The Future of Newspapers
Newspapers were once the only source for raw information, other than word of mouth, in our society. Today, they are no longer even the primary source of raw information. And they never will be again. We've lost the readership that is, essentially, only looking for headlines. And we won't get it back, no matter how glibly we display our information. We're not going to be easier than radio and TV. But we are, and can be more than ever, the source of understanding. Our traditional strengths - dealing with complexity, offering sophistication, using narrative and explanatory journalism to provide layers of understanding... providing the background, perspective, and context to give a depth of enlightenment... using the skills of our literary traditions: narrative, the painting of a story line, irony, humor, juxtaposition – to name a few.
Here's a couple of things that are very interesting right now: what I'm describing is exactly the direction that thoughtful journalism is taking already. Read the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and you will see an emphasis on writing and story-telling that is broader and more pronounced than ever. At the Inquirer, we believe in explanatory journalism, which even in a daily breaking story - maybe most important in a daily breaking story - offers the reader context, synthesis and perspective. Which never leaves him or her wondering, "So, what's the point, already?" or "Why do I care?" Here's an example: Don't just tell me the public utility commission is trying to raise my electric bill by 60 percent. Tell me what its odds of success are. Tell me what its arguments are. Tell me what the arguments against its case are. Tell me, if past performance is any guide, how all this is likely to turn out, for me the ratepayer and the reader. Give me an understanding of what will happen, if they do or do not, grant a rate hike. We also believe - fervently - in the unusual, engaging story that readers will talk about at the kitchen table, on the commuter train, in the office lobby, and, yes, even on talk radio. There is no better way to engage readership of important issues than to explain those issues in terms of the everyday lives of ordinary people. I mentioned the segment of the market that wants understanding - I believe it is large, much larger than it is usually estimated to be; it is growing because the population itself is more sophisticated and educated than 40 or 50 years ago, and we are not in danger of losing it. Newspapers are not going back to 90 percent readership; we know that; or, we should know that. But the segment of the market that will continue to seek a sophisticated understanding may well be 50 percent or more in the "Information-Age" global economy that is rapidly upon us. By Maxwell E. P. King
Task 3. Compare your findings on why the students in your class read newspapers with the reasons given by Maxwell E. P. King. If your findings differ from King's, try to give reasons for this. What is King's idea of "explanatory journalism"?
Task 4. In order to get a clearer picture of King's line of argument, write a keyword outline of the text. Then, referring to your keyword outline, decide which parts of the text are expository and which are more subjective.
|
If we rely on these traditional strengths, if we devote our efforts to expanding and making them more effective in journalism than ever before, then we can compete by offering understanding, not just information.
