However, deep into the article was a summary of what the author said were predictions for the future of news. While there's nothing new here, I was struck that one of the options while credible already is meeting opposition.
-A mix of online news from foundations, professional and amateur sites and big papers capitalizing on their brands to create and aggregate news.
-Ever closer collaboration between papers, competitors and readers to generate content, avoid redundant stories and pool coverage resources.
These last two, while possible, will be more difficult just because of the competitive nature of some news organizations. Witness the saber-rattling from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune against Minnesota Public Radio declaring MPR its chief competitor and unfairly so because it receives taxpayer funds.
Our own preliminary agreement with MPR to share news so both can have better regional coverage caused great concern from at least one publisher (who saw this as a pact with the devil) and the Associated Press (who worried the arrangement threatened their services for which we pay a healthy sum). An official announcement of this pact should be coming in January.
Without a doubt, we in the news business have to recognize that while a percentage of our problem is cyclical because of the economy, a larger amount is tectonic. And our continued success will rely upon our ability to adapt. While I'm not proposing we should ignore caution with any arrangement, the market is telling us we need to be more open to collaboration and sharing of resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment