Newspapers Just Don’t Get It

Read this yesterday and just have to comment.

From Breitbart:

“We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories,” Dean Singleton said at a meeting this week of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) in San Diego, California.

Singleton’s battle cry came just a few days after News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch launched a broadside against Internet giant Google (GOOG), whose Google News website is one of the most popular news aggregators on the Internet.

“Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights?” asked Murdoch, the owner of newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States, where his holdings include The Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

“Thanks, but no thanks,” the News Corp (NWS). chairman said.

Robert Thomson, the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, used even harsher language than his boss in describing the situation.

“There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the Internet,” Thomson said in an interview with the newspaper The Australian.

“It’s certainly true that readers have been socialized — wrongly I believe — that much content should be free,” he said. “And there is no doubt that’s in the interest of aggregators like Google who have profited from that mistaken perception.”

Google News and blogs are not the reason newspapers are going under at a record rate. Well, at least not for the reason newspaper folks would have you believe. Let’s be honest, at least when Google uses content, it has the civility to link to the originator. Even when a blog (most of them) use content, they will link to original. How often do we see article in major publications that mirror something written on a blog previously that receives no mention?

Let’s put that aside though. The physical newspaper is dead. It just is. By the time it arrives on my doorstep it is virtually worthless. The newspapers themselves syndicate their content through the likes of twitter that allow me to see articles as they are created. Why do I need a physical paper to then see it again the next day?

The problem is that newspapers have not figured out how to make money online in part because they still hang onto a business model near a century old. The news here isn’t that their extinction is happening, it is that it hasn’t already done so.

I look at my Boston Globe. Other than the sports section, it is utterly useless. The national news is simply syndicated from AP, content I can find in infinite places. The business section barely serves as useful litter box liner. That leaves the “local” news. Now, I live 30 minutes outside of Boston (to the west). Problem is the “Globe West” section apparently thinks anything more than 5 miles outside of Boston to the west is the Berkshires and has no relevant content. Because of that, I get the very local Westborough News that contains content that pertains to me.

If Globe owners wanted to make money, ditch the rest of the paper and just publish a sports/coupon section.

While I do not have specific knowledge of papers outside my state, I cannot imagine the above scenario is specific to here.

Now, regarding the “free” content comments. Where is most of the original content coming from today? Blogs. They are indeed free. If Microsoft (MSFT) reports earnings, I can find that information anywhere including their press release (which is free). Why do newspapers feel I should pay for them to regurgitate it to me? What is of value is commentary on it (which very few if any papers do) and that is where blogs have filled the void and thus the explosion of their importance.

Now, I have been quoted countless times in newspapers over the past two years and to date none have offered to pay me for my content when they do. Perhaps they feel they are dong me a favor? They are by the way, just as others are when they syndicate with attribution their content.

If the more valuable medium if free, then how do they expect to charge for less?

If newspapers were smart, they would start buying blogs and paying the bloggers. They could let them remain independent regarding content and wrap them under an ownership umbrella. Then they could profit from the cross traffic they generate and consolidate advertising revenues as well as give the bloggers more access to information (which many now cannot afford) that would enable them to increase the quality of their efforts.

Just my two cents..

Disclosure (“none” means no position):