Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The American Centinel: The first newspaper in Pittsfield, Massachusetts


Presented to the Monday Evening Club, April 14, 2003 by Martin C. Langeveld

Every day, the editorial page of The Berkshire Eagle carries a line proclaiming that the paper’s origins date back to the founding of The Western Star, a newspaper launched in Stockbridge on December 1, 1789. In an age when newspapers were generally both short-lived and strongly partisan, The Star was a mouthpiece for the county’s Federalists, then led by the venerable Stockbridgian judge, later U.S. Senator, founder of the Sedgwick clan and hub of the Sedgwick circle at the Stockbridge cemetery, Theodore Sedgwick.

One might assume that with this ancient origin The Western Star must have been the first newspaper in Berkshire County, but it was not. That honor belongs to a Pittsfield sheet, The American Centinel, launched about two years earlier in 1787. At the time, there were only two other newspapers in Massachusetts west of Worcester – the Hampshire Herald, which started in Springfield in 1782 as the Massachusetts Gazette; and the Hampshire Gazette, progenitor of the present Daily Hampshire Gazette, begun in Northampton in 1786.

Everything we know today about The Centinel is based on three copies, two of which were last seen in the 19th century. Those two we know only from mid-19th century published descriptions. The third issue was in the collection of Robert C. Rockwell of Pittsfield, who died in 1928. At his death, that copy, too, went missing and was unavailable to scholars for the rest of the 20th century. Rockwell’s copy, Vol. I, No. 4, dated October 19, 1787, was apparently examined during the 1920s by Clarence S. Brigham, a bibliographer who compiled the History and Bibliography of American Newspapers 1690-1820, which is the definitive bibliography of early American newspapers. Brigham provided little further detail about The Centinel, however, and the whereabouts of the Rockwell copy were unknown for three-quarters of a century following Rockwell’s death. But based on this copy, Brigham deduced The Centinel’s starting date of September 28, 1787.

In March 2000, however, the Rockwell copy resurfaced, when it was donated to the collection of the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester by Peter R. Haack, a West Newbury antiquarian book dealer. The Antiquarian Society boasts the country’s largest selection of early American imprints of all kinds, especially newspapers. Haack had acquired this copy, along with other newspapers and books, from a relative of Rockwell who lived in Andover. So today, for the first time in over 200 years, a copy of The Centinel is available for public perusal, and I recently visited the Antiquarian Society’s library and examined it and other early Berkshire newspapers.

The Centinel, a 4-page paper with pages 11 by 17 inches, was published by the partnership of Elijah Russell and Roger Storrs, “at their office, only a few rods west of the meeting house.” This would place them on the site of the present Berkshire Bank headquarters.

As I mentioned recently during a club discussion, newspapers in this era before copyrights reprinted somewhat random bits of news (much of it inaccurate and incomplete), anecdotes, opinions, reviews, poems and the like, all lifted without compensation from whatever other newspapers, books or pamphlets happened to reach the office of the publisher, whose principal occupation was generally that of printer. Local news was virtually absent from these newspapers because it circulated faster and more reliably via the grapevine, so there was no point in wasting valuable paper by printing it. The papers we will examine here follow that style.

Vol. I, No. 4 of The Centinel is a well-preserved copy that leads off with the concluding portion of a letter by George Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention, transmitting the proposed Constitution to the president of the Continental Congress. Washington wrote “in our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consideration of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.”

Under its flag, or title, The Centinel carried the motto, “Here you may range the WORLD from POLE to POLE – increase your KNOWLEDGE, and delight your SOUL.” The publishers had lifted this quotation, without attribution, from the introductory poem in the “The World in Miniature,” an anonymously written account of travels around the then-known world published in 1752. (Incidentally, in 1800, when the Pittsfield Sun was launched in the same location, its first two numbers bore what appears to be a parody of The Centinel’s motto: “Here all may scribble with unbound sway, If they will do it in a DECENT way.”)

