By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
A long time ago, I helped save a fish shop. It was on a grimy corner of Syracuse, N.Y. City zoning policies had led to rampant vagrancy in the neighborhood.
The shop was run down, and so was its proprietor. But he livened up when I stopped by, identified myself as a reporter for the local newspaper, and asked how he was doing.
“I’ll show you how I’m doing,” he said, and stormed out to his back parking lot, which was littered with liquor bottles.
“This is how I’m doing,” the fish vendor said, and started flinging bottles around.
Smash. Smash. Smash. It made a great story for me and dramatic shots for our photographer.
About a month later, I drove by the fish shop and couldn’t believe it was the same place. Its faded gray exterior was now bright red, and the boarded-up windows were replaced with Plexiglas.
“When you put me in the paper, it gave me hope,” the fish vendor said. Plus, the story had prompted police to step up enforcement.
That was, for me, the best of days, when I knew my work could make a difference.
I think of the fish vendor every time another nail gets pounded into the coffin of journalism as I have known it and practiced it for 30 years.
Newspapers are jettisoning staff and taking extreme measures to survive.
Detroit’s two dailies rocked the profession this week by announcing they’ll deliver to homes only three days a week. People who wish to read the news of their city the other days can buy the paper at a newsstand or go online. It’s possible that at least one major city will be without a print newspaper at the end of 2009.
The problem, boiled down, is that readers and advertisers are moving from newsprint to the Internet, but Internet advertisements pay only a fraction of print ads.
Then along came the recession, and companies slashed their advertising budgets further. Industrywide, ad revenues dropped 18 percent in the third quarter of this year over the same period in 2007.
We in this business can’t seek a bailout.
It’s difficult to be a watchdog of government if you’re beholden to it.
We don’t ask for the public’s sympathy for our uncertain future, or even our laid-off, dearly missed colleagues. Workers in all kinds of fields are unemployed.
But we appreciate, more than you can know, the show of support from people who are coming forward to tell us that, love it or hate it, they can’t imagine losing their daily newspaper.
A strange reality about newspaper journalism is that, while losing profits, it actually is gaining consumers.
Savvy Internet users understand that, when they call up their favorite site, be it the Huffington Post, Townhall or Tony’s Kansas City, much of the information that’s linked to or commented upon originated from a newspaper or wire service.
But the public has come to expect to consume its journalism for free. Even if you’re cutting out print and delivery expenses, it costs money for reporters to keep up with the antics of Mayor Mark Funkhouser or to report on how lawmakers in Jefferson City and Topeka are spending tax dollars.
Everyone in this business is trying to figure out how to make journalism profitable.
The answer may be to charge consumers to download content on the Internet. It may be the creation of niche publications that command enough ads to subsidize news-gathering. It may be a switch to non-profit, foundation-supported ownership.
It may be all of the above, or none of the above.
Journalism will be practiced in some form. But the world is changing, and what I see at the end of a terrible year is a fraying community connection.
Internet sites can give you the big stories. Bloggers can give you opinions and snappy lines. Watchdog sites can give you good investigative reports.
But if newspapers die, what forum will exist for stories like the fish vendor’s? Small in the scheme of things but large to the persons involved.
Barbara Shelly is a member of the editorial board. She can be reached at 816-234-4594 or . She blogs at voices.kansascity.com







Delicious
Digg
KC, I don't want to get off
KC,
I don't want to get off the subject of news papers but I'll say my opinion of Funk has changed since I voted for him. If the missus is going to run the show we voters should have been told. I don't think volunteers should be running meetings that are the mayor's job. Frankly, I just think he's a guy who can't tell her no. But that's neither here nor there. It's news when the mayor and his volunteer are getting the city sued and costing the tax payer money. I don't know the truth about what transpired with Ms Bates, she may be a gold digger or the pawn of other factions at city hall but nonetheless it's news. I see a definite POV in the postings here and on the editorial page but the news stories seem to be simple declarative statements except quotes attributed to one party or the other. Frankly, I don't follow the issue that closely. I guess my position is; I like having a daily paper in ink on paper. I know it's outmoded and likely to wane along with real books but I'll miss them. As you'll see from my very first post on this thread it's more to me that just a source of information. A Kindle just isn't the same.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Radical, I don't know twas'
Radical, I don't know twas' thoughts on the "fairness doctrine", but I am totally against this intrusion of again govt. in the private enterprise arena. I agree the star has a RIGHT to publish as they see fit, and I, as a customer had the right to refuse to buy the product, which I did.
On the other hand, I do appreciate their offering this blog, without, at least in my case, any type of censorship, even when I used the q word, which I agree was in poor taste. It was just a juvenile slip for which I am sorry. I am not homophobic, and my BEST boss back in the working days was a lesbian whom I respected and in fact loved. She is a good person.
The final straw for me with respect to the star was what I felt was the unwarranted attacks on the Funk. He seems to be a decent person who came in office with great hopes of doing the city some good. God only knows with its dysfunctional city council & school board and financial mess caused by Barnes & Cleaver it needs the help. the star since he was not part of the good-ole-boys purposely went after him and his wife IMO which really pissed me off. So, I voted with my pocketbook. The endorsements I expected and for the most part ignored.
I felt and continue to feel if his wife wants to help him and the city by volunteering, fine. I know if my wife had offered to "help" me during the working days I would have probably committed suicide, but everyone goes to a different drummer. I think Bates is merely a money grubber and she found a lawyer willing to take the case for a piece of the action... Welcome to American jurisprudence..
You know KCGRH, Twas,
You know KCGRH, Twas, reading your posts about who's biased in which way a person would think that you two conservatives would be in favor of restoring the fairness doctrine. Eh? I think it's OK to have a point of view so long as the consumer understands what they're getting. What troubles me are the folks who cite FOX or MSNBC as incontrovertible truth. Those folks are deluded. I listen to Keith Obermann because he's funny and pokes fun at Bill-O and others on the right. I don't for a minute believe that it the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's entertainment. They get paid large sums of money and have huge staffs that put this together for them. Jeez guys I know you know this.
So, the Star has a point of view. It has it's conservative representation (not as much as you'd like )but some. I never miss David Brooks and really miss Molly Ivans. The straight ticker stuff seems pretty objective, I like the features, catch the occasional bargain from the ads, keep up with sports & local business and in this forum I've encountered some intelligent and cogent conservative commentary so... ?
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
dr_shawn, Done. You go
dr_shawn,
Done. You go first and the big 0 will follow second with the abstinence funding I am sure...
I bet abstinence funding goes LONG before NPR funding goes. Part of the wonderous change we are going to be seeing IMO....
I do agree both are things the federal govt. has no business or constitutional right to be doing.
Kcgrh - I'll trade you
Kcgrh - I'll trade you one.
Your NPR funding for my Abstinence education funding.
I think according to the next link that NPR gets ... 2% from government. Compared to government spending of $50 million for abstinence. What a comparison.
You might want to check out the NPR stats here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
You cut out government abstinence funding I'll ask NPR to do the same.
George... You left out one
George...
You left out one of the larger offenders, NPR, which, as some poster pointed out to me, sucks off the govt. TEAT.
This is particularly aggravating to me since MY tax dollars go to foster a left leaning media without my concurrence. I might also add where in the Constitution does the Federal Govt. have the authority to be subsidizing network broadcasters when I have a 100+ to choose from, but that would be logical to the libs, so I won't ask that question.
Twas_was, your post
Twas_was, your post demonstrates the problem. You state, "they (Fox) look like a conservative news service when, in fact, they are in the middle." I don't think that's a "fact" at all but an opinion. Just my opinion.
Twas_was writes: "I am not a journalist, but in life when I discuss "facts" with people, I try to be objective and think about wording and how it would appear from both sides. If they can't objectively report the "news", then maybe they should be a commentator. I just think in today's world they really don't care about objectivity. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etal. are left-leaning to far-left. And when people who gravitate towards those news services look at Fox, they look like a conservative news service, when in fact, they are in the middle."
Several days ago after a
Several days ago after a particularly spirited harangue he announced with great flair (what a drama queen) that he would never darken our doorway again. As you see, though, he's been reading and watching and just couldn't hold back. I've no doubt that he'll find blogs at the WSJ(or wherever) boring with no one to preach to but the chior.
I'll continue to give him a good taunting knowing that he's out there.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
twas_was wrote:MSNBC, NBC,
I think it more accurate to say that they're fairly centrist, with some left-leaning and some right-leaning commentators (Olbermann and Glen Beck being examples of each), and, above all, they've elevated the trivial to news. I mean, I'm sorry to hear about the whole Caylee Anthony thing, but jesus, just how long is Nancy Grace going to pound it into the sand with her constant coverage?
If you're making a blanket condemnation of all those networks as left-leaning, then I think that says more about your own lack of objectivity than anything.
Problem with the "ideal" of
Problem with the "ideal" of journalism being objective, particularly as pertains to television media, is that the ideal collides with the reality that media is big business. Television news in particular has to compete with entertainment media, so they're going to pitch their product to an audience that buys it.
The other issue is the 24 hour news cycle -- the trivial is blown all out of proportion by the competing news networks.