Quite an elegy. The LA Times, a newspaper on the brink, broke a huge story tonight. Journalism soldiers on. 'Nite, Steve.

'If it didn't sing it was spiked?' Which specific planet did you do this newspaper work on?

Ah, yes, but where are our snows of yesterday?....What happened to newspapers that had spunk, and reporters who weren't so damn timid and full of their knowledge of the wonders of Facebook or Twitter? And why are newspapers today (I include the S-R in this) passively accepting the waves of economic decline that are burying them? The dodo bird didn't fight back, either, when foreign colonizers found it.

My grandfather started as a newspaper reporter in the 30s for $25 a week, calling in state stories over the phone. My father started in the 60s, making about $125 a week, working in the pressroom two nights a week. I started a few years ago, making about $525 a week after the internships were over, and I will love newspapers to my death, even though in our three lifetimes they've gone from hot lead and pencil editing to Quark and video and mobile phones. I have fond memories of watching the composing room and the pressroom at work as a child. But I have to disagree about service to our communities. The press grew up in the 1960s - I think of Halberstam challenging the status quo on Vietnam - and it's growing up another step now. I'm 31 and my service has just begun, and it's already been a wonderful, wild ride. For all the lamenting and obituaries, there are still more stories left to tell than our newspapers have time to write, or shoot, or videotape. From this side of the generational divide, the past is past and the future is damn exciting.

This seems to offer the view that the figure of the public truthseeker in the USian social spectacle modeled himself on figures from a bygone, noir-ish subgenre of fiction.

Worth a bit of reflection. What's being protected, what's being pretended, and why?

My, gosh. This is a fitting eulogy for an industry so full of itself that it can't get over the past to forge a meaningful (and profiatable) future.

Ransom Stoddard. I love that. I'm not the only old movie fan out there.

Steve - This was gorgeous - I almost cried when I read it. But the '40s werent 'The Forties' as we know it now. All those greats... were young guns in a modern age too. You've still got the heart of a Byline Lion... clearly. So, from the boys on the bus, to you: Take a vacation; hit the treadmill; read some great young writers; buy the smallest, lightest laptop you can fine; source and run down a hell of a story; and write the hell out of it. Blog; Twitter; go back to those two stalls and rewrite it again. Start looking forward. The gang on the barricades needs you fighting the good fight. Leave the 'Danny Boys' until we're dead. There's too much work to be done to get nostalgic. We can do that later. C'mon... let's start throwing some punches. Y'know.. like the old days?

I'm sure telegraph operators and horseback mail carriers felt the same way, Steve. Nostalgia like this, instead of action and progress, is why print newspapers are suffering their fast, ugly demise.

Steve, we are both attending the Harwood summit this weekend. I have been Googling folks who will be there, which led me to your blog.

I am one of the legions of journos who got into the biz after Watergate, inspired by "Woodstein." I'm a little younger than you, but I still remember Royal typewriters, pica poles, VDTs, teletype machines, the works. I left newspapering more than 15 years ago, but my husband is still employed (thankfully) by the paper here in Boise, so we can relate to the uncertainty you mention.

I don't have any ready answers about the future of journalism, but I hope you will be inspired by some new visions and ideas this weekend. Safe travels!

Men, men, men. As a newspaperwoman, I do not mourn the end of the boys-club world you depict.

Nice post, Steve. I was sad about Wyant's passing too. You're not that much older than I am, but you were one of my Wyants.

I'm also sad about the passing of the old days, or maybe just about going from being a young gun to an old fart. I agree with a lot of the commenters here that there's more good work left to do. That newspapers, or at least journalism, is still here to do it. But I know you know that too.

Out of newspapers for going on two years now, I'd love to be back in.

Keep up the great work.

In the words of Molly Ivins: "I don't so much mind that newspapers are dying, it's watching them commit suicide that pisses me off."

In my humble opinion as a former reporter (not a glamorized and, sorry, mythical, "newspaperman") the S-R should go back to being a newspaper and see how that works for a while.

Reads a bit self-congratulatory, kind of like something Kipling would have said about being English. It just doesn't rhyme.

Jess,

I am an editor who indulged in a bit of late night nostalgia before going back to the grind.

You are a successful author whose dark thrillers are set in those bygone times and even contribute to the noirish nostalgia.

But that isn't the biggest difference between us. I know my nostalgic world is going and that I have to figure out what comes next.