Immediately following Washington’s message, the paper presented a remedy for cancer, cribbed from the Maryland Gazette, followed by an item called Miscellany, submitted by “A CUSTOMER” and signed “Observator,” who offers “Reflections suited to the Times.” These appear to be for the most part swiped without attribution from Jonathan Swift, including: “Law in a free country, is, or ought to be, the determination of the majority of those who have property in lands.” And: “When a true GENIOUS [sic] appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the Dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

The Centinel had its readership’s moral needs strongly in mind and continued with an extract from Matthew Hale’s Sum of Religion, a 17th century tract reprinted by Benjamin Franklin in 1740, and “A Portrait of Pleasure” – “Pleasure is a beautiful harlot sitting in her chariot, whose four wheels are Pride, Gluttony, Lust and Idleness.” It then lightened things up with an “Anecdote of Antisthenes:” “Anthistenes, being asked what he got by learning, answered, that he could talk with himself, could live alone, and that he needed not to go abroad and be beholden to others for delight.”

The Centinel offered its readers a collection of brief news items on European affairs as well as domestic dispatches, all of them gleaned from and attributed to a variety of other newspapers that had made their way to Pittsfield.

From Europe, there was news of a European peace conference being held at Versailles, with a July date (remember, this issue is from October, 1787), as well as items from Madrid, Utrecht, London, the Hague and the East Indies (the latter dispatch was fully a year old).

The domestic news led with this from Philadelphia, dated September 26 (and note the tenuousness of the source): “A report was circulated Monday (said to be upon the authority of a gentleman who came in the British packet which arrived at New York on Saturday last), that war had been declared between England and France before the packet sailed from Falmouth.” This roundabout intelligence obviously superceded the July item in the same issue on a Versailles peace conference. In any case it appears that both items were wrong. The Versailles conference most likely refers to the Assembly of Notables held at Versailles, a domestic gathering. A precursor to the French Revolution, the Notables first established the idea of representation in French politics, and no new war on Britain was declared that year.

Shays’ rebellion being fresh in the minds of Berkshire readers, the editor included a dispatch from Petersburgh, New York, dated September 6, in turn quoting “a gentleman from Great Brier county [meaning Greenbrier, now West Virginia] that a number of the inhabitants of that county, headed by one Matthews, have lately attempted to stop the court from proceeding to business . . . and had nearly effected their purpose … but in consequence of the interference of civil authority, Matthews thought proper to retire, and the rest dispersed. It is said Matthews has since been apprehended, and is now in close confinement.”

Closer to home, there is news from New Haven that the town meeting, on October 1, voted to request the legislature to hold a convention as soon as possible to ratify the proposed Constitution.

Finally, there is a Pittsfield item, an extract from a letter from a gentleman in Ridgefield, Connecticut to his brother in this town, dated the 29th of September, recommending “that this Constitution, once established, will do immortal honor to the patriots who formed it, establish the fame of America, and suit the greatest part of its inhabitants.”

To this the editor of The Centinel could not resist adding the following, full of typographical flourish: “This Constitution will not only raise Columbia (DIRECT) from a lingering despair, which (if nothing can rouse her therefrom) will justly entitle her to the animadvertion of him who once extracted her from the iron bounds of tyrannical power, and saved her from impending ruin, but directs a way to the FUTURE prosperity and national honor.” Getting more excited and carried away with punctuation and capitalization, he continues: “The only question to be determined now is, Where shall we find a PRESIDENT? --- Surely we need not apply to the king of Great Britain for one! --- Will the immortal WASHINGTON take on him the task, the laborious task, to navigate us through the second gulph, and land Columbia on a peaceful shore? --- If WE will be United, He doubtless will; but there’s the FEAR!” It seems very likely that Russell and Storrs founded The Centinel precisely in order to help drum up support for the not-universally-approved-of Constitution as well as for Washington himself as president. Interestingly, their landlord at the corner next to the meetinghouse, the redoubtable Parson Thomas Allen, was, at least in later years, a well-known anti-Federalist, who helped his nephew Phinehas start the staunchly Democratic Pittsfield Sun in 1800. But Allen named his fourth son George Washington Allen, so these may in fact be his own words.

