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
I believe they teach in
I believe they teach in journalism school the meaning of objectivity. 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. It just looks like they are conservative because of the viewer's vantage point. To a conservative, they look like they are reporting from the middle.
It's a free market, so they
It's a free market, so they say. If some who identify as conservative don't like the KC Star, why don't they start a local newspaper? Like him or hate him, Murdoch is spending his money and taking the risks on the WSJ. Fox is as fair and balanced as the viewer beholds. Liberals are doing their own fair and balanced act with MSNBC and Air America. Be brave and be positive about your own views. The "news" is always and inevitably slanted by the reporter's perspective (IMO).
Radical a question for you
Radical a question for you old friend. What did Grinch say s/he was doing, quitting this blog or what???
Grinch, I knew you'd be
Grinch, I knew you'd be drawn out. Your head would explode if you tried to hold it in. Let me say though, I I think the local &state elections are the basis for building grass roots support and a national organization, a lesson taken from the conservative movement. Remember to old saw, all politics is local? Give me school boards, city councils and mayors and I'll get the state house, then the congressmen and senators... you get the picture. So the Star endorsements on the local level are not without influence.
You're getting the "content neutral" WSJ? Rupert Murdock's WSJ? The WSJ where Rupert consults daily with the managing editor? It's a good rag but... DUH?? If you want balance you should get the NY Times too. You can afford it. Then you can go back & forth cutting & pasting and arguing with yourself since you've decided not to engage with us anymore. bahk, bahk, bahk, CHICKEN! Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of you, quitter. Posting on the WSJ, or FOX blogs won't diseminate your political genius.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Grinch, I knew you'd be
Grinch, I knew you'd be drawn out. Your head would explode if you tried to hold it in. Let me say though, I I think the local &state elections are the basis for building grass roots support and a national organization, a lesson taken from the conservative movement. Remember to old saw, all politics is local? Give me school boards, city councils and mayors and I'll get the state house, then the congressmen and senators... you get the picture. So the Star endorsements on the local level are not without influence.
You're getting the "content neutral" WSJ? Rupert Murdock's WSJ? The WSJ where Rupert consults daily with the managing editor? It's a good rag but... DUH?? If you want balance you should get the NY Times too. You can afford it. Then you can go back & forth cutting & pasting and arguing with yourself since you've decided not to engage with us anymore. bahk, bahk, bahk, CHICKEN! Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of you, quitter. Posting on the WSJ, or FOX blogs won't diseminate your political genius.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
GrinchForPrez wrote:I
Ha! We knew he was bloviating!
Grinch, did I miss you were
Grinch, did I miss you were leaving this blog? Are you going to another one? If so, may I ask where??
I know it gets tiresome, but the fight to educate the libs has to continue. Besides, it's interesting to see the twist applied to problems.
I apologize for posting. I
I apologize for posting. I have to answer a poster's disingenous post that claimed parity in the Star's recommendation of Republicans and Democrats, over national and local elections.
The local elections are irrelevant, and the poster knows that - the national elections are what count. Out of the 13 races contested in national and KS/MO State-level elections (senator, representative, governor, etc), 12 out of 13 offices had the Star's imprimatur on the Democrat candidates. Those offices have by far the greatest impact on politics - if the poster claims that local officials have the same weight, that poster is a moron.
I personally love reading the paper in the morning over coffee, only now it's the Wall Street Journal, delivered every day but Sunday on my driveway, which is refreshingly clear of the overt liberal bias of the KC Red Star.
Unlike other kind posters, I could not care less about the future of the Star, since they could not care less about mine. Another wise poster mentioned that 90% of the staff seems to post liberal opinions when at least 50% of their readers are conservative - and guess what? They deserve to have 50% less readers.
Over and out permanently ...
barb, you missed a big and
barb, you missed a big and glaring reason...the paper has become so left-slanted that people don't appreciate the biased read. If you became more conservative in your writing, i bet you'd have more readership. of course it will never happen. it would be like asking a zebra to change its stripes.
Twas you're on point but I
Twas you're on point but I notice even more the sin of omission. Every word in a story might be exactly factual but it's what's not mentioned or the stories never covered that truly show the bias of a media outlet. e.g. One might cover the opening of new schools in Iraq and the other car bombings. Neither tell the whole story. I've seen the same critisism of the Star in this very thread. Can one paper be all things to all readers? This forum adds balance. Unless you call me a REALLY bad name you're posted verbatim and your counterpoint is made for hundreds, even thousands to read. Ain't that something? Do you feel a sense of awsome responsibility? Yeah, me neither but we have our say and everybody gets to participate, even the Grinch. If the Star was really all that biased they'd have an editor blocking your posts (but of course, not mine 'cause I'm a lib).
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?