You have your own nostalgic vision and seem to believe it can be resurrected by saying it will be so. Sorry Jess, I think you have found your calling in writing fiction.

With respect,

steve

What I'm seeing with my position here in MT's state newspaper association is that the larger papers are becoming more and more like US News and the Enquirer... or else. The fault lies in ownership and management, not with the news staffs.

Oftentimes the news isn't glamorous or flashy, but it is the news and that's the first word in 'newspaper.'

Where are the first personnel cuts made when a paper isn't returning the profit the new owners want to see? Well, it's not in middle management, that's for sure.

And so it is that the owners have made it so the news isn't the most important part of a newspaper anymore - it's whatever flavor-of-the-day sells the most copies. Truth was the first casualty in this fight.

So I also lament the passing of newspapers in the form that brought us some of the best information we could have as citizens. The ownership with guts is still getting the job done and they're working to adapt to a new news environment. It remains to be seen if any of the good papers similar to the S-R will be among the survivors.

A wonderful eulogy. But this world was ancient history when I entered the newspaper business 16 years ago.
With all due respect to my colleague, I think it's long past time to stop sitting shiva for Ben Hecht and the cast of "The Front Page," and get about the business of reinventing our industry.
That's why we're in the pickle we're in -- we didn't adapt quickly enough to the changing pardigm and now we're reaping the whirlwind.
I said goodbye to nearly 40 of my colleagues this week because of the glacial pace of change. I don't want to have to do it again.
Jess may be right, there may not always be newspapermen, but there'll always be reporters and journalists.
Isn't that's what's important, here?

Steve,

I wonder if the previous generation of "newspapermen" had the same sad lament when your generation burst on the scene.

It seems to me that as the "old guard" leaves they start to think they are irreplaceable and that society is suffering some great loss.

Your column doesn't have the edge of bitterness common to these "last of a dying breed" rants, but it still seems sad. Young newspaper professionals don't "serve products and platforms" instead of "communities and their newspapers."

They are less arrogant, perhaps, about their special purpose and maybe they have curbed a few disgusting habits, but they still care about what they do and they don't appreciate being diminished.

It's called progress by some, evolution by others, and it's been going on a long time. Trust me, there will be 'newspapermen' long after you’re gone. And when their times comes, they will probably sing the same sad song.

Steve,

It took guts to post your “newspaperman’s eulogy,” knowing you’d be vilified by all the arrogant young turks who are so confident in their vision for transforming yesterday’s newspaper into tomorrow’s multimedia niche product.

I loved every word you wrote.

Except one.

I am a woman. I have never been — nor will I ever be — a “newspaperman.” To call Deborah Howell one is not the compliment you seem to think it is.

And if, as you say, the job was never about gender, why don’t you call yourself a newspaperwoman? I'm as much a newspaperman as you are a newspaperwoman.

I’ve been a reporter and editor for 30 years. I just accepted a buyout offer. I’m lucky because I can afford to take early retirement, but I never imagined it would end this way.

Still, I’m glad to be going. Newspaper are dead and I want no part of what’s taking their place.

Linda Rawls

Newspapers never served the public interest. They served the political agenda of their journalists.

We are better off without them.

The irony is, in the old days, Steve's piece likely wouldn't have been published at all, much less find a national audience in less than 12 hours.

There are those who are happy to be getting out in time and those who are happy that you are just getting out. Let's hope those leaving take their arrogance with them. The industry doesn't need it.

At risk of sounding dismissive, I'll say that there is life after the newsroom. I left the LA Times in 1984 and have built a life since then that is fine, just fine, and assuredly better than if I had stayed an ink-stained wretch.

Even 25 years ago, I said that every reporter I knew would sooner or later have to face this question: What am I going to do when I grow up?"

That day is here for lots of them now. I understand their disorientation and their sense of loss. But not their seeming sense that the world has no right to change beneath their feet. That's like saying the sun should rise in the same spot on the horizon, at the same time, every day from now on.

Steve,

Nothing wrong with nostalgia, and I appreciate yours. But newspapers are trying to fix what is mostly an advertising problem by flailing around over content and platform, by cutting bureaus and sections, by giving us fewer reasons to read, speeding up their own deaths even as they bemoan them like bad actors. As Molly Ivins says ... suicide.

Of course you can't fix it by saying so; newspapers also can't fix it by throwing away the continuity, institutional credibility and place in the community that took decades to build. They can't fix it by spending resources on unprofitable online ventures, or on radio or TV. They can't fix it by radically changing the culture and meaning of news.

