertisers were to be the ones who purchased the subscriptions and then sold them along with their product in the supermarket. Buy a roll of toilet paper, peel off a sticker and get a subscription for a month. Easy.

Also, Newspapers don't realize it but they are businesses. They need to act like they are and compete like other businesses. They need to market their product to their target audience.

I don't have a crystal ball and don't know how this will all shake out. I hope we don't lose the great resource that is newspaper.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some chocolate powder to put in this milk. Mmm(ooooooo!)
By Janny

3/26/09 at 6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dead tree media does not have a lock on facts. There are hundreds of reputable, fact checked, professional websites with good, hard, up to date news. People are not cancelling newspaper subscriptions because online is free - newspapers are boring, mostly rehashed AP stories, poorly written, riddled with errors and bias and only come out once a day with yesterday's news. I can get the facts (yes FACTS) from several different sources and opinions as events unfold on the internet. There is a new model and the newspapers that keep up with the times will succeed, those that cling to the past will fail, and rightly so.

I don't miss my typewriter or record player either.
By Harley

3/26/09 at 7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

I concur with Janny, information transmitted electronically has numerous advantages to that of news print.

Cost efficiencies
Wider market distribution
Instantaneous transmission
Real-time distribution
Update ease
Environmentally friendly
User interaction
User convenience
Reporter network capabilities
Information verification capabilities
Additional related information link capabilities

No Tim, I would contend the world is already dumb because of news print and has the capability of becoming much wiser through electronic information distribution.
By stevem

3/26/09 at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

The people in the newspaper industry that have the power to change things are all in their late 50s ( ready to retire) or are in their 40s with golden parachutes ( Bob Brown and Diane Winnemuller at the R-J, for example ) or are so rich ( the Greenspuns ) that they could care less about news quality, advertiser results, or anything else.

I sold advertising for newspapers both in St. Louis and right here in Las Vegas for the R-J and I the people in charge couldn't run a lemonade stand, much less a newspaper.

It really didn't matter for years and years because newspapers were the 800 pound gorilla for local advertising, but now technology and the economy has pushed them off the cliff.
By vanpray

3/27/09 at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

I am 65 years old and was a publisher of a weekly 15 years ago.

I stopped reading the major papers because of the overt bias and AP stories that fill them.

I was looking for news, not propaganda.
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Janny,

I think you missed my point... You said, "There are hundreds of reputable, fact checked, professional websites with good, hard, up to date news."

And this is what I said, "My point is that while the Internet provides a buffet of news sources for the small price of Internet access today, it won't be so tomorrow. Quality news organizations will become coveted, pushing the market to an all-paid model."

Yes, there are hundreds of reputable news sources on the web, for free, for now.

BTW, you still have to type on your PC's keyboard, for now.

Great points, thanks for commenting,

Tim
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Harley,
You sound a bit like a Honda...

I agree with several of your points, however, some of your points have consequences. For the record I'm not resisting "Interactive Media" either.

"Instantaneous transmission" and "Real-time distribution" are the same.

Environmentally friendly, perhaps, friendlier, power consumption is still a factor with a carbon foot print. The average home computer uses a $100 per year in power, without additional peripherals, according to Techreview.com. Here's an interesting article http://techreviewer.com/viewpage.cfm/ui/...

Note; there are an estimated 164 million computers in America, according to CIA Fact book.

Reporter network capabilities, information verification capabilities and additional related information link capabilities all require some good edification to keep fiction from becoming history.

As far as your contention regarding "the world is already dumb because of news print" is baseless.

I would contend, American society has become more illiterate with the decline of newspaper readership. Happy to have an offline discussion about why we disagree.

Where we might agree is your on your statement, (the world) "has the capability of becoming much wiser through electronic information distribution."

I agree somewhat with this statement with the understanding we need to weed out a lot of fiction.

BTW, I write the commentary not the headlines.
By airweare

3/27/09 at 10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Harley's comment that we stand to increase our wisdom from electronic distribution of information is so much BS. The quality of information matters. Being inundated with senseless, biased poorly vetted crap never does help anybody do anything. Like when Nance says solar is no good because it only works six hours a day. In the old days (1981), thermal solar air and water heaters did function best for only six hours. Today solar electric (photovoltaic) arrays actually produce current for more than twelve hours a day in the state of Nevada. Relying on idiots for information just doesn't pay. We will miss having thoughtful, concerned professional writers who work a story from the ground up. They will always be able to find work in an informed society, but maybe not in ours if this set of contributors is the standard.
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

airweare,
Not sure, but I think that was a back handed compliment.
Pehaps, I should accept that as constructive criticism.
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

stevem,

You sound bitter, did you not collect enough bananas for the 800lb Gorilla?

I would venture to say the economy has pushed everyone off the cliff, even technology companies that have become so diluted they're irrelevant.

Think about the future of your company as you enjoy the view of the I-15 and I-215 from your office.

All things in So. Nevada are relative, aren't they?
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

From the Austin Business Journal, "Bakersfield, Calif., and Las Vegas ranked the lowest, but still managed to have more than half of their adult population reading the paper -- at 59 percent."

The story here;
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/storie...
By Harley

3/27/09 at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Appreciate the feedback Tim and glad you agree with several points.

Regarding 'the world is already dumb because of news print being baseless' was a stab at the baseless contention that the world without newspapers will be dumber. The world will likely be better informed (smarter not dumber) because of newspaper alternatives for all the reasons previously stated, whether newsprint remains available or not.

I would further contend that your contention regarding American society will become more illiterate with the decline of newspaper readership is perhaps based upon a false assumption that readers don't participate in alternative information resources. It's not like newspaper subscribers stopping reading or absorbing information, they've merely shifted to alternative resources i.e. the internet from newsprint.

With regard to 'instantaneous transmission' and 'real-time distribution' being the same, allow me to clarify. Last evening there was an article regarding an individual being attacked by 'killer bees' (real-time distribution), while the article also referenced a previous related article of the attack which could immediately be retrieved through (instantaneous transmission) of a mouse click. Hope this clarifies, while apologizing for the confusion and/or inadequate explanation.

I understand your apparent frustrations regarding the decline in newspaper subscriptions and readership, but the contention that American society will be dumber without newspapers is not only baseless and misleading but will be found in time to be false.

FWIW: This 'dummy' hasn't been a newspaper or magazine subscriber in well over a decade and would be willing to bet even money that overall newsprint subscriptions will continue to decline over the next decade.

Thanks for taking the time to interact.
By airweare

3/27/09 at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Unfortunately for Americans, our subscriptions will likely decrease as more people turn to free internet sources for news. But as Harley has incorrectly deduced in his piece, this trend will spell lower understanding simply because of the failing quality of the information. Our ability to discover the truth relating to an issue in the news will flounder as fewer and fewer writers, fact-checkers and editors are obliged to get it right. There are plenty who are willing to get the word out, but miserably few who want to get it right. Look at Harley.
By Tim O'Callaghan (Staff)

3/27/09 at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks airweare,

You get it!

Most Americans can read but fewer actually comprehend what they read.

The more time I spend interacting with readers the more apparent it has become that many are merely scanning the text of my column and others comments.

This type of forum is the future of talk radio.

To Harley,

Let me remind you, I write the opinion not the headlines.

You've misrepresented my frustration in order to supplement your contention. I'm not frustrated with the decline of circulation and readership, that been the trend for years. You simply clung to my emotional attachment I have with the legacy my parents passed to me.

As a columnist, I enjoy the privilege of both worlds, online and print.

What frustrates me is the misinformation that is proliferated on the Internet.

What consoles me is access to quality news sources will have to be purchased in the future. I for one will be willing to pay for it. The question is, will you be willing to pay for it?

Remember the days when many families had encyclopedias, remember how much those beauties cost?

Well, that is the future of Internet access. As a newspaper publisher I would make it part of my business model.

It's just a matter of time when you will be paying for every email you send or every byte you push from your IP address.

One final thought Harley, the one who owns the servers will own the world. Gosh, that's scary, isn't it?
By stevem

11/14/09 at 9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

i'm not bitter at all. i sold advertising for newspaper for nearly a decade, but i was smart enough to see that it's a dead business and got out.

as a matter of fact, since i sold for the r-j...which every ad also goes into the sun...i DIRECTLY put food on your table.

you're welcome.

smaller retailers do not need to advertise in the corny "zone" editions of newspapers now. they can get a facebook / twitter account for free and in about 3 days have enough friends and followers to keep their store humming along for years.

and YOUR arrogance "if you don't read a paper, you're not educated" is just stupid.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question