CLOSE

YouTube Hunter: EPIC 2014 and the Future of Newsprint]

This month's Atlantic includes a fascinating article by Michael Hirschorn on what newspapers have to do to stay relevant in an increasingly diffuse, almost schizophrenic, media environment. We've got blogs and MySpace and YouTube and, shucks Jimmy!, however are newspaper supposed to stay afloat? Certainly, as everyone's been saying for some time now, the future doesn't look bright. Circulation figures are dwindling, younger generations haven¹t developed their parents' taste for broadsheet, blah blah blah barf. Being forced to read these same stories over and over is almost enough to make you throw in the towel and root for the Death of the Newspaper.

Occasionally, though, a piece of doomsday-ism comes around that is too entertaining to deny. EPIC 2014, which Hirschorn kicks off his article describing, is one. Produced in 2004, it foretells the death of old media at the hands of a hyper-personalized news disseminator run by Googlezon, which is what Google and Amazon call themselves after the predicted merger. Before watching the video, two quick notes: 1) Don't forget that everything after 2004, not 2006, is pure conjecture. 2) Thrill to the way the narrator gratuitously emphasizes certain words--"participatory journalism PLATFORM!" It's delightful and also a little creepy.

I wasn't kidding about the over-zealous narration, huh? Anyway, as tiresome as newspaper death stories are, solution-based ones can be fun, if for no other reason than you can look back three years from now and see how silly we all were for writing this stuff down. And that¹s precisely the kind of piece Hirschorn has written, and as smartly as can be expected.

His suggestion for staving off impending doom is this: newspapers should move the business of breaking original news"“"in the form of stories, postings, and community""“entirely to the web and leave the paper version for longer analytical pieces akin to the New York Times' occasional Washington Memos. It's a relatively simple and, it seems, inevitable step, since the public is getting increasingly used to reading and commenting on the news not every morning, but more like every minute.

I believe his specific proposal is unlikely to succeed, however. He says, by way of example, that the Times should give its music critic Kelefa Sanneh his own blog/social network so that he can post his own reviews, myriad thoughts, and the like, and his readers can respond in kind with their own reviews, myriad thoughts, and the like. That way Sanneh isn't bound by the strictures of a daily publishing schedule and can reach out to his readers whenever he has something to say. And, in turn, his readers can reach out to him. Interactive-errific! A number of studies suggest that readers respond to that kind of give-and-take, and, according to Hirschorn, almost every reporter would have his own blog: Dana Priest of The Washington Post would write about intelligence, Adam Nagourney of the Times on Washington scuttlebutt, etc.

My problem with this plan is that as much as it strokes my ego to think readers recognize bylines and would follow individual reporters to their own sites, I seriously doubt it¹s true. It's too much of a media world-centric point of view for me. I understand this is anecdotal, but whenever I mention the name Adam Nagourney to fellow journalists, they
instinctively respond, "Oh, you mean the guy who can't find enough ways to write a story about The Democratic Party In Turmoil?" But when I mention him to other people outside the bubble...crickets. It's natural. I can't name more than two hedge fund managers.

The idea of moving breaking news to the web is essential"¹especially, as Hirschorn notes, if newspapers wise up enough to "microchunk" the content, syndicate it, and get a share of the the ad revenue from sites that pick it up--but the parent companies would be a lot better off if instead of giving reporters their own blogs, they gave sections of the newspaper their own blogs. Say, intelligence.washingtonpost.com instead of danapriest.washingtonpost.com. In addition to combating the false sense of name recognition Hirschorn believes in, this approach would also be able to better harness the collaborative advantage newspapermen have over bloggers. It's not Dana Priest who makes all the phone calls and does all the research. She has an excellent research team, and she occasionally works with other reporters on the same story. Don't make her the star, make the Post's intelligence team the star. The site can still have all the social networking you want, but you'd be playing up your home court advantage. Plus, identifying a section of the paper rather than a single reporter is better for strengthening brand loyalty.

Using this approach"¹if we take a very rosy outlook"“might also help some of the mid-major newspapers that, according to media critic Jack Shafer, are too small to compete with the Times and the Post and too big to focus on the very local news that'll most likely keep the smallest papers alive. How? Let's use the Detroit Free Press as an example. They can scale back on some of their more expensive national and international coverage by picking up syndicated pieces not just from the AP, but from other papers, too. Then, they could put more resources into creating their own newspaper destinations that other papers would link to and they could earn syndication money from. The obvious example for the Free Press would be to generate the country's best automobile industry coverage. And in the same way, other mid-major papers would jockey for their own little
niches. Gardening for the Orlando Sentinel, for instance, or travel for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Papers fill be scrambling to these gaps, and as a result of market forces, the quality of journalism would have to get pretty high to become a niche leader. I, for one, am dying for a Pulitzer-winning gardening story. Where are you, Orlando?

Okay, all this is just a start. The issue is obviously complicated enough to write a book about. But I want to know what you think. Am I crazy? Is there anything you agree with me on? Do you have any other ideas on how newspapers are going to survive the next ten years? Let me know.

And I promise to write about something totally frivolous next week.

Original image
FRED TANNEAU/AFP/Getty Images
arrow
Animals
Fisherman Catches Rare Blue Lobster, Donates It to Science
Original image
FRED TANNEAU/AFP/Getty Images

Live lobsters caught off the New England coast are typically brown, olive-green, or gray—which is why one New Hampshire fisherman was stunned when he snagged a blue one in mid-July.

As The Independent reports, Greg Ward, from Rye, New Hampshire, discovered the unusual lobster while examining his catch near the New Hampshire-Maine border. Ward initially thought the pale crustacean was an albino lobster, which some experts estimate to be a one-in-100-million discovery. However, a closer inspection revealed that the lobster's hard shell was blue and cream.

"This one was not all the way white and not all the way blue," Ward told The Portsmouth Herald. "I've never seen anything like it."

While not as rare as an albino lobster, blue lobsters are still a famously elusive catch: It's said that the odds of their occurrence are an estimated one in two million, although nobody knows the exact numbers.

Instead of eating the blue lobster, Ward decided to donate it to the Seacoast Science Center in Rye. There, it will be studied and displayed in a lobster tank with other unusually colored critters, including a second blue lobster, a bright orange lobster, and a calico-spotted lobster.

[h/t The Telegraph]

Original image
Courtesy Murdoch University
arrow
Animals
Australian Scientists Discover First New Species of Sunfish in 125 Years
Original image
Courtesy Murdoch University

Scientists have pinpointed a whole new species of the largest bony fish in the world, the massive sunfish, as we learned from Smithsonian magazine. It's the first new species of sunfish proposed in more than 125 years.

As the researchers report in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, the genetic differences between the newly named hoodwinker sunfish (Mola tecta) and its other sunfish brethren was confirmed by data on 27 different samples of the species collected over the course of three years. Since sunfish are so massive—the biggest can weigh as much as 5000 pounds—they pose a challenge to preserve and store, even for museums with large research collections. Lead author Marianne Nyegaard of Murdoch University in Australia traveled thousands of miles to find and collected genetic data on sunfish stranded on beaches. At one point, she was asked if she would be bringing her own crane to collect one.

Nyegaard also went back through scientific literature dating back to the 1500s, sorting through descriptions of sea monsters and mermen to see if any of the documentation sounded like observations of the hoodwinker. "We retraced the steps of early naturalists and taxonomists to understand how such a large fish could have evaded discovery all this time," she said in a press statement. "Overall, we felt science had been repeatedly tricked by this cheeky species, which is why we named it the 'hoodwinker.'"

Japanese researchers first detected genetic differences between previously known sunfish and a new, unknown species 10 years ago, and this confirms the existence of a whole different type from species like the Mola mola or Mola ramsayi.

Mola tecta looks a little different from other sunfish, with a more slender body. As it grows, it doesn't develop the protruding snout or bumps that other sunfish exhibit. Similarly to the others, though, it can reach a length of 8 feet or more. 

Based on the stomach contents of some of the specimens studied, the hoodwinker likely feeds on salps, a jellyfish-like creature that it probably chomps on (yes, sunfish have teeth) during deep dives. The species has been found near New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and southern Chile.

[h/t Smithsonian]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios