But I have
a lament. I love what I do. Though leaving
a job I still love is not the cause of my lament.
I ain’t
done yet.
I have
lots of projects to keep me busy, so that’s not the issue. I simply have a need
to get out there – back in the news biz – while I’m healthy, hearty and filled
with energy, and before I sign off for good.
It’s for
one simple reason: I think that I can do some “good,” that I can make a
difference in these difficult times that someone who’s “in” can’t do as well.
I want
to be back “in” because I care, and because I’ve been on the outside looking in
for the past 16 years, and I’ve learned a lot from that perspective.
Newspapers
have been downright stupid in their approaches to the changing environment – in
news and in business – because of the challenges of “digital.”
Newspapers
should have been the ones that developed Yahoo. And Google. And Linkedin. And,
yep!, Facebook. And (especially) Yelp! and other sites like it and those
mentioned.
As an
aside: A.O. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times (who gave Joyce and me a personal tour of his then new-HQ in New York City a few years back) once visited my class and offered an analogy (and
lesson), often punctuating his point with the “f” word to show his concern. I
paraphrase:
The
problem with the railroads, when airlines were about to emerge, he said, was
thinking they were in the railroad business and not the transportation business.
Same with newspapers. They aren’t in the newsprint business, but the information
business. That’s why Yahoo, Google, et al., should have sprung from the well of
newspapers.
He was
saying that the airlines that emerged shouldn’t have been TWA or Pan Am; they
should have been the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Airline or the Norfolk &
Western Airline, as clunky as that may sound, because they were in the business
of moving people and goods. By rail, by air, by whatever. They just didn’t
realize or embrace it.
Arthur
Jr. was correct. And my dear old New York Times, unfortunately, didn’t follow
that advice either, until too late. (And I’m hoping for great success for the
Times in this new age for two reasons: it still practices the best, and badly
needed, journalism in the world and, as important, much of my retirement income
is coming from its retirement fund.)
But back
to me and newspapers.
The
problem with newspapers is they are afraid, to use a cliché, to reinvent the
wheel.
Instead
of working with what they have and trying to move forward, they need to
approach it working from a clean slate. The “what they have” is holding ‘em
back.
You need
wipe the slate clean and ask one question: If we were to create a media model
that served the community – “our” community, any community – and it was a model
that was able to sustain itself and, even, make an acceptable profit, what
would that model be?
Not what
we’re doing now.
For me,
it would start with making the “media entity” what newspapers used to be or
should be: the center of “community.” A place that ebbed and flowed with information
to and from the audience, all of the audience. It would be the community center
in the true meaning of those words.
Everyone
in the community – every organization, public and private, and every individual
– would be as much a part of it as the editor and the publisher or the reporter
on the street.
Everything
“community” would flow through that hub.
That’s
the starting point. Where it would finish would depend on the individual media
entity because, ultimately, each community is unique to every other.
Then,
perhaps, we wouldn’t be caught up with words like “demise” and “outdated” when
talking about a local newspaper operation. Perhaps, just perhaps, we’d replace
those words with “vital,” "relevant" and “irreplaceable.”
That’s
what I want to do before I really retire. I want to make it happen.