Bring me the future, NOW!

Business Week decided to give the Kindle a go 'round in a review yesterday. The review gives it overall good marks, although the author complains that he forgot to charge it a few times during his trial run and found himself frustrated because you never have to plug in a newspaper.

Well that's kind of silly, right? You got used to plugging in your phone didn't you?

Arik Hesseldahl writes he also has complaints about the very few, poor quality photos that the Kindle supports. I can see that as a very valid complaint. Photographs often make the difference in how moving a story can be.

A positive Hesseldahl says is that he read more of the papers he received (as well as saving trees and money). I argue, he only received two of the four he used to get so... I do have to ask, how in the world did he get time to read four newspapers in the morning? I could see it being possible on a device like the Kindle, but this guy must have a really long commute. Those are hours you can never get back.

I think more newspapers should write about and consider technology like the Kindle. If newsprint costs so much, only print those papers that people will pick up in stands. Ensure that your loyal readers who want their news delivered to their homes have the chance to save the planet and some money by giving them high tech ways to get the paper.

Here they don't update the Web site sometimes until mid-morning. I think they should do it late at night. I also think the news staff doesn't spend enough time thinking about how they can help the newspaper which gives them sustenance survive and make money.

Sinking the McClatchy ship

Columbia Journalism Review looked at how the McClatchy papers affected by recent staffing cuts covered their own reductions. An interesting survey, the saddest part is simply that a corporation of such immensity would be forced to go this route.
My favorite part:

But, frankly, all of the reporters who drew this bitch of an assignment deserve some love, because it cannot be easy to report on the disintegration of one’s own newsroom.“As best you can, you try to separate yourself out,” said The Sacramento Bee’s Dale Kasler. “In a strange sort of way, it’s better to cover the story than to just sit around and think about it, like everyone else is doing, and have a rotten day.”

Ugh. Can you imagine. Many of the news staff have brought up the buyout announced yesterday to me. They seem to be working in fear. Two mentioned they are bottom-of-the-totem-pole employees in the newsroom. One quipped, "You might be here longer than me." Oh no. There go my dreams of staying and living a happy life of marriage and backyard gardening.

Guess I'll need to stay mobile, and I'm thinking more and more everyday that I need to start applying for some grants to see if someone will pay me to write my grandfather's life story. That would buy me some time to see what will happen next in this business.

Signs of The Times

If the New York Times is the indicator of the health of our industry, falling ad revenues are sign that the worst is yet to come. No paper is immune to the decline in both readership and economic health the country is experiencing. Just a few years ago, it seemed all people wanted to talk about was how to get more individuals to read the news. Now the Internet has provided us with all the news we can swallow, but the discussion has turned to how to keep the news that is important coming.

A talk at the newspaper I am interning at yesterday announced a buy-out for retirement age workers in an attempt to reduce payroll costs. The paper simply can't sustain the cost to revenue ratio, like many others have already found. It was somewhat surprising to me that this was the first talk that had been given, the first offer to retirement age or almost retirement age employees to leave their posts for sunnier climates.

Ahh! I knew it!

The future of newspapers is in a portable device that can update in real time, as soon as something is published. Each day consumers will read the paper on an electronic device where their newspaper is delivered. I did not know this technology existed, but it does. The roll-up TV will be used for not only watching television, but rumor has it, newspapers are investing in developing this technology for their own use. 

I imagined this several years ago. I have no proof that this was my idea first. In fact, it probably wasn't, but I had an idea that while the paper copy would not be around forever, I have been certain that people would have one permanent item that would deliver their news to them. 

Another news delivery system I just learned about is the Kindle. This is also awesome. Bring the price down some more and this thing might just catch on. Although I hear some are disappointed that it doesn't deliver images in color yet.

More news: Hurray?

So Vanity Fair examined the New York Times to see whether there have been equal amounts of space devoted to news over the years. For the author, the outcome was surprising, but for this journalist, it wasn't.

Vanity Fair found the Times devotes more space to news content in the A section now than it did 10 years ago. Although the blog alludes to the cause, burgeoning advertising revenue, it fails to comment on how this reflects the larger picture. Newspapers are competing for ad dollars more and more, and the threat to the newspaper ever looms. How do we afford to pay for those important journalistic endeavors?

Few papers have overseas correspondents anymore. I used to dream of writing stories that mattered about people in other countries, now I have few hopes of realizing that dream, unless working for a foreign paper. This brings me back to the idea that if more newspapers were non-profits, then the pressure to make money would be lessened and the ability to spend money to get stories to make a difference would increase.