How 9/11 killed the newspaper

"Pregunta del Dia" by Esther J. Cepeda

"Pregunta del Dia" translates from Spanish into "Question of the Day" and today’s come from an anonymous woman in the audience at the Chicago Headline Club's June 11 panel discussion "Deadline: will newspapers survive?" where the tops of the Chicago news shops came together for what was more a wake than a vibrant discussion of the bright future of old-school journalism on a new digital stage.

Q. "Why are newspapers giving [reported content] away for free? No one's going to pay for it now that they're used to getting it for free!"

A. The stunned silence of the panel members gave way to the obvious "train has already left the station" explanation of why that's no longer an option.

But here's what none of the experts ever say: That train left the station on 9/11/2001.

I've said this in roundtable discussions time and time again, though not this one, and I always get to see the light bulb blink on. Before 9/11 newspapers were merely toying with the idea of putting content on-line. That was, at best, an afterthought.

Then 9/11 hit and in a nearly unprecedented move, after the second tower fell, managing editors across the country started the presses rolling on a special afternoon edition. "America Attacked" – Tallahassee Democrat, "Terror" – Tampa Tribune, "Horror" the Washington Times. People were glued to the TV. Radios thrummed all night.

Then came the next day, and – let's face it print runs are horribly expensive – that afternoon edition just was not happening. But people wanted constant updates on what was happening everywhere.

Meanwhile frantic family members across the country started pleading their on-line case for any, any information about their loved-ones whether it be flight information, last-spotted posts, pictures, information on what to do if another attack occurred – and newspapers noticed, though super late.

A study published in 2003 by the Newspaper Research Journal found these today-unimaginable statistics: "[An] analysis of 89 U.S. daily newspaper Web sites on Sept. 11, 2001, shows that 65 percent of the home pages in the late morning and 38 percent in the late afternoon said nothing about the World Trade Center bombings. By late afternoon only 43 percent of the home pages had at least one photo or video of the 9/11 attacks."

Crashed web sites and high demand made the lightbulb come on: free "afternoon editions" on the web.

And who could have conceived of charging people for information critical to the safety of a nation under attack? Who was thinking about "monetizing page views?" No one. No one with a soul, anyway.

The "American tragedy" that those with genuine love for the printed newspaper call the tidal wave of internet "user-generated content," and "up to the minute news" that's "killing" newspapers is one born of an actual tragedy.

A tragedy that journalists – like the police, fire fighters, nurses and doctors who streamed to New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania to help in any way possible – selflessly, and with little regard to personal safety, flocked to in order to deliver the stories of the dead, hurt, and missing to eager news consumers.

And that's how it came to be that news became ubiquitous, never-ending, and free on the internet; the result of one horrible "freedom of information act."

Esther J. Cepeda writes the “600 Words” & “Pregunta del Dia” columns, and is also a Director at the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization. Her reporting and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of UNO. “600 words” is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

Comments

[jack spatafora]

The analysis is dead on...but for many of us,it is a study in one tragedy generating another... faster news is not always better news....free news is not always the best news....the deluge from cyberspace may in the long run drown more than newspapers...but that's another column!

[The Law]

Newspapers are not dying. What is dying (maybe already dead) is the traditional definition of a newspaper as an ink-on-paper product. The business model (low price, mass distribution) introduced in 1833 by Benjamin Henry Day's New York Sun doesn't work as it used to. The audience coveted by newspapers (and all media and their advertisers) is a group that has grown up with free content, and they think it's silly to pay for information. And they won't. So newspapers have online editions that get incredible numbers of readers because newspapers have a generally trustworthy brand. Newspapers will be around a long time in print because it's an effective way to deliver preprint advertising and advertisers are mostly wary about the effectiveness of Internet advertising. It's economics, boys and girls. The business is evolving. Not dying.

[pau1ke11y]

I believe the anonymous woman's premise was at least a bit faulty. The fact is that newspapers CAN "monetize" page views, unique visitors, etc. Newspapers aren't (or shouldn't be) giving news -- reported content -- away for free, even on the web. The fact that the Internet has forced newspapers to focus on what it is that they do differently than magazines, local radio and television stations, cable networks, etc., may in the long run "save" newspapers. Of course, there are many newspapers who still subscribe to being "all things to all people." Newspapers should deliver news, and great analysis of that news, via the web OR on newsprint.