Again, humbly, I'd do this: become less top-heavy (Senior editor, I'd like you to meet the medical beat) less self-absorbed, more lithe, concentrating resources on a newspaper's real strengths (namely, local news, sports and entertainment). Have all the task forces and year-long brainstorming assignments work on getting ad revenue.

Books are facing the same dark future and have responded by being ... books, by satisfying a shrinking and aging but loyal core audience.

Please, keep sharing your nostalgia. I still do some work for newspapers, stringing for the LA Times, Washington Post and magazines. So if I have a vote, it would be for making your old newspapermen proud and taking this baby down to the bottom of the ocean with dignity (saving as many sailors along the way as you can).

very best
Jess Walter

Reminds me of The Age of Chalk by a local writer and teacher. http://www.pindeldyboz.com/machalk.htm
It's a romantic picture of his classroom, but that model won't work today. And if today's student makes a movie utilizing green screens and After Effects to explain the themes in Hamlet, rather than a five page, double-spaced paper, has he learned the play less well? It seems to me the job is the same, the tools have changed.

Steve:

This one should have gone into the circular file, my friend.

And anyone who thinks today's young journos are less arrogant needs to open their eyes and ears.

But the solution is right by you, Steve: The door. Open it. Walk out. Don't come back. Problem solved.

Lovely piece. At 63, I too recall the rattle-scream Remington-bash of the newsroom at deadline -- a thin column of cigarette smoke snaking up the side of my typewriter. And the building's gentle earthquake as the presses burped out each edition is a memory that continues to stir.

I recall refighting each day's news angles with editors and fellow reporters at the Hamilton Press Club across the street. Politicians, union leaders, poor people, business leaders, athletes, environmentalists and people with strange hobbies were our "fodder."

Then came the day I crossed over into the dark side... PR... thereby becoming a "presstitute" in the eyes of some of my colleagues. I still scribble daily, but for a different audience and in ways I hope will sink hooks into the cheeks of young editors.

It's a living...

One thing about nostalgia, according to one wag; it's not as good as it used to be...

newspapers are trying to fix what is mostly an advertising problem by flailing around over content and platform

But the advertising problem exists because readers (and advertisers) are migrating to those other platforms.

As someone who would like to spend the next few decades in this business, I don't think it would be very wise to simply forfeit that audience and potential revenue in order to slightly improve a print product for a smaller, aging, more elite audience. Good journalism can be leveraged by these other platforms the same way that say, book sales can be increased by turning the story into a movie.

If there's any hope at all for community journalism, it's in recognizing these shifts, understanding them, and figuring out how best to capitalize on them and continue to reach as broad and diverse an audience as possible. That requires risk and experimentation, as well as a bit of fortitude in facing down the possibility that it may not work out.

Again, let's consider the irony in using a newspaper website to quickly and efficiently voice concern that newspaper websites are a waste of time. How about showing some real conviction and sending us these comments via telegram or carrier pigeon?

Yes, journalism is vital for the public interest. But this other stuff sounds like it’s from old movies. I’m your age and I’ve worked in newspapers with reporters and editors who would be older than you now by a long shot. In our lifetimes, the newsroom has always had a wide range of personality types.

Everyone who reads Romenesko is in favor of newspapers and believes in journalism. If newspaper owners cared about the vital nature of journalism a bit more, newspapers might be in better shape now. Instead, their main concern seems to be how much money they make. But will layoffs and less content increase revenue?

Yes, we love the newspaper format. I love seeing stacks of papers and selecting one and holding it and turning through the pages and looking at the art and the design and smelling the paper and ink.

I loved LPs, too. I loved flipping through them and looking at cover art and sliding the vinyl out and holding the edge between fingertips and looking across it at the grooves and lining up the needle on it. But now I use CDs. And it’s fine. Content is more important than format.

Journalism will continue to be vital. And journalists will continue to be all types of people, not nostalgic caricatures. They may miss the broadsheet when and if it goes, but will adapt well to something else.

Feel free to mourn the physical newspaper. But don’t mourn journalists—they’re still here. They are not a dying race, in spite of how some editors don’t show them how they are valued. And they’re not dodos. They’ll adapt just as they adapted to electric typewriters and then to terminals and then to pcs.