Next we turn to a 1787 lawyer joke headed “Recent Anecdote:” A ‘countryman’ assured his friend the Judgment Day was near at hand. Asked how he knew, he told of a client of a lawyer of his acquaintance, who sent the lawyer 15 dollars and the promise of more if he won his case, and the lawyer “very honestly returned all but FIVE, which in my opinion forebodes some dreadful event.”

Rounding out the issue is an advertisement from J. Danforth’s general store, and a message from the publisher stating that “a few copies of the New Federal Constitution may be had of the printers.” There are also some poems, an essay on happiness, a list of axioms in Trade, and a set of Maxims, prepared for The Centinel by one Maximus.

Even in this age before telemarketing, circulation sales were on the mind of the publishers and their distributors. Bela Smith, Post Rider, offered in an announcement to deliver The Centinel in Lanesborough, New Ashford, Williamstown, Adams, Windsor, Partridgefield (later known as Peru), Dalton, Washington and Becket each Friday, at 2 Shillings per quarter, but “To obviate a great difficulty (viz. the want of cash) he will take grane of those who will advance a half year’s pay,” quoting rates per bushel for wheat, rye, oats and flaxseed.

As I mentioned, we only have 19th century descriptions by previous historians, but no physical copies, of a few other issues of The Centinel, so we have no idea how long Smith actually delivered The Centinel. Based on those descriptions, we do know that by December, after only about half a dozen issues, the publishing partnership was dissolved and only Elijah Russell was listed as publisher.

One of those issues, most likely the first published by Russell alone, on December 11, 1787, was described in the Pittsfield Sun, 91 years later, as having contained a continuation of a story of shipwreck and adventure, two or three contributions on abstract subjects addressed to “Mr. Printer,” a poem, a ponderous article on the study of history, the obituary of John Lippit of Adams, “a man of unblemished character who had lived above 60 years with his surviving widow,” and news from Lanesborough that Capt. Daniel Brown had slaughtered a heifer two years and seven months old, which weighed 782 pounds. “It is experienced that by good keeping and proper care we may make our cattle weigh near double to what they do with ordinary treatment.” The no-local-news rule could, apparently, be broken with something extraordinary. (By the way, a typical heifer today should weigh 600-700 pounds, depending on breed, at puberty or age 12 to 14 months, and fully 1200 pounds as an adult cow by age two and a half years.)

In another issue, (described in Josiah Gilbert Russell’s 1855 History of Western Massachusetts), Russell wrote that he “returns his thanks to those gentlemen who expressed their anxiety to have the printing office at Pittsfield . . . print a certain number of papers, and begs leave to inform them that he has a large number of papers on hand for which he has, as yet, received nothing, and which he wishes those gentlemen to call for, according to agreement. If agreements are not fulfilled, the Centinel must stop.”

Ultimately The Centinel did stop, but we don’t know quite when. However, the following springtime, Roger Storrs, the other partner, appears solo as publisher on the masthead of a successor publication, The Berkshire Chronicle, established May 8, 1788. On December 19 that year its name was changed to the ponderous title of Berkshire Chronicle and Massachusetts Intelligencer, which was published at least until September 30, 1790, and of which a fairly complete run is extant.

In No. 5 of The Chronicle, June 5, 1788, the publisher ran the first known “carrier wanted” ad in Berkshire County, apparently to replace Bela Smith, stating that “diligent, faithful post-rider is wanted to ride from this office.” Apparently he hired Alvin Woolcott, who announces in the September 4 issue that he will take his pay in linen rags at the store of Moses Woolcott in Lanesborough. Via the barter system, the publisher could get these rags converted to printing paper.

