Hopefully you will excuse me, Steve, if I pull the last post from the original thread over here to create some continuity between the two.

"Former reporter" wrote"
(quote) 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.
Posted by Former reporter | 1 Aug 10:17 PM

I think that this can not be forgotten. The "embedding" of the U.S. media with the U.S. military, that incestuous gang-rape of the truth by U.S. reporters and news companies that the entire world watched (and to some extent continues to watch) is an unforgivable, unforgettable, and probably insuperable failing of the media of which you and your paper are wedded by a life time of service (largely noble I am sure).

A moment of truth it was indeed, and, saddly, the media largely lied. Or at least was a vehicle for lies and more lies and still more lies.

If that lapdog media which brought us a war with headlines straight from the CIA and the desk of Donald Rumsfeld has to die, than let me be the one to stick the stake in its heart and twist.

The beauty of the newspaper's public square was that all views could be brought to the public's attention at the same time creating a shared base of knowledge and an understanding of conflicting values.

When we were growing up, there was the three major networks and possibly a few independent channels. When you talked about something you saw on TV (Ed Sullivan, Flip Wilson, Laugh-In, whatever), there was a pretty good chance, that your friends saw it, too. From there, you could talk about it.

Now, it's difficult, because of so many choices. I'm just now catching up with "The Wire" (Season 2). Few people I've discussed it with have ever seen it.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen "The Sopranos" and don't watch "American Idol."

Individually, all of these choices are great. We can watch what we really want to see. But that also limits discussions.

So it could be with the news. Fewer shared reading experiences will mean it will be more difficult to connect with others.

Liberals: "I read the Huffingon Post (or whatever), not the paper."

Conservatives: "I read Little Green Footballs, not the paper."

Good luck discussing the news in that environment.

Dear Mr. Smith,

We've never met, although some in your newsroom will remember me.

I would sincerely agree with those who have stated that the electronic media is not to blame for the current state of America's commercial media.

Credibility is king. That being said, all sins of the past must be forgiven.

I've recently asked another local writer in your market this simple question. Are there no olive trees growing in or near Spokane?

Forgiveness can only begin to happen when one shows remorse. Not that long ago, before your arrival, the City of Spokane was a political minefield that wounded several open and honest people.

Please take my words to heart. I'd love to help you but we both know that this problem can only begin to be solved from the top down.

Further denial of past wrong doings will only guarantee the eventual demise of the Spokesman-Review.

I think the challenge for the SR is that the SR thought it had more time. They started very late in adapting to online media, as advertisers left and moved to less expensive online resources (and classifieds moved to Craigslist and EBay and a dozen other sites).

In an IT class I taught at a local college a couple of years ago, I began the first lecture with a lead story in the SR about MIS issues in the City of Spokane. Sadly, out of 40 students, not one had read the article. Much to my surprise, not one student had read any part of the paper during the entire week!

When I looked at the data, I found that only a minority of people below the age of 40 read the paper at least once per week. I'm sure the news industry new about this - and that was the time to embrace change!

Having spent my entire life in tech, I always knew I had to be building the next great thing to obsolete myself - because if I did not, my competition would do it for me. Local newspapers spent far too long without meaningful competition and, I suspect, developed cultures not amenable to rapid change.

The SR (and many other papers too) should have engaged in transformational organizational change quite some time ago - as in years ago. (Overall subscriber numbers peaked in the late 90s for most of the industry so perhaps that was a clue to get moving then).

Embracing change and seeking new opportunities is essential to survival. The problem is that with this very late start on the change process slamming into a recession and dramatic drop in closed real estate transactions and advertising, the SR found itself with less time to finally make the necessary changes than it probably expected.

The root cause problem was not embracing a culture of change far sooner.

On the positive side, I am impressed with the aggressive changes now announced and look forward to the new web site and new media coming in September. I am also impressed with Steve's openness about the process. Few organizations provide a window into their own organizational transformation - and news organizations that specialize in examining everyone else have rarely reported on their own industry. So Steve is being pretty unique in his transparency.