While they’re working hard everyday to keep your current readers subscribing, people in your position need to find ways to make more money for owners and provide more formats for new readers so journalists can continue their vital work.

Changing revenue models doesn’t mean the work itself is less vital or the men and women doing it are less vital or committed.

Great Steve...I can almost smell the mixture of hot lead fumes, press grease and ink. but you forgot one thing my father (a newspaperman too) taught me that is true: A real newspaperman was always on a first name basis with the paper's janitor and cleaning ladies. That served him well when he was consigned to the dustbin.

Thanks for sharing your remembrances. It's been 13 years since I left the newspaper business and moved to Spokane, but I still miss the smell of ink in the pressroom.

We had an arts writer in Daytona Beach who did a piece on a management-supported event and had the first letter of each paragraph spelling out "Help,I've been lobotomized." He was so proud of himself that he couldn't keep quiet about it, and soon found himself in "early retirement."

A beautiful elegy. But what we need is rebirth.

Steve, I liked this story but I'm shocked it comes from you - who I would consider a new-media type who's out-pointing Poynter, and leading the push for more focus groups and alternate platforms. I call it Gannesthetizing the newspaper business. You are after all the fellow who game Tom Clouse a video camera, aren't you? I'm with Jess: Put Dave Oliveria on the police or political beat; let Tom Clouse focus on writing, which he does so well, instead of trying to be some Whitmanesque new-age videographer; and just let Ken Paulman go. Kill the blogs, get your reporters off their computers and out on the street. Spend less money on computers and digital gadgetry of all descriptions. Don't try to be radio - partner with radio. And beat television on every story like the ugly dog that it is. You have the people - you're already at a great small newspaper, one of the best. Focus on your strengths, instead of trying to stake out some potential future battleground where you're weak. Circulation will go up and advertisers will come back. Maybe you're gadgeting and computering and Poyntering your paper to death. Don't give up on being a newspaperman.

Half the commenters:

It is change that's killing newspapers. So there was no problem to begin with?

The other half:

It is the reluctance to change that's killing newspapers. So the solution is working?

It would be great to report that research shows that readers left because of staffing/content declines. But I'm pretty sure it was declining readership/revenue that came first.

For every person reacting to a drop in quality, there are many more who "don't have time" or "can get it free on the Internet" or "don't care about local news".

So while one side dabbles in nostalgia, the other draws on fantasy.

So the solution is working?

I think the point is that the solution, if it exists, hasn't been found yet (not that I believe there's a single panacea - I'm speaking metaphorically).

But crying in our beer or gazing longingly in the rear-view mirror won't help us find it any quicker.

By the way, for those who still think quality is paramount, check out the best-selling books.

Seems a lot of these best-selling authors have climbed onto other platforms. Seems the key is to be famous first. Then, you can have a best-selling book.

The writing? That's not why Tori Spelling, Tim Russert, Barbara Walters, Scott McCellan, Stephen Colbert, Dick Morris, Lewis Black and Ron Paul sell. It's because they're already known from other platforms.

Spare me this passing stuff. I'm 53. You are only 58.

It's not over. Yes, the newsrooms are going, but not the newsman.

Go back to your roots. If the job is ending, start your own little neighborhood blog and get your pad and show what a newsman is capable of, especially one unleashed.

Yeah, it stinks, but we're tough. That's why we did this. And if the newspaper fails, well that's just one more thing, isn't it? It's not the last thing.

Also - while I completely understand the "stick with what you know" argument, it's worth pointing out that Wells Fargo once ran stagecoaches, Toyota started out as a loom company, and the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics. The major TV networks were exclusively in the radio business at one point, and the Bridgestone tire company once made some of the best bicycles on earth (sadly, they've stopped, but I think they're still making golf clubs).

seems to us that Ken Paulman and garyc need more work to do.

Now, see, there's an example of that old thinking again. If I interact with readers over the phone, it's "work", but if I interact with them online, it's not?

Why the distinction?

Steve, i started reading this post and didn't stop until the end (a rare feat in this short attention span age). I too believe there is much missing in today's journalism, and people won't miss it until it is gone. We are voices in the wilderness. Nick Geranios

It's not over.

A few thoughts:

Using a word search feature on the posts (minus my own post) associated with this thread, some very significant words don't appear even once -- consolidation, monopoly, watch dog, investigation, investigative, document, justice, equality, educate, mission.

