Sullivan’s got some interesting thoughts on Newsweek’s decision to cease print publication. But the line of Sullivan’s that stood out for me was this: “When we read online, we migrate to read people, not institutions.”
Yeah, sure, daily newspapers have a business model problem. But it’s more than just that. They’re not giving readers the right the product. The nameless, faceless, I-can’t-tell-one-byline-from-another style in which most newspapers are written is an anachronism that undermines the relationship between the publication and its readers.
Modern readers crave a personal relationship with the people providing them news and commentary. They want to know who we are and what we stand for. Readers don’t want to have to guess our bias; they want to be trusted to read us in context, and judge the facts for themselves.
Twentieth century readers would never have stood for newspapers written in a 19th century style. So why should 21st century readers be expected to embrace dated 20th century conventions?
An interesting point, but you shouldn’t be so sweeping with your generalization.
A perfect counterpoint is The Economist magazine, which has increased print circulation 50% (from 1 million to 1.5 million weekly) over the past decade and is among the few “old” media institutions that is thriving in the new media world – its digital-only sales (for tablets/PCs) recently passed 100,000 weekly.
Counter to your argument, there is not a single byline in any of the Economist’s articles, and even its columnists write with historical pseudonyms like “Bagehot” and “Lexington.” Its publisher hasn’t been named in print since 2006.
The Economist has proved that quality content and a consistent/branded voice can still work in today’s media world. It’s not just about the individual, as much as bloggers and social media mavens wish it were.