Cash was obviously still in short supply, and the paper did a brisk trade publishing notices from tradesmen and storekeepers requesting customers to settle accounts, including this creative gem published August 26, 1790: “The subscriber begs leave to inform the Public, that he has a small Book, and in that book there are some small Accounts, – and likewise, that he has a small Drawer, and in the Drawer are some small Notes – which must be immediately settled, in order to save some small cost, in a very small time. This from yours to serve, Nathaniel B. Torrey, Lanesborough.”

An early member of our Monday Evening Club, Thaddeus Clapp, collected early newspapers and contributed information on them to Russell’s 1855 history. Besides The Centinel, The Chronicle and The Western Star, only two other pre-1800 Berkshire newspapers are believed to have existed. Clapp described these other two as follows: “We have a traditionary account of a paper started by Mr. Spooner, about 1790, and soon afterward removed to Windsor, Vermont, and another by Merrill and Smith, between 1790 and 1800.” There are no surviving issues of either of these papers, and even the names have been lost. But the vigorous political thinking in our young nation, and the guarantees of the First Amendment, ensured that these early papers would have many successors during the 19th century. (It seems quite possible, by the way, that members of our club perused now-lost copies of the Centinel at an early meeting of our club, at his home on Wendell Avenue, recently converted to a bed-and-breakfast.)

The available issues of The Chronicle mention various mileposts in the adoption of the Constitution, and the seating of the first Congress. It did not take long for some signs of dissatisfaction to crop up in contrast to the earlier cheerleading by Russell and Storrs. A letter signed "Junius" appears in the issue of July 29, 1790, expressing impatience at the lack of substantive action by Congress after being in session four or five months. (Junius apparently was a popular pen name for anonymous political critics during this era – in this instance it is again possibly the voice of Parson Allen.) The most important decision made by Congress in five months, writes Junius, had been to decide on the location of a temporary capital. “It is hoped,” he continues, “that another election will introduce such characters, as will attend the great business of government, to the exclusion of local interest and detestable party combinations.”

The great business of government did get started, but neither local interest nor detestable party combinations have been eliminated to this day.

Illustration: Pittsfield in 1807, from Bay State Monthly, 1885.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Out of print: The future of news, newspapers and journalism


Presented to the Club on April 25, 2009 by Martin C. Langeveld

The topic I’m presenting tonight will be familiar to most of you, even if you have not been a regular visitor to my blog. Not a week has gone by in the last six months without news of a threatened or actual closing of a major newspaper, the bankruptcy of a major newspaper publisher, layoffs, buyouts or mandatory furloughs imposed on newspaper employees, and other symptoms of the travails of a once-powerful and monopolistically rich industry. This month [April, 2009], readers of the Boston Globe were shocked to find a front-page headline and story disclosing that its owner, the New York Times Company, was threatening to stop publishing the paper on May 1 unless it got major concessions from its unions.

It’s not surprising the New York Times Company would make this threat, since the Globe is reported to be losing well over a million dollars a week. The Times company has run out of credit lines, has sold and leased back a chunk of its recently completed Times Square headquarters building, is peddling its stake in the Boston Red Sox, and has borrowed $250 million from a Mexican tycoon the flagship paper had earlier called a robber baron. Clearly the Times is not in a position to subsidize the red ink at the Globe, for which it paid $1.1 billion in the mid 1990s.

And among newspaper owners, the Times company is relatively well off. Among the publicly-owned US newspaper firms, several are bankrupt, and most have credit ratings at or near junk-bond status. Their collective market value has fallen by more than 90 percent in the past few years. Collectively, the industry has laid off more than 10 percent of its workforce since the start of 2008. The combined paid circulation of American daily newspapers has fallen from more than 63 million in 1984 to less than 50 million today — a drop of 21 percent during a time when the number of households grew by about 40 percent. U.S. Daily newspapers today have less than 14 percent of total U.S. advertising expenditures. In 1989 it was 28 percent — so they’ve lost half their market share in 20 years. These are long-term trends that predate the arrival of the World Wide Web, and they have continued unabated through economic expansions as well as recessions.

