Before responding to the thoughtful issues raised in his May 17 column “Two score and…”, let us say that we look forward every Sunday morning to rising, making coffee, and sitting down to read the Sunday News.
The paper seems to have reduced the amount of local coverage for cost reasons, but in its place are excellent national and international news analysis such as today’s “Cap and trade goes from theory to consensus” from the New York Times and “Credit card changes coming, but slowly” by The Washington Post.
In fact, except when the “Fourth Floor” (the publisher) intervenes, the coverage of the Intelligencer Journal is also strong, with the notable exception of the coroner case. Furthermore, since the future merger of the morning and afternoon papers was announced, Editor Ernie Schreiber has demonstrated that the New Era, devoid of sensationalism, can be every bit as good a newspaper as the Intell.
Readers will have their own take, but we will l respond to comment s and questions that Adams raises concerning the future of newspapers upon his 40th years with the Lancaster Newspapers:
We’ve done a great job of telling you our problems – fewer readers, fewer ads and a recession – while neglecting to tell you our strengths. That would take another column.
Agreed. It is tragic that publisher’s interference due to the influence of greedy and bad company has sullied the memory and prestige of their predecessors and the Steinman family, who have so long and so well served our community.
Our critics pronounce us dying, but the irony is that you have an insatiable appetite for what we produce. With our Web page, Sunday News articles are read by more people than ever. Most of the news you read online is produced by newspapers.
Correct.
But online, we’re nearly giving our product away. We have to find a way to make that pay.
We have so commented. Through the American Society of Composers, Artists and Publishers (ASCAP), business users pay fees that are in turn remitted to composers and performers of music. Similar arrangements needs to be made for compensation from either the public or Internet providers, in the latter circumstance varying in accordance with average annual audience.
Would we expect authors of books to do it for free? It is essential that the originators of news articles be paid for their services.
In print, we must boldly remake ourselves. There are many options, with many questions.
Should we concentrate on analysis (less news, more views) and investigative reporting, leaving the breaking news to our Web site?
Should we seek a niche by serving the people who want a newspaper, giving them more of what they demand instead of spending time and money chasing elusive nonreaders?
Should we print even more local news, leaving most national and international news to the Web and TV?
Should we turn front pages into magazine covers, with articles inside and no ‘jumps’?
Merging the morning and afternoon newspapers was a no brainer, the years of delay being testimony to the business ineptness of current management.
Perhaps the next step is to follow the example of the Wall Street Journal and only provide the opening paragraphs of stories to those who neither subscribe to the newspapers on a daily basis nor subscribe to full access to LancasterOnline.com. The public wants sports, crime, local events…the type of articles which only the local newspapers can provide. The next step is for the publishers to bite the bullet and further restrict unlimited free access to their web site.
Besides pondering all of that, we have to catch up with societal changes. Years ago, people spent a lazy Sunday afternoon with the paper. Sunday isn’t Sunday anymore. How do we adapt to readers’ busy schedules?
Adams pointed out that the circulation of the Sunday News has actually increased! (Like the New York Times, some will read it over the course of the week.) If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
We can take heart in remembering that it was once feared that TV would kill newspapers (and movies). It didn’t, but it changed us, and change is what we have to do again in this digital age.
Newspapers will never totally satisfy the public because they are dependent on currying the favor of advertisers and maximizing circulation. Online media such as NewsLanc, especially if non-profit and funded by foundations and the public, will venture into areas of controversy that are essential for a successful democracy.
The Lancaster Newspapers and NewsLanc are not rivals or even competitors. We are colleagues as part of the Fourth Estate. Both are essential for a vibrant democracy.
