When I retired 10 years ago, the newspaper was still the recognizable medium of most readers' childhood. People of my age might deplore the loss of the Newark Evening News, the Herald Tribune, the Journal American, the Daily Mirror and such, but could still see the bones in modern newspapers.
No more. Now we have "platforms," "multi-media," and generic "content" that tries to cling to your brain like mental lint. Just read about a local murder? Maybe you would also like to read about another murder that happened two months ago, in another state. "Driving traffic" is not about rush hour, it is about competing for and capturing your attention for a few moments.
So now this melange of actual news events and assorted stuff known as content is being put behind paywalls. The Seattle Times has just announced a paywall beginning in mid-March, with this rationale. I rely on this outlet for news of the Pacific Northwest, just as I'm sure others read regional newspapers online to keep up with what's going on where dear ones live. It's also the winner of nine Pulitzer Prizes, though reader reaction to the paywall seems to lump it with any and all other attempts to monetize online news.
If I want to read about the exact neighborhood where my dear ones live now, I can always check the West Seattle Blog, which appears to have enough advertising revenue to keep it afloat. Similarly, former Plainfielders can get a glimpse of life in the Queen City by clicking on local blogs. The few that are left are largely labors of love, subject to closure at will as has happened to the other 30 blogs that once made up the roster.
The New York Times has the most clever and engaging use of multi-media, after that it drops off sharply to "why bother" levels in other outlets, except that it can be claimed as content.
It's a curious world for news nowadays. Newspapers used to have a finite "news hole" that had to be filled judiciously. Online, it's a bottomless pit where news and content cohabit. I have seen "news" stories as short as two sentences and "content" links as old as two years.
These musings are probably just the work of a brain muddled by mid-winter illness, but if readers have any thoughts on these topics, please comment.
For many of us the only reason to buy a local paper like the CN used to be is to check the obituaries. At my age it is to make sure my name isn't there.
ReplyDeleteDoc, you're right--but you forgot to mention the funnies--definitely worth the price of the paper. Also, for those interested, the Courier features Mark Spivey's always impressive columns on beer!
ReplyDelete