For people with an appreciation for the importance of good journalism to the maintenance of a free and democratic society, and for the historical role of newspapers in providing what is often considered the best, broadest and deepest journalism available, the industry’s decline is a concern. What went wrong? What can be done? Will there be newspapers a few years from now? Where will essential journalism happen if newspapers depart the stage?

The origins of the present crisis in newspapers, as I’ve indicated, go back many years. The question is, what’s driving the trend away from newspaper reading?

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, newspapers noticed that younger people weren't reading newspapers as much as their elders. The industry responded with youth-oriented features and a Newspapers-in-Education program, hoping to inculcate the daily newspaper habit. And, the philosophers among us said, "Look, when these kids grow up, get married, buy houses, have kids in school, and pay taxes, they'll read newspapers because they need to know what's going on." And indeed, some of them did. But the experience since the 1970s is that each succeeding age cohort reads newspapers less than the prior cohort. Moreover, as each cohort ages, it tends to reduce its newspaper readership. This is true even of the oldest age groups. Nothing the industry has done has made the slightest dent in these inexorable trends.

The industry now tends to point to the internet and suggest that it is both the problem and the opportunity — younger people read newspapers less because they get their news online, but the industry can benefit from rapid growth in online readership and revenue.

But, hold on: the age-cohort readership trends started in the 1960s, not in 1995 or so when the online readership started to make an impact. This problem has been a long time coming. The readership figures show that around 1970, the nation was still fairly monolithic in its readership habits — all age groups were heavy newspaper readers with rates ranging from 70 to 76 percent, but then all age groups started reducing their newspaper reading.

Why? What happened to that solid franchise? I think it relates to the gradual proliferation of concerns and interests in our society. Go back to the Great Depression of the 1930s: Everyone was in the same boat; the country was unified in its interests and concerns; everyone read newspapers and listened to radio to know what was going on. This continued through World War II, the Korean War, the early stages of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. But the Baby Boom generation changed the game. With greater prosperity and less international turbulence to worry about, interests began to diversify enormously from the 1970s right through the current decade. It was a luxury we could afford — more cable channels, more movie screens, more books and magazines focused on more niche interests, more sports franchises, more highways to go to more malls, more resorts and more entertainment venues, more exotic foods on supermarket shelves, more cheeses from more countries served at dinners like this, more recreational drugs, more diversity in every possible direction.

Daily newspapers can no longer reflect all this diversity in their pages. The idea of a single mass medium that everyone in a community or metropolis would want to read is no longer logical, any more than we are all likely to watch the same television programs log in to the same website or tune to the same radio station.

The World Wide Web, of course, has only accelerated this trend of diversification; it is tailor made to cater to an unlimited number of niche interests.

The demographic trends clearly show that within a few years, the average newspaper reader will be of retirement age, and only the 65-and-up age cohort will still have a majority (but barely) that reads a daily newspaper. That's not a sustainable business model.

Now, you might think that newspapers could simply shrink into being a smaller, but still substantial piece of the media landscape. Thirteen percent of the advertising market is still real money, after all — almost $38 billion, to be precise. But other factors layer onto the demographic trends to make this a perfect storm. For many decades, newspapers enjoyed monopoly power in the pricing of advertising: there was generally one newspaper in town, and if you wanted an ad, you paid the price. Starting even a weekly newspaper to compete with the daily was a costly proposition — so the dailies were protected by high barriers to entry. This pricing power was particularly true in the classified pages, to which the principal media competitors, radio, TV and billboards, could offer no alternative.

The usual financial formula at newspapers into the 1970s looked like this: the circulation revenue — what customers paid to subscribe or to buy single copies — covered the cost of printing and distributing the paper, and for the cost of the circulation department itself. Display advertising and preprinted inserts paid for all the other expenses: the newsroom, the ad department, the building, the business office, and so on. This meant that the income from classified advertising was pure profit, and as a result, newspapers were able to earn operating profits of 20 to 30 percent from the 1920s right through the Depression and World War II and into the 1990s, despite losing audience and overall ad market share.

