Notes from the Desk The precipitous decline of newspapers

Author: Andrea Glaessner

On the Web site for the New York Times, "maureen dowd" was the number 10 most-searched item in the last 30 days and "krugman" made number seven. "Ayers" was number 24 and "stock market" rolled in at 50. Shame on you, Mr. Obama, for believing that Americans would rather read about relevant issues than your secret terrorist agenda. Apparently, we prefer Dowd's oral vomit to factual coverage of the economic crisis. Or, maybe news consumers know better than to read the New York Times for anything more than Dowd's wildly entertaining musings on the soap opera that is the life of Sarah Palin.

Perhaps the fact that Times readers demand Dowd over the Dow says less about Dowd than it does about the quality of coverage on the economic recession. In an interview with Professor David Colander about the economic recession, Colander expressed his disgust with coverage of the economic crisis in the mainstream media to me. "Most reporters have no idea what is actually going on," said Colander.

As American newspapers slash foreign bureaus, cut back on staff and "World's Fattest Man Weds" is considered a story by the Chicago Tribune, the future of the newspaper is spiraling off into a black hole. Who will salvage it before it is too late? Let's hope it's not "Joe Blogger" and the rest of the outsiders electronically divulging their innermost thoughts and calling it investigative reporting.

Today, most journalists argue that the newspaper is a failed business model. They throw their hands up in despair over www.CraigsList.com's assault on classified newspaper advertising. According to Chuck Strum, managing editor of The New York Times, the Times earned $120 million in classified ad revenues in 1999. By 2007, that number had shrunk to $30 million. Newspapers will never be able to make up for the profits lost to Craig's List.

Perhaps I am being idealistic, but is there not some way newspapers can put up a fight by boosting quality rather than cutting it? Strum argued that there will always be a demand for coverage of the way things are and not how they should be. But where is the accurate, thought-provoking coverage? At least Jon Stewart is entertaining.

There is no excuse for the Wall Street Journal's rumored decision to cut their China bureau in coming months. The Chinese government beats the spirit out of foreign journalists until they stop producing meaningful articles. Any credible newspaper should recognize the need to bulk up their Chinese reporting staff rather than cut it down.

As newspapers broke into online media, they began introducing special "blogging" features, providing space for reader commentary for a more "interactive" newspaper viewing experience. Frankly, I do not care to interact with Maureen Dowd on any level other than at a distance. Seeing her face alongside her words is too much reality for me. American news consumers should demand smarter headlines, better coverage, intelligent writers, and interesting analysis over some spiffed-up attempt to compete with the blogging world. After all, as Arthur Miller once said, "a good newspaper...is a nation talking to itself."