Platform appears 6 times. Owners or ownership appear 6 times. Public appears 5 times, paired with the words interest (three times), square (1), and truthseeker (1). People (6). Truth (three times). Management (3). Information (3). Citizen (3). Democracy (3). Money (3). Online (3). Internet (1). Profit appears once as does unprofitable.

The word that appeared the most:

Business -- nine times.

Much of what people are turning to on the internet for information are not businesses, they are people sharing views, information, analysis, fantasy, you name it on their own websites, blogs, wikis, etc. The problem in significant degree is that marketplace is threatening to escape the profiteers and they have to develop a model to recapture it or figure out how to kill the renegade "model". In fact one of the biggest issues for the future of the "newspaper" is who to monetize the publics desire to use blogs to discuss, debate, socialize, etc, i.e., democracy, freedom, intellectual discourse, dissent. Sort of like the attempts to figure out how to profit from each humans DNA, peoples dreams, all those things we once considered ultimate secrets, or part of nature, or part of our own individual nature.

Business is business. It ain't about a lot of those words I was looking for in this discussion.

Ah, welcome to the last hurrah of an aging baby boomer in charge.

What dupes. Don't you know these types of editors? This guy represents the most selfish and spoiled generation in American history - boomers.

This guy's waste of breath is the fundamental reason the newspaper crisis is a US phenom and not a global one. Only the U.S. has so many pooh for brains editors at the top of the masthead.

Most of these boomer editors were hoping to string it along for another ten years when "it would be someone else's problem."

Seriously, many of these 'newspapermen' have said exactly those words. They are sorry now. No skills and no good old boy legacy to preserve any more.

That's the old way - the system they were brought up in. Ha, good for them that that is broken and ain't never coming back.

The good old days when the world revolved around them is the only thing a Boomer is truly nostalgic for.

ha.

Ah, you have been the authors of your own destruction, and it hasn't anything to do with new media but with your refusal, as a whole, to commit true journalism during the past few decades and inform the public in a full, fair, and balanced manner.

The realnewspaperman, Ace in a Hole.

You're a "race"? No wonder you feel depressed.

You can't even come up with a proper metaphor.

Steve, nice nostalgia piece. It's obvious, as a newspaper editor, you're over your head in 2008. I'm sure when you started your career you never expected to be in this precarious position. Too old to start over and too young to retire. That sucks.

Is the answer in the SR blogs? One only needs to look at Oliveria's self-congratulatory announcements of "page views" to see how you're being snowed. People want/need to be heard, but you know what opinions are like and everybody has one?

We are now in the Information Age. I can go online and get the news right now or wait two days to read it in the paper. Lose the nostalgia for something that will never be again, open your eyes and the answer is right in front of you.

Enough with the drama. It's this kind of arrogance and self-serving tripe that got us into this situation in the first place. Instead of viewing this as a sad ending, why not consider it a HUGE (albeit forced) opportunity to take journalism to a new level. Also, using the word "newspapermen" over and over shows just how out of touch you really are.

Good riddance to a dying media format and a dead archetype and those who profess it was the golden age of journalism.

The era 'newspaperman' may finally be over, but if anything, their passing has allowed real journalists to re-emerge stronger than ever.

This renaissance is poised to bring back the Citizen Journalist and reignite the "Community Square" that has long been smoldering under the narrow focus of the 'newspaperman'. Democracy can only get stronger now that it's self-professed gatekeeprs are gone.

It's amusing to read that the problem is the refusal to commit "true journalism." Bet we'd have trouble getting a consensus on what that is.

Again, I'd love to read the market research that shows that declining circulation/profits is tied to "false" journalism and that the rise of the Internet is just coincidental. Please show us, so we can show publishers across America.

I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the traditional newspaper platform. People are willing to read and pay for news and information they find relevant to their lives. It is the content that is lacking as newsrooms around the country have tried to reinvent themselves. In the process they have indeed cut the life lines they used to have into the communities they served. As a former reporter I know first hand how journalists like to cast themselves as a "race" apart. I enjoyed this to a point until I saw how I was cutting myself off from meaningful relationships in the outside world. I never bought into the perception that reporters push their agendas on the public ... it's just that most reporters who are caught up in this nostalgic ideal simply can't relate to people. In this new modern world the importance of personal connections to younger people isn't just about electronics and new media. Newspapers can reach new readers if they get out there and actually know their readers and give them the stories they want to read.

Commenter above: It's amusing to read that the problem is the refusal to commit "true journalism." Bet we'd have trouble getting a consensus on what that is.