The promise of that kind of profit margin kept the market value of newspaper properties high, encouraged the creation of newspaper chains fueled by leverage, and created a corporate culture that discouraged innovation and strategic planning. But along the way, personal computers, Moore’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law and other technological trends eliminated most barriers to entry — newspaper competitors in the form of alternative weeklies and more recently hyperlocal web sites could be started from proverbial kitchen tables to erode the monopolies of the dailies.

And then in 1999 along came Craigslist, another kind of kitchen-table startup with a classic piece of disruptive innovation for which newspapers were totally unprepared — free classified ads. Craigslist now offers classifieds online free, nationwide, in almost any category. It charges only for a few categories in a few markets, which is all it needs to cover costs and make a profit. With just 28 employees, operating out of a San Francisco storefront, Craigslist’s impact has been to cut in half the classified advertising volume of the entire daily newspaper business in the last 10 years, an impact of about $9 billion. And Craigslist’s web traffic as measured in pageviews is now six times as much as that of the entire daily newspaper industry.

The only further impact that stems from the current recession is that all the downward trends have accelerated, and now the loss of market valuation and credit standing means that the industry, which has never been big on R&D anyway, has no resources it can apply to innovation, at least not to innovation that requires upfront investment.

Consequently, when the current recession ends, there will be no bounceback for newspapers. Estimates are that nearly all of the top 100 newspapers by circulation are operating in the red. Results for the most recent quarter show revenue declines larger than those in any quarter of 2008. It seems very likely that many of these newspapers will be closed, merged, or very substantially restructured in the next 12 months.

Out here in the hinterlands, the picture is better. Most of the newspapers in small towns and small cities, with circulations under 50,000, continue to be profitable at least on an operating basis, before debt service. This group contains about 1100 of the roughly 1430 newspapers in the country. And in the so-called community newspaper category, weeklies and very small-dailies, some reports indicate that they have lost very little revenue over the past few years — and a majority of them are still privately owned without much leverage. So outside the metro markets, newspapers can survive, though not necessarily thrive. And to get the small-town dailies owned by big chains, including papers like the Berkshire Eagle [in Pittsfield, Massachusetts], out from under highly-leveraged ownership, there is going to have to be some restructuring pain — read: fire sales during bankruptcy proceedings.

Still, the future of print is bleak, considering the loss of pricing power and the continued migration of eyeballs to online news sources. Look at it this way: if journalism had just been invented, would you invest in a startup that proposed going to Canada, cutting down trees, putting them through an enormous machine to make newsprint, trucking that paper halfway across the continent, putting it through another enormous machine to print newspapers, and finally driving down every back alley and dirt road to deliver those papers, every single night? Besides not passing environmental muster, you would not get a call back from any venture capitalist with that concept on your executive summary. The future is online, the investor would say, and correctly so. During 2008, for the first time the percentage of Americans who report getting most of their national and international news online exceeds the percentage who still get most of their news from newspapers – the ratio is that about 40 percent go online, versus 35 percent who go to newspapers. The ratio for local news still favors print, but not by much.

So you would think that with all these trends and factors, online news ventures, designed to step into the breach and provide the journalism so necessary to our democracy, would be easy to get financed and would be popping up all over. And to some extent they are, but what makes it difficult to get new online news sites started is that there is no clear business model. The sites of newspapers themselves are not even profitable, because the audience migration from printed newspapers to the web has mostly bypassed newspaper web sites, which get only about one percent of all U.S. web traffic. MSNBC.com and CNN.com together get more unique visitors than the entire newspaper industry.

