Part II: Death of Newspapers or a chance for a Slim survival

In a past blog we discussed the possibility of newspapers disappearing as a information source (or at least as a analog source). While not all newspapers are being thrown a lifeline, there’s something about that old saying…  “what’s in a name.” The New York Times was all but assured of going the way of GM, when out of nowhere (south of the border actually) there arrived hope. The hope came in the shape of Mexican Carlos Slim Helu, considered one of the wealthiest men in the world, who controls (or owns it, depending on who you talk to) about 40-45% of the Mexican economy. Carlos Slim is viewed by some as a financial oligarch and by others as a source of pride. What ever may be the case, Slim is now the largest shareholder of the Times, after the Sulzbergers. What does this all mean? Who knows, maybe just like in the auto industry (Chrysler owned by Fiat, GM owned by the U.S.A Gov and Hummer owned by the Chinese) we will now start selling other “sacred institutions” to foreigners, governments or unions.  Or maybe, newspapers have gone the way of the Dodo. Whatever the final outcome, the control of the new information conduits continues.

Just like the mythical stories of the Rothschild’s and their use of pigeons (to relay information about the results of the Battle of Waterloo) giving them an upper hand in the London Financial Markets. Information or the control of it, remains the ultimate prize for economic conquistadors. Carlos Slim’s fortune is based upon such control. From his monopoly on cell phone and land-line services (Telmex, America Movil, and TracPhone), Slim has focused on distribution control, not content. His iron fist approach to consolidating an industry is legendary (his equivalent would be John D. Rockefeller). Along with his uncanny ability to buy when others are selling, has made him an economic force equivalent to Warren Buffet or previously (before he became a philanthropist to the Democratic Party) George Soros.

I believe there is no doubt that we have arrived at the end of the analog information age. We are definitely in the digital information world and its here that I believe Carlos Slim is positioning himself. Regardless of the amount of information there is out on the Internet, the New York Times retains brand power. And with that, also comes credibility (if you don’t believe me, just ask anyone who they would trust more concerning the veracity of a news story, Joe’s info blog or the nytimes.com). I’m also going to put forward a prediction. I really believe we are coming to a top in the amount of (quality) information that is being produced, why, because we can only read so much. I don’t know if Carlos Slim believes that but he has said that he does not want to control content but the vehicles that deliver it (Carlos Slim builds monopolies and just like he did in Mexico, he might just attempt to do this here).

Now humans can only process a certain amount and lets face it, the amount of waste on the web is vast. But there’s another aspect to this, and that is the role of search engines, when someone types in a search entry, how many people go beyond the first page or the first 5 entries? If your website doesn’t come up in the first page, in all likely hood it will not be picked. Therefore, making sure your website is one of the first chosen is of vital importance. And its here that the NYTimes has a huge advantage, where nearly everyone of their major stories will come up first on a search  (not to mention they are one of the top 5 on-line news sources). Something Mr. Slim has possibly taken note of.

So in an ironic twist, just like there is a shaking out in any industry, I think we will have the same thing happen with all forms of on-line official and homegrown news sources (websites, wiki’s, blogs, facebook’s and twitters). Now, it does not mean that these other sources will become non existent, it is just that they will become immaterial (I will go out on a limb and say 95% of the Internet will be irrelevant).  So, as a limited processing species, we only can read and look at a limited amount of information and for a lot of our choices we rely on pattern (name) recognition to guide us through many of our decisions. In many ways we already do this, how many people have websites they look at everyday and only those? Therefore, information preservers and curators will be looking at many familiar names, just in a different medium. A medium that Mr. Slim would like to control.

Advertisements

The Death of Newspapers or a Rebirth?

In the last several years we have been hearing the death knell of newspapers, (and books) as the primary mechanism of informational and knowledge delivery. Bloggers (our modern day Benjamin Franklins), wiki’s and web pages, are storming the bastion of the 4th Estate and would seem to be on the verge of overwhelming, or at the very least altering it. The Internet has been the primary cause of this paradigm shift; it has changed the culture but more importantly the informational pedagogies. This blog touches upon whether newspapers are really going to die (some would say that their bodies are already traversing the river Styx) and be taken over (or replaced) by websites such as the Huffington Post (known as the HuffPo). I don’t know the answers (nobody does) but there is a possibility that newspapers can find a form of Brahmanian reincarnation, ironically of all places, in the digital world.

In the 2009 January/February addition of Atlantic Monthly an article (End Times, by Michael Hirschorn) described the current dismal state of the New York Times (the flagship of American newspapers) and other newspaper stalwarts:

“The thinking goes that existing brands–The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal–will be the ones making that transition, challenged but still dominant as sources of original reporting. But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if The New York Times goes out of business–like this May?”

With more than $1 Billion in debt, $46 million in cash reserves (as of October) and $400 million in debt coming due, it seems that Wall Street Investment firms and banks aren’t the only bankrupt entities in New York. It is very plausible that the NYT will cease to exist or have to change its structure dramatically (such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette deciding it will no longer be delivering print additions beyond a certain radius) or it may just come back as a digital newspaper selling off its other assets to pay off its creditors. The NYT isn’t the only financially strapped paper (Seattle Times, The Tribune Company, and countless others are in similar circumstances). Regardless, the coming year will be froth with change in the newspaper world. So, with the impending doom and gloom, is there a chance for newspapers to survive?  The possibility is remote but if they do survive, it will be because they are willing to leverage the power of their brand names while adopting new informational models.

What do I mean by this? Simply that major newspapers have something blogs and other Web 2.0 generated entities do not provide, name recognition and continuity. The NYT bridges the gap of paper and digital. People are more comfortable believing something that used to be in paper and that now is in digital. Linguistically, the NYT and other major newspapers have already framed and controlled the argument of validity by having their names equating with some aspect of truth, because of that very same longevity and continuity.

This leads many people to associate the NYT as a concrete symbol of truth, which really espouses what I call, “truth of fact.” Truth of fact is the ability to cognitively create a culturally belief in which an entity can be trusted to report an existence of an event, person, place or thing. It doesn’t mean that it can tell us causality or how factually true every aspect of such a report may be, just that what it reports happened or that it exists. (Now some people will argue that it can do both, I will not argue this point.) It also has created an organic relationship with society as opposed to a simply positivistic one. The new forms of newspapers (blogs) cannot create in a matter of a few years, what took newspapers decades. So, what are we left with?

In order to survive, newspapers more than likely will move completely over to digital and cut off their more expensive paper editions (the nytimes.com is already one of the top 5 online news sources). Once they move their revenue generating to web advertisements and devote themselves to a complete web product, most large newspapers will do fine, granted probably in a much smaller scale.  This in many ways is a good thing, as newspapers will be forced to concentrate on quality reporting, such as investigative news (that really no longer exists). News bloggers I believe will come to resemble free-lance reporters (if they don’t already), who will benefit from the name recognition of being associated with a major newspaper.  By becoming reliable and trustworthy news sources, some bloggers will enjoy the elevated status that comes with seeing their story linked from the NYT home page or any other major paper. In addition, (with out sounding conspiratorial) I would not be surprised if major news outlets will not be treated with some preference by large search engines.

Now none of this may happen and we could be left with no newspapers. However, if such a scenario were to occur, I don’t believe we would have information news anarchy for very long. People and society tend to strive for some level of order in all things. The new technology is causing a development of tension, which will not be resolved with out some societal transformation. It happened before in our history with the introduction of the car, radio, and television. How this societal change will play out is anyone’s guess, but as an archivist, I look forward to seeing how we not only preserve the old but how we deal with the new information mechanisms.