We grasped it in journalism class back in the Sixties or we didn't pass.

Again, I'd love to read the market research that shows that declining circulation/profits is tied to "false" journalism and that the rise of the Internet is just coincidental.

Let's leave aside the younger ones raised on the Web for the moment and consider the people my age (I'm Steve's age) who turned to the Internet/Web for the missing pieces, the pieces that mainstream journalists failed and, quite frequently, deliberately refused to report, or tried to report and found many "obstacles" in the newsroom to the full telling. I know what I'm talking about.

The failures of print journalism inspired vast Internet networking by Americans who had figured out they'd been had. I am one, an activist for a particular cause. I still subscribe to print papers, though I'm disappointed daily. Many of the disgusted canceled their subscriptions long ago. You had a place, a role, but you ceded it.

Good evening,

One of the purposes of this blog is to dispel myth and misinformation when possible.

The numbers and the research actually contradict Former reporter's conclusions.

Newspaper circulation has been on a steady, unchanging decline for 30 years. In fact, proportionally, the greatest declines occurred before the Internet existed.

Further the declines were universal for the American press. Great traditional, hard news, investigative, watchdog papers suffered as much or more than crummy community papers that provided what we used to call chicken dinner news.

Political leaning didn't alter the trend. The conservative Washington Times really never grew though it is the darling of the political right.

As an editor I have been party to just about every imaginable content initiative since the mid-1980s. None reversed the trend.

Interestingly, the growth of the Internet has not accelerated print circulation decline. The same steady pace has continued through the 1990s right up until now.

The old SR so fondly recalled by those who say we just need to go back to newspapering (as practiced by the newsroom of the 1990s) forget that circulation here dropped at that same unchanging pace throughout those years. A newsroom of 165 made no difference (I have 108 now).

So what happened? The biggest single reason for the decline of print circulation has been the social changes that occurred in this country in the late 1960s and 1970s. When both parents started working newspaper circulation and readership took a big hit. Two-worker households with kids don't have the time to read, and that includes books and magazines.

For years newspapers struggled with what we called the gender gap...women readers, now in the workforce, read newspapers far less often and less intensively than men. Newspapers that steered more to meet the interests of women, lost the men. And over time, both sexes left.

Other significant changes altered the advertising landscape. The explosion of big box stores changed the retail dynamic long before the Internet. The big boxes drove out small businesses and challenged the dominance of the urban department store, the advertising backbone of the modern newspaper.

Before the Internet came along to offer its own version of targeted marketing, direct mail began to steal away grocery advertising from newspapers.

These societal changes and economic disruptions are at the heart of the decline we're currently seeing in newspapers.

One realization, come late to many of us perhaps, is that newspaper content has NOTHING to do with it. There is no content mix out there that can possibly reverse the tide.

But, here's the kicker, the appetite for newspaper journalism has never been greater. And the Internet, so often portrayed by posters on this blog as the instrument of my medium's destruction, is in fact, its savior.

Right now, considering all of the platforms on which we publish, the SR's reach is greater than ever before, greater than it ever was in those halcyon days when we were the only medium in town.

The demand for what we produce has never been higher.

The lag is in the business model, finding ways to monetize these other platforms so that in combination, they can support the newsrooms necessary to produce our journalism.

The recession is clouding that picture. When the economy begins to recover, I believe we'll see some progress on the business model. The trick for all of us is to find a way to hold on until then.

steve

As a 29-year-old newspaperman, someone who has grown up worshiping newspapers and the men and women who create them, this is easily the most depressing thing I've read all year.

Good God, Steve, I hope you are dead wrong on this one. And my instincts tell me you are. See: The rules of being a newspaperman aren't the Ten Commandments; they aren't etched in stone. I think the internet offers even more room for the kind of inspired, investigative, watchdog reporting that makes newspapers so vital. Even without newsrooms filled with cigarette smoke and whiffs of bourbon, even without composing rooms or printing presses, reporting is still reporting. Curiosity is still curiosity. Those things can't change - democracy won't let them. Circulation may be falling, but people haven't stopped reading. That means real reporting--and the art of being a newspaperman--must, and will, remain.

Who knows what the future holds, Steve - deadwood may someday vanish, replaced forever by black words on white computer screens. But even so, newsgathering will still be our jobs. We'll still make fun of each other, tell salty jokes and answer phones with a rushed, "Newsroom!" And we'll still tell the best stories we can possibly tell, even if we have to hit "print" to see our bylines on paper.

And, of course, we'll still be at the bar five minutes after deadline.

Keep your head up, Steve. We'll make it.

RK.

Perhaps one might consider that the "Medium is the Message".. and the internet as the new medium, with cell phone cameras, and 200 dollar video cameras able to post "news" to the world from anywhere in the world is the "hammer of freedom" that Trini Lopez sings about... "The Hammer of Justice" and even some small town guy who lives now in spokane, but has a view of the world that is unique because of my Pre Baby Boomer age... can offer it up to the universe.. and know that it is being read by someone, to whom it may make a difference...

When I get an email from Ireland, about a blogspot i wrote on Domestic Violence with thanks for insight.. it makes my day...

My "pay" is psychic income, and i'm thinking that the "investigative reporter" lives in a lot of us... so i'guess i'd be feeling threatened too, if my "job"/Cash flow were being taken away by the Internet.

Thanks for the forum... Steve has been a leader in this i understand, and we are blessed to have him... Just the physical "waste" of tens of millions of board feet of pulp mill lumber to distribute a printed copy of anything should show the handwriting "on the wall" on the wall of the internet post... Gus

Ah.... I see you add the bit about the newspaperwoman. A token...? I linked here from Jarvis' blog. I've been recently collecting journalism blogs in Reader, and I'm completely amazed at how white males seem to dominate. Yeah, I'm kind of newly arrived to party here... and I must not be looking in the right places. Where are the journalism bloggers who are female and/or of color? I've been reading blogs and following Twitter, and it seems to me the same old, same old... white middle-aged men talking to each other. Kind of ironic, in a way. I'm glad to see a few (newspaper)women who posted above. Recommendations welcome.

Karen, there are several very astute/quick women on Community Comment Blog Jeaniespokane, Diana Davies, Zelda, Cindy and other's that don't come to mind right away... Lynn, Rebecca, Jamie, Virginia and other's on the SR Staff, and recently on the SR staff are delightful and usually on point and not "pointed"

Take a look at the flow.. Dave Laird and I who write there ( he's the administrator) are more Girl than Boy... so it evens the playing field out.. and dave l does a fine job of ferreting out the foul attacks..

Go to the SR home page and down to the bottom to the blog list to find us.. gus

I hope you're passing on the tricks of the trade to the younger generation, which at times sorely needs it.

I'm a Baby Boomer(61) not in the newspaper business. I spent 30 years in the commercial printing business.

My 2 cents:
The myth of the "newspaperman" is a great one. The original post brilliantly captures that myth. It has some relation to what really was. More importantly it accurately captures a mind set that made sense of the game for many. I haven't yet seen the myth that will replace it for the upcoming generation; but no doubt there is one forming out there.

Re: Business people as the scourge of all that is good. The purpose of business is to make money, not serve the social good. Asking them to do both just means they can't do either very well.

Given the essentially non-competitive nature of newspapers for the last thirty years, profitability was pretty easy. It gave newspapers the freedom to do pretty much what the folks who ran them wanted to do. Today, competition has broken the profit machine.

But, there are other business models emerging. Consider NPR. They do not sell their audience to advertisers,they ask for money directly from the people who are getting the product.

At the Seattle Weekly, there is a story about a business model that obviously has been working. No glory. Local, local, local. But sustainable and growing. And it's all about the printed product. Internet, schmeternet.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-07-16/news/betting-on-black/

Steve is right on point when he says "The biggest single reason for the decline of print circulation has been the social changes that occurred in this country in the late 1960s and 1970s. When both parents started working newspaper circulation and readership took a big hit. Two-worker households with kids don't have the time to read, and that includes books and magazines."

and

"One realization, come late to many of us perhaps, is that newspaper content has NOTHING to do with it. There is no content mix out there that can possibly reverse the tide".

Meanwhile, books seem to be emerging as the long form medium for the story that is complex,nuanced and "dangerous". Consider the spate of Bush tell-alls and the requisite campaign books.

What would happen if newspapers regularly published the long form medium for the 10,000 word feature? Paperback books are perfect for the commute. If, as Steve says the real issue is "time to read", it would be neat to get a paperback (selling for between $3 and $5) to read on the commute. It could present that long feature in a format that your reader can easily put in a pocket.

The printing tech exists to produce this product, just needs someone to want to do it. With the addition of a little binding equipment, the same presses that print the newspaper, could also be printing books, at the appropriate cost.

Michael, the 'Inlander" /Seattle Weekly format works great on the bus... unless you are a New York Commuter and can do that "rolling folding page to page schtick" that the Long Island Rail commuters have accomplished for years.. a regular newspaper is almost impossible to rattle and rustle around without disturbing your seat mate on the STA... and as bus commutes and Light Rail eventually will be occuring a printed paper is easier to read in that "Weekly" format.. i can't cost a whole lot more to print, and they seem to do fine with their advertising and ability to attract talent to their efforts.. Gus

John (or is it Gus?) Since I'm trapped here on the east coast, I'm not familiar with the Weekly format. Is it a tabloid - appx 11 by 15 page size?

Re: the folding shtick (New Yorker con tinuous from 1948). Learning how to fold the NYT was a mark of coming of age.
But, based on unscientific observations on the MTA, it might be a Baby Boomer skill that has given way to ipods and paperbacks. It seems that even tabloids might be a little too big for our transit.

Thanks for the info about more physical product that seems to be doing just fine.

Michael J, My nom de Plume comes from my middle name John August Olsen the Gus is from my French Canadian Grandfather who climbed the Chilicoot Pass in Alaska in 1899 and was a camp cook in the gold fields ( making his money playing poker)... had a restaurant in Spokane/Hillyard ( as in Jim Hill the railroad guy).. and fed the hobo's out the back door for chores etc...

My "Cheffing" in retirement is for the homeless and low income here in Spokane at Central Methodist Breakfasts four days and dinner once a week...

I tried and tried to learn how to do that "running fold" with the NYT from a dear now deceased Tuesday's with Morrie jewish exec/cfo who travelled from Connecticut to the City every day for 30 years... a dying art as you say... thnks john/gus

click on my name to learn more... :)) bout ridin the rails here in spokane county..

Gus,
Just spent a little time with the Inland Empire Rail Transit Association. Good stuff.

So, once you folks get a vibrant rail network throughout Seattle, everyone could be reading their paperbacks, with nuanced, intelligent, absorbing complex stories.

One of the great under appreciated advantages of public transit is that it gives you time to read. :)

We used to have trolleys in Bklyn. The city fathers, in their wisdom, dismantled them all. Without the legacy in the Northwest, you could really be up to something.

Michael, Seattle is just now getting to theirs... almost in place... and they coulda/woulda had a V-8 in 1968 forty years ago if they had taken advantage of the Forward Thrust funds available at the time... that money morphed to Atlanta and Built their MARTA.. Spokane is behind the curve some... and turned down a bond issue last year in november.. but it ain't dead yet... best regards gus on the bus.. (the concept that "bus time" is positive time, is lost on most of the populace) gus

Tim Porter says it well here: http://www.timporter.com/firstdraft/archives/000442.html

Haywood... thanks for the post... it WAS interesting.... i always feel sorry for those that might think of change as positive, that are more in a fearful mode.... the door is swinging, clearly so to me.. a retired non journalist human.. and the future is radio and internet.. and folks like myself... with thoughts and feelings that are gonna be heard.. your job as it is evolving in my view is to "moderate" and in so doing take advantage and massage our stuff..... we are happy to have a forum ( without pay) and without editing... and you can float along on our turtle backs till you reach retirement... j

we are happy to have a forum ( without pay) and without editing... and you can float along on our turtle backs till you reach retirement... j

And whose turtleback is supporting you while you share your opinions and "connect" and pursue what you love? The sadness I feel is over the fact that the jobs of "journalist" and "editor" are no longer valued enough to be paying positions. Today's political bloggers are yesterday's gardening writers--willing to do it for the love and connection and the thrill of the byline. But how do they pay the mortgage?

Dear Steve - your article touched me deeply. I, too, was a newspaperman. From the age of 16, on the Wigtownshire Free Press, in Stranraer, S-W Scotland (free in the sense of opinion, not cost) then educated more widely in Edinburgh - I learned to love truth and facts, but to use them wisely. I believe absolutely in what newspapers offer their communities, their regions, their nations... and (oh gawd, this sounds horrendously pompous, but...) the different communities of the world. Soddit, that's true! I love finding local papers wherever I go. I've circulated your message to old hacks like me. I know they will agree with you. Consider your drink bought for you!

Clark Herron, Sheffield, UK