The snag with coming up with a business model to sustain online journalism is this: they don’t actually sell journalism in print. For the last 100 years, good journalism at newspapers has, in effect, been a charitable endeavor engaged in by publishers earning monopolistic profit margins. The business of newspapers is to sell eyeballs to advertisers — news content is simply a convenient lure to get the public to buy and read newspapers. Publishers, to their credit, often took pride in their newsrooms, competed for Pulitzers and other honors, and generally spent more than strictly necessary to fill the paper with news. Society benefitted from this largesse. But this doesn’t work very well anymore in print, and it won’t translate online at all, since there is no monopolistic pricing there. So what are the options for business models that can deliver the fruits of journalism via the Web?

I could discuss a variety of options, each of which could turn into a Monday Evening Club paper of its own, each of which has its pros and cons, but in the end, none of which will work as a ubiquitous model. Among the proposals floating around are these (and notice that we have a tendency to dissect the potential models in traditional terms):

  • Pay-for-content models supported by readers who buy subscriptions, just like printed newspapers or magazines
  • Pay-for-content in which readers purchase individual news items through a micropayment system, just like downloading songs from iTunes
  • Non-profit models, similar to public radio or public television, supported by public contributions
  • Models supported by advertising, also just like print
  • Publicly supported models, such as the BBC
  • And of course hybrids of two or more of these, as well as print/online hybrids like the current newspaper model, are possible.
As I said, each of these defines a model in traditional terms by analogy to an existing legacy media (even iTunes is in a sense a reversion to the old way of selling songs singly on vinyl). But if we know anything about the Web, it’s that things will not be the same tomorrow as they are today. Witness the speed with which the general public has adopted social networking — Facebook was founded at Harvard in 2003 as a network limited to college students. Within 3 years, 85 percent of U.S. students had signed up, or about 4 million members. In September 2006, less than three years ago, Facebook opened membership to the general public; today it has 200 million active users worldwide. And it is just one of many social networks. Social networking is an aspect of what is being called Web 2.0. Web 1.0 was driven by the hyperlink. It simply connected pages and sites to each other. (Incidentally, one of the failures of newspapers is that most of their stories published online are still devoid of that very basic ingredient.) Web 2.0, into which we are now shifting, is driven by connections between people, through social networks. Newspapers and news sites in general are still trying to discover how to operate in the 2.0 environment and to incorporate social networking in their business models. Web 3.0, also called the semantic web, is the next big step being envisioned. Going beyond connecting pages (1.0) and people (2.0), it entails the connection of facts, ideas, and concepts – something very relevant to the world of journalism. In the semantic web, search (a 1.0 concept) and personal recommendations (a 2.0 concept) will be augmented by tools that can more or less automatically deliver content strongly relevant to a user’s instantaneous needs, interests, concerns, questions and interactions. It may entail intelligent personal agents that can recommend content, answer questions, make simple online arrangements and purchases, and otherwise help organize your life. And all of this will be ever more mobile on pocket-sized devices that will only incidentally make phone calls, serve as your wallet, your set of keys and your GPS navigator, and verify your identity. To conceive of enterprises that can create and deliver journalistic content in that environment is not easy, but today’s news enterprises need to be thinking in that direction. What I can suggest is that they ponder the following.

Hanging on to bricks, mortars, machinery and other legacy concepts including ink on paper is not realistic. All of that is baggage that will hinder, not help, in a truly digital enterprise.

There will be open source networks creating journalistic content, not newsrooms with four walls. Collaboration and flexibility will be key. In these networks, individuals can have as much credibility and influence as organizations (a point proved by Anton Kutcher last week when he beat CNN in the race to have one million Twitter followers).

News is a process, not a product. The basic unit of news, the story, will be part of a continuous flow of content through blogs, microblogs, wikis, discussions and links. News publishers will do what they do best, and link to the rest. Readers will not come to content; content must find readers.

Free is a business model. Monetization will come from creating conversations between people and brands, not from traditional advertising.


Photo: the "newsboy statue" in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, by Mary F. Lutz, used under